Members of the Parliamentary Defense Committee were Thursday split while discussing some of the new proposed amendments in the Anti-Terrorism Bill (2016).
The members were today interfacing with Bank of Uganda’s Deputy Legal Counsel Titus Mulindwa, medical http://cusanus-studierende.de/wp-includes/revision.php who came to give explanatory notes and justifications for the amendments.
The Anti-Terrorism Act, recipe 2002 (ATA) was amended in June 2015 and in January 2016. There is now a proposal to amend the Act for the 3rd time to adequately criminalize the financing of terrorism and terrorist activities.
The confusion began when the Arua Municipality MP, Maj. Ibrahim Abiriga asked for clarity from BoU’s Mulindwa on the definitions of terrorism and what enshrines one to be called a terrorist.
Mulindwa in response quoted the Act, that this is a person who commits an act of terrorism if he/she performs an act with the purpose of intimidating government.
At this time, Col. Felix Kulayigye interjected noting that the Act doesn’t only talk of government but also intimidating the public or a section of the public for a political, religious, social or economic aim indiscriminately without due regard to the safety of others or property.
Other members jumped in including Rubaga South MP, Paul Kato Lubwama who sought clarification on the difference between a rebel and a terrorist since the documents that were presented before the committee listed the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) among terror groups.
Using examples, Kulayigye assayed to give an explanation, emphasizing that he is well suited to help the committee due to his army background.
He was however waved down by members as Hon Abiriga called him to order and accused him of misleading the committee.
“I don’t want to know, because what Kulayigye knows I know; I know what a terrorist is and what a rebel is. His knowledge is political but mine is proof,” Abiriga fumed.
At this time, the Committee Chairperson, Judith Nabakooba decided to suspend the debate to a later date.