The Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force (JATT): Legitimacy, Betrayal by the Electoral Commission, and Implications on the Political Landscape
The Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force (JATT) has recently come under scrutiny following its involvement in the Kawempe North MP by-election campaigns. The masked security operatives have broken several electoral laws, and committed abuses and other acts of impunity such as raids on the National Unity Platform (NUP) headquarters, beating of journalists, and arrests and torture of NUP’s candidate and supporters, among others. This selective patrolling is all happening at the campaign stage of the election while the National Resistance Movement (NRM) group roams free without police intervention.
JATT’s operations during the by-election through using live bullets, tear gas, and brutal assaults on civilians have perpetrated human rights violations and undermined press freedom and the right to information. It has also created an atmosphere of fear, and intimidation and is stifling democratic participation. The operation raises concerns about the potential for state-sponsored violence and suppression of opposition voices. One wonders how much more they have in store and the role they may play in the general elections of 2026.
JATT’s Legitimacy, its Mandate, and overreach
JATT was established by the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002 as a specialized unit to address terrorism. Its composition includes personnel from various security agencies, such as the Internal Security Organization (ISO) and the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI). It has no codified mandate which leaves its operations obscure and prone to misuse by commanders. Before the by-election, little was known of its activities except for a few instances between 2007 and 2011 where they were implicated in the torture and deaths of prisoners allegedly belonging to the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF). Notably however was its role in the investigations and arrest of suspects of the Alshabab bombings of Lugogo in 2010.
JATT’s deployment in the electoral processes has raised serious questions about its legitimacy and appropriateness. The unit’s authority ought to be limited if the meaning of terrorism and political activity is distinguished. The Anti-Terrorism Act defines terrorism as acts intended to influence the government or intimidate the public for political, religious, social, or economic aims. While the Act provides a broad definition, it does not explicitly authorize JATT to intervene in electoral matters. Critics, including legislators like MP Ssemujju Nganda, have questioned why JATT was deployed during the Kawempe North by-election, asking, “Since when did elections become terrorism?” This overreach has led to concerns about the militarization of elections and the misuse of anti-terrorism units to suppress political dissent.
Inaction of the Electoral Commission
The actions of JATT represent a profound betrayal of Ugandan citizens by the Electoral Commission (EC) which is an independent body tasked with organizing and overseeing elections in a manner that guarantees fairness and credibility. However, its silence and inaction in the face of JATT’s heavy-handed operations raise serious questions about its independence and effectiveness. By failing to condemn the militarization of elections and the suppression of the opposition candidate, the EC has neglected its responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral process. The failure to condemn JATT shows it is sympathetic to the authorities and is powerless against clear and blatant abuse. Moreover, if the electoral body cannot address the misuse of security forces and the suppression of political dissent, it risks normalizing these abuses in future elections.
Impact on Law and Policy
The Anti-Terrorism Act, while necessary for addressing genuine security threats, must be strictly adhered to, or else amended to clearly define the scope of JATT’s mandate and prevent its misuse for political purposes. Additionally, there should be mechanisms for oversight and accountability to ensure that security forces operate within the bounds of the law and respect human rights. This however seems impossible since both the police and the Chief of Defence Forces have ratified its actions and advised anyone aggrieved to seek legal redress.
The misuse of JATT in elections undermines democratic norms, erodes public trust, and sets a dangerous precedent for the militarization of elections. To address these challenges, there should be legal and policy reforms to clarify JATT’s mandate, ensure accountability, and protect citizens’ rights. Without such reforms, the continued misuse of anti-terrorism units and other unsanctioned gangs risks destabilizing Uganda’s political system and undermining its democratic foundations.
