In Lango, I got drawn to the trends in the forgeries and deception through issuance of fake documents or declarations purported to be official. I don’t care which political or religious side it’s from – as a devoted Christian, I think it’s blasphemous to move a mile to forge and circulate an ecclesiastical document.
The fake letters from Lango Diocese (which is definitely not the Diocese of Lango) and another from Lira City Council which came out simultaneously though the dates are stamped differently have caught my attention.
The source and the perceived recipients of the letter are undeniably high-profile officers or electorates. (As kickboxer Golola Moses would put it – they are not joking subjects).
Every official document of such magnitude often has coloured headed paper, with a clear logo and correspondences for the readers to quote since it’s presumed to be the original copy meant for the noticeboard and anyone can snap and share as it is.
Legally, the Constitution of Uganda (1995), Article 37 guarantees the right to belong to, enjoy, practice, profess, maintain, and promote one’s religion; while Article 29(1)(c) protects the right to freedom of religion. This is further galvanised by the Computer Misuse Amendment Act (2022), which prohibits online hate speech, including expressions that “ridicule, degrade, or demean” individuals based on their religion.
When a letter is concocted and distributed purportedly from a certain religious denomination, and in this case, the Anglican Church in Lango, it not only ridicules, degrades or demeans the person of the undersigned clergy as an individual, but also puts into disrepute the whole religious entity.
As a fact checker in an era of AI, I noticed that in all the letters, none has been copied to the file which is not akin to a legal institution but an illegal entity which doesn’t care about record keeping for future references in case of legal challenges, accountability and audit exercise.
Forget about the stamps, I can reproduce one virtually using my phone even right now and place it wherever I want it placed in a document.
The Penal Code Act, Chapter X caters for offences relating to the administration of justice in offences such as Perjury in Section 94 prescribing punishments of up to 7 years imprisonment for committing perjury or suborning perjury as covered in Section 97.
Fabricating evidence (in this case a letter or letters) is contrary to Section 99 in the Penal Code Act which prohibits fabricating evidence with intent to mislead a tribunal and it is punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment including Presenting False or Forged Evidence which is also an offence under the Penal Code.
Now in both cases, why would one first photocopy a document in black and white with a visible mark on the left margin, then stamp in coloured? You don’t send a photocopy of a document to those high profiled people, then fail to have a file copy as the last destination for your future records.
Reading both letters, one would sense the shrewdness in the content and that it was written with a biased mindset which quotes no law or cannon to back it up which is not akin to both quoted sources.
Read the full article here.
The author, Omara R. Ronnie is an administrator, journalist and media trainer.