OPINION: Why cheer on Mabirizi when he sues Bugingo but not Bobi Wine or the Kabaka?

I have noticed that Male Mabiriizi's legal action against Aloysius Bugingo and Suzan Makula has become  increasingly popular among Ugandans.

Most of the people that are acquainted with the case have encouraged, cheered and appreciated Mabiriizi's legal actions -- at least that's the perception one gets as they read through comments on social media.

In the eyes of an earnest moralist and or a Christian who is true to their religious values, it's certainly right and commendable for Mabiriizi to go against Bugingo in the interest of maintaining marriage as a respectable institution and to pass a lesson and or a reminder to public figures that they should be good examples.

But still on morality, Mabiriizi's legal action has further revealed that human beings aren't as moral as they think themselves to be. Some pastors and other elders -- who should be the leading moralists in society -- have joined Bugingo in saying that Suzan Makula didn't introduce Bugingo. Should it be laughable, saddening or both?

Intellectually, it might be debatable whether Mabiriizi's actions are well guided or not. However, my major point of concern in the Mabiriizi-Bugingo frenzy is: Why are the same people glorifying and encouraging Mabiriizi now some of the same ones who always stand against him when he sues Bobi Wine or Museveni or the Kabaka?

Most of the people who insult Mabiriizi when he sues Bobi Wine, Museveni or Kabaka usually don't have the requisite knowledge to determine whether the cases have merit or not. They, therefore, usually have no informed opinions when attacking Mabiriizi. They react from a point of emotion not rationality.

Unconsciously, those people seem to suggest that law should be applied selectively and that some people are free to break the law without consequences. Baganda don't think it's right to sue the Kabaka. "Nupians" think that Bobi Wine is untouchable. "Musevenists" think Museveni is unquestionable.

Is public opinion sometimes against rule of law? Where does this leave rule of law? Perhaps there are many other lawyers who can promote rule of law in the same measure as or even more than Male Mabiriizi but because of harsh public opinion, we may be seeing few of them.

Also, If some people have immunity because the public protects them so much, doesn't it embolden them to lead a life of illegalities?

Although promoting rule of law may not be wholly well guided, it's far more important than otherwise ( rule by law, dictatorship and other forms against some innocent sections of society). I think that promoting rule of law isn't completely right because all law isn't rational, considerate or perfect.

The Public Order Management Act has been dismissed as draconian in Uganda. If it's indeed draconian and irrational, as a promoter of rule of law, how do you deal with those who defy it?

Do you promote a draconian law too or do you ignore those who defy it? If you promote it, would it be moral and rational? If you ignore those who breach it, doesn't that amount to selective promotion of rule of law? Do promoters of rule of law have an additional duty of fighting draconian laws? If yes, how do they achieve that in an almost uncompromising state like ours?

Although there are such challenges in societies like Uganda, promoting rule of law, on the grand scale of things, is noble and as I conclude, I ask all obscure but potential promoters of rule of law to heed Bertrand Russell's advice regarding public opinion: "One should respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways."

In the face of lawlessness, there's no happiness in society. Public opinion shouldn't hinder us from the happiness that comes with rule of law.