The State of Refugees in Uganda

Below is a snippet from the entire report. To get it, find here: https://thecitizenreport.ug/library/the-state-of-refugees-in-uganda/

This report is published by The Citizen Report Uganda under the Refugees and Migration Project alongside Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung’s Special Initiative on Migration and Forced Displacement. The report content reflects the views of the authors and NOT those of The Citizen Report Uganda or Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

Uganda’s refugee regime is currently shrouded in opacity. In this report, we seek to understand refugee governance in Uganda. This effort will enable us to answer questions about the legislative framework through which refugees settle in Uganda, such as, who is designated a refugee, migrant settler, or internally displaced person? Who funds refugee protection and management programs, and which programs are being prioritized in the funding schemes?

Refugees were designated as a vulnerable group in need of protection in the aftermath of the Second World War in the 1951 Convention for Refugees. But before this, different types of displacement and migration were happening across the globe. However, the formal designation of a group as one that is vulnerable and in need of protection shifted the legal landscape and responsibilities of countries that became part of the 1951 Convention. Different countries have taken on the role of hosting refugees and Uganda currently sits in the top 5 refugee-hosting countries in the world. In this report, we assess what it means for Uganda to host refugees. Here, we look at the history of refugees in Uganda, funding for refugees, laws and regulations governing refugees, and the different ways that Uganda deals with refugees.

The Evolution of Women’s Role in Local Government

“Men will no longer be talking in 20 years. Museveni has given too much power to women.” — a male sub-county Executive Committee member in Uganda, as quoted in “Women In Ugandan Local Government: The Impact of Affirmative Action” by Deb Johnson with Hope Kabuchu and Santa Vusiya Kayonga

Despite men’s premature sounding of alarms at the presumed overrun of Uganda’s government by women, the mere presence — let alone rise- of women elected to public office is a relatively recent phenomenon when taken in the grand context of our nation’s history.

It can be traced back to the establishment of National Resistance Committees (RCs) in 1989, which later became Local Councils (LCs). Under the RC System, only one out of the nine councillors had to be a woman. This was improved by the 1997 Local Government Act which provided for women councillors forming one-third of the local council in addition to female Youth, PWDS, Elderly and Workers representation in District Local Council.

This has since been upped to a woman councillor directly elected to represent each electoral area in the District as provided for by the Local Government Act 2020 as amended.

A few years later, the Ministry of Gender created Women’s Councils under the National Women’s Council Act of 1993. These structures were charged with the responsibility of fostering the social and economic development of women. The national council was composed of five women and started at Local Council level one (village level, the smallest government unit of administration) to local council five (district level). The women councils I and II chairpersons became ex officio members of Local Councils I , II, III and V respectively.

Further strengthening women’s status on the political scene was an affirmative action clause included in 1995’s constitution, which outlined the specific rights of women and committed to rectifying past imbalances. It read as follows: “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalised based on gender, age, disability or any other reasons created by history, tradition or custom, to redress imbalances which exist against them.” (Article 32.1).

However, while the Constitution provided an opening for women in the national policy environment, it did not guide how to commit affirmative action into practice in government institutions.

This discrepancy was partially addressed with the passing of the Local Government Act of 1997, which laid the foundation for women’s inclusion in the government’s decision-making structures. The implementation of these clauses was quickly put into effect at the local government elections in 1998.

Yet in a twist of bureaucratic irony, the women council statute was not provided for in the Local Government Act and thus not recognised as a Local Government structure. This has meant that women councils do not receive funding or technical support from local governments.

So despite the lauded affirmative- action clause and central government’s policies committed to decentralising administrative, political, and financial responsibility to lower government levels, along with various other such policies in place to increase women’s participation in elective politics, they are rarely backed up by political will.

Hampered by cultural resistance to women in leadership positions, dated gender roles and a disproportionate lack of experience (due to the historical exclusion of women from the political sphere), there has been a marked lack of support for the relevant ministry and district departments tasked with creating an environment which encourages women’s political participation. And yet even in a limited capacity, the impact of women in local government has been undeniable and measurably contagious, leading to a surge of women enlisting in community activities, starting businesses and campaigning for public office.

References:

  • Women in Ugandan Local Government: The Impact of Affirmative Action Author(s): Deb Johnson, Hope Kabuchu and Santa Vusiya Kayonga, Source: Gender and Development, Nov. 2003, Vol. 11, №3, Citizenship (Nov. 2003), pp. 8–18, Published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GB
  • Contribution of Women in Influencing Legislation and Policy Formulation and Implementation in Uganda (1995–2005).Author(s): Elijah Dickens Mushemeza Source: Africa Development / Afrique et Développement, 2009, Vol. 34, №3/4 (2009), pp. 167–206 Published by CODESRIA

Meet Your Local Government

A key feature of Uganda’s governance system is its decentralization that splits power between the central and local governments. While bound by the same laws and constitution as their national counterpart, local governments operate at a distinctly ground level, with their smallest administrative units formed as village councils. But what exactly do local governments look like and more importantly, what do they do?

Where in urban settings, the local government takes the form of a council at the city, municipal, division/town, ward or cell level, in rural areas, there are district councils, counties (which are administrative units without a council), sub-county councils, parish councils and village councils.

The rural councils are typically led by an executive committee comprised of a Chairperson, directly elected by the people for a term of 5 years, a speaker and their deputy, two youth councillors and two councillors for the disabled, one of each required to be female, and an elected woman councillor who represents each electoral area in the district. While the county administrative unit is staffed by civil servants who assist the district council in executing and/or coordinating the business of lower levels, the sub-county council structure mimics the district structure, and the parish council also includes secretaries for information, education, security, finance, production and environmental protection.

Village councils are unique in that they are ideally composed of all citizens in the village who are 18 years or older, and then take on a form similar to the parish council.

These councils serve as the planning authorities for their respective units. For instance a district council is recognized as the planning authority of a district and — in addition to the procedures it establishes for itself — works according to the guidelines established by the National Planning Authority to prepare a comprehensive and integrated development plan, incorporating plans of lower level local governments for submission to the aforementioned national body.

District councils also have the power to levy and collect taxes including rates, rents, royalties, stamp duties, and registration and licensing fees. Its legislative powers allow a district council to make laws (where those laws are not inconsistent with the Constitution or any other law made by Parliament) and this is done by the passing of local bills into ordinances by the council and signed by the chairperson. Such a local bill, once passed by a district council, is forwarded to the Attorney General through the Minister to certify that it is not inconsistent with the Constitution or any other law enacted by Parliament before the chairperson signs it into law. A bill enacted by the district council and signed by the district chairperson under this section shall be an ordinance of the council and shall be published in the official Gazette and in the local media, giving the public access to it.

The lower level local governments follow similar procedures meaning a sub-county or village council (in the rural setting) or an urban or division council (urban setting) can make bylaws which are then forwarded to the district council for certification that they are not inconsistent with the constitution.

The mandate of the parish and village councils is to assist in the maintenance of law, order and security; initiate, encourage, support and participate in self-help projects and mobilise people, material and technical assistance in relation to self-help projects; at the village level, to vet and recommend persons in the area who should be recruited into the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces, the Uganda Police Force, and the Uganda Prisons Service and local defence units; to serve as the communication channel between the Government, the district or higher local council and the people in the area; to monitor the administration in its area and report to the higher or district council; to monitor projects and other activities undertaken by the Government, local governments, and nongovernmental organisations in their area; and to carry out other functions which may be imposed by law or incidental to the above.

Bolstered by the Local Governments Act 1997 (Cap. 243), which also provides for a 30% minimum of seats to be held by women, these local governments exist as foundational governance structures that hold the next level structures in place, providing support and direct feedback from the lowest level upwards. Local government elections are held every five years with candidates elected on a party ticket, and while still much smaller in scope compared to their national counterpart, local government expenditure in 2014 was cited as 15.1% of total government expenditure.

Reference:
http://www.clgf.org.uk/default/assets/File/Country_profiles/Uganda.pdf

The Evolution of Uganda’s Local Government

Uganda was in turmoil.

In the late 1800s, the British had salivated upon finding a centralised African kingdom they could take over with ease, instead of the disconnected societies they’d had to mould together in other parts of the continent. But hopes for swift colonisation of Buganda were soon dashed as the Brits encountered warring missionary factions (Catholics Vs Protestants) who divided support of the people amongst themselves, while simultaneously fighting off Muslim traders and deposing the anti-Christian Kabaka Mwanga, setting off an intense succession war for the throne of Buganda.

It was the heat of the “Scramble For Africa”, a roughly 40 year period in which European powers brutally overran the continent in a race to plant their imperial flags and consolidate militaristic and economic dominance. And the Brits had their work cut out for them in the territory they wanted to carve out as British East Africa.

It wasn’t until the dawn of the 20th Century that an agreement was finally settled upon, an ostensibly softer stance than the failed treaties and uneasy alliance of the preceding years that had nevertheless resulted in the Brits conquering other kingdoms in the region. Signed by Sir Apollo Kaggwa, Buganda’s Katikiro (Prime Minister) on behalf of the Kabaka, and Sir Harry Johnston representing the British Colonial Government, the 1900 Buganda Agreement promised each side wealth, land, power and most importantly stability.

What neither side realised was that it also included a clause that would gradually sprout and, over a number of decades, coupled with various other factors, lead to the dismantling of both Buganda’s sovereignty and Britain’s Colonial reign over Uganda.

It was the clause that established the formal structure of Uganda’s local government.

Defined as consisting of 3 tiers, the saza (county), the gombolola (sub-county) and the muluka (parish), the local government was set up to run off of chiefs appointed at all three levels by the Kabaka, who was forced to send the names of his picks to the British Resident in Buganda for approval from 1907 onwards, thus diluting his power.

This was not lost on the citizens of his kingdom, “…in whose minds the chiefs gradually came to be seen as mouthpieces of the British administration rather than repositories of tradition…”, and building frustration with native authorities was only compounded by the Ordinance of 1917 in which the British district commissioner (DC), the most important official in each district, gave himself full control of the hierarchy of appointed chiefs.

To quell brewing discontent, councils originally consisting of these chiefs were created at each level in 1930, which ultimately led to the birth of an indirect electoral system in 1945, whereby a proportion of parish chiefs were elected by popular vote. They, in turn, would amongst themselves elect several sub county chiefs, and up the ladder it continued to the county level.

Eventually, districts were designated as local government areas (and the basis for a separate administration), thus splitting administrative power in Uganda between central (British) and district (local) government officials. The final straw came through the establishment of elections to district council in the 1950s. The central government retained the power to control most council decisions, and as such set the stage for kingdoms to be fully abolished in 1967 by the Obote government.

A little earlier however, at the time of Uganda’s independence in 1962, the country consisted of 10 districts, 4 kingdoms and one special district (Karamoja). The newly drawn up constitution required nine-tenths of district council members to be directly elected, further whittling away the kingdoms’ direct influence and strengthening central control. When the formal and inevitable dissolution of kingdoms entirely was announced in 1967, it was quickly followed by the Local Administrations Act of the same year which gave the central government direct control over local administration in each district.

Buganda was no more and its territory was separated into four districts. Deeper still, each district was named for its capital, to minimise ethnicity’s significance in politics. A revolving door of presidents saw the number of districts increase from 14 to 18, to 38 during Idi Amin’s presidency and continue to climb throughout the ’90s and 2000s.

And with them so too did the number of counties and municipalities and authorities continue to skyrocket. Initially limited in their reach, handling mainly primary education, road construction, land allocation, community development and tax collection, local governments continually saw their power increase. While Obote’s progressive measures didn’t have a chance to take hold before being disrupted by the bush wars, it would be the incoming NRM government in 1986 that gave us the structure we recognise today.

Initially setting them up as Resistance Councils (RC’s), the NRM from the get-go saw the usefulness of empowering local government structures and formalised the five-tier structure of District > County > Sub-county > Parish > Village. All citizens were automatically considered members of their local resistance councils and the number of popularly elected posts was increased, strengthening democratic control. This essentially maintained the NRM’s power network at the local level, even after electoral party politics was legalised again in 2005.

The launch of the Local Government Decentralisation Programme in October 1992, initiated financial decentralisation in thirteen districts and that number soon spread to the remaining and all future districts. Thus, while the centre retained responsibility for security matters, national planning, defense, immigration, foreign affairs and national projects, all other obligations fell to the DRCs.

The money, the power, the responsibility for stability all trickled down to the local level. Kingdoms would later be re-established, but influentially they would remain mere shadows of their former selves. Resistance Councils would be remodeled as Local Councils, and the number of districts would continue to explode, hitting 87 by 2009.

As of 2021, there are 146 recognised districts, each with a multitude of counties, parishes and an infinite number of villages.

References:

  • Data as of December 1990, Source CIA Fact book and Library of Congress Studies
  • Allen, T. and S. Heald (2004). ‘HIV/AIDS Policy in Africa: What has worked in Uganda, and what has failed in Botswana?’. Journal of International Development, 16(8): 1141–54.
  • Awortwi, N. (2011). ‘An Unbreakable Path? A Comparative Study of Decentralization and Local Government Development Trajectories in Ghana and Uganda’. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2): 347–77.
  • Bashaasha, B., M.N. Mangheni, and E. Nkonya (2011). ‘Decentralisation and Rural Service Delivery in Uganda’. IFPRI Discussion Paper №01063, International Food Policy Research Institute.
  • Carbone, G.M. (2003). ‘Political Parties in a “No-Party Democracy”: Hegemony and Opposition Under “Movement Democracy” in Uganda’. Party Politics, 9(4): 485–502.
  • Chapman, D.W., L. Burton, and J. Werner (2010). ‘Universal Secondary Education in Uganda: The Head Teachers’ Dilemma’. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1): 77–82.
  • Chen, D., J. Matovu, and R. Reinikka (2001). ‘A Quest for Revenue and Tax Incidence’.
  • R. Reinikka and P. Collier (eds), Uganda’s Recovery: The Role of Farms, Firms and Government. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  • Clarke, I. (1998). The Man with the Key Has Gone. Bognor Regis, UK: New Wine Press.
  • Deininger, K. and P. Mpuga (2005). ‘Does Greater Accountability Improve the Quality of Public Service Delivery? Evidence from Uganda’. World Development, 33(1): 171–91.
  • Francis, P. and R. James (2003). ‘Balancing Rural Poverty Reduction and Citizen Participation: The Contradictions of Uganda’s Decentralization Program’. World Development, 31(2): 325–37.
  • Furley, O. (2000). ‘Democratisation in Uganda’. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 38(3): 79–102.
  • Golooba-Mutebi, F. (1999). Decentralisation, Democracy and Development Administration in Uganda, 1986–1996: Limits to Popular Participation. Unpublished PhD, London School of Economics, London. Government of Uganda (1987). Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Local Government System. Kampala.

100 years of the Ugandan Parliament; A history hoax

By Jackline Kemigisa and Mutesi Sekaziga

The Parliament of Uganda recently celebrated 100 years since its inception. This celebration raises three interesting questions; firstly, whose history are we celebrating? Secondly, is it possible to celebrate 100 years that include colonisation’s epistemic violence without legitimising it?

Thirdly, can a once colonised people genuinely celebrate an era riddled with legislation tenure (ordinances) aimed at imposing British tyranny upon its lands without erasing the different freedom struggles of Bunyoro, Buganda and other communities?

What exactly is this history?

Scrolling through the Parliament website, the ‘History of Parliament’ page lists 1888 as the foundational year of a legislative organ’s first elements in Uganda. Tracing it back to when the Imperial British East African Company (IBEACO) started its coercive economic administration in Uganda and imposed taxes. This historical blurb fails to mention the violence and strongarming that followed these British economic hitmen as they implemented the ordinances they passed.

The Parliament website further lists the Orders- In- Council of 1902 as the first constitutional framework in Uganda that provided for Uganda’s administration. However, the devil is in the details; the so-called Ordinance Articles legitimised colonisation’s violence. Such as the introduction of vampire-like taxes, seen in Article 12 of the Ordinance, which empowered the Commissioners to make laws for Uganda’s governance.

This British administration of Uganda destabilised the already existing administrative systems within the different kingdoms without consulting the affected masses. It also introduced a legislative system whose sole benefit wasn’t the Ugandan but rather the British empire.

Economist Vali Jamal in his article Taxation and Inequality in Uganda, 1900-1964, demonstrates and maps the extent of inequality in Uganda in those times. Through this mapping, he focuses on the government’s tax policy, pivoting on tax ordinances (laws) like the poll tax and hut tax. The taxation policy demanded that Ugandans forcefully grow cash crops that directly benefited the colonisers and boosted their economy at the cost of Ugandans’ wellbeing.

Justice George Kanyeihamba, in his book Constitutional and Political History of Uganda, describes the legal leadership-backed ordinances to have “reeked with paternalism based on the assumption of the superiority of the imperial race over the subjugated peoples”. Kanyeihamba writes of the myth of superiority being a necessary instrument for keeping a small minority, the colonial masters, in complete domination over a large majority, the colonised people.

The history displayed on the Parliament website is therefore revisionist. It is akin to what Postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak terms as “Worlding” in her essay Worlding;  a concept she describes as a  process of how  colonised space is transformed (worlding) for the natives by their colonial masters through acts such as cartography, writing, where the native begins to see his own home as belonging to his master.

The parliament website frames the purpose for these Order- In- Ordinance as “raising of revenues and generally for the peace, order and good governance of all persons in Uganda”. In the same spirit, the Parliamentary history worlds Ugandan legislative history so that Ugandans can see that history through their former master- Britain’s eyes.

The history further dives into establishing the Legislative Council (LEGCO) in 1920, whose membership was purely European until the 1945 swearing in of the first Africans.

The body’s leadership remained in the hands of the colonisers until January 1958,  with Sir John Bowes Griffin’s appointment as the first Speaker of the LEGCO. 

Again, what the Parliament website terms as critical landmarks are still a stark white- colonial centred governance. Even with some Africans on the LEGCO, the power and interests still lay with the coloniser. Historian Uzoigwe, G. N. describes the LEGCO best, calling it ‘a colonial body that was hardly an object lesson in democracy’ in his paper titled ‘Uganda and Parliamentary Government.’

It was not until 1945 that the first Africans were allowed into the Legislative assembly. The late 1950’s political atmosphere demanded a global end to colonialism in Africa, pressuring  the British to end its illegal occupation. At the same time, it was too expensive for them to maintain the empire.  This led to a series of constitutional changes, especially as Uganda geared up for “self-governance” in preparation for independence by introducing an electoral law to the Constitution, providing direct election to the legislature leading to the first-ever general elections in 1961.  

Even after independence, the speakership was still in the hands of colonisers, mainly Sir John Bowes Griffin recognised as the first Speaker of the first Parliament from 1962 – 1963 before handing it over to Narendra M. Patel in May 1963, notably a Ugandan of Indian descent.

Colonial Laws undermining the sovereign rule of societies

During the colonial governance period of 1888 to the 1940s, the British laws such as the Native Authority Ordinance of 1919 violently imposed the Buganda administrative model on the rest of Uganda.

The Local Government Ordinance of 1949  set up district council powers that effectively destabilised the existing administration forms of the country’s different communities. Numerous ordinances sought to tax the already exploited Ugandans of their land; these taxes also redefined gender roles as only men paid the hut tax additionally engineering a taxation inequality and belittling women’s labour, thus creating a category of underlooked, unpaid work and shifting gender relations as Professor Tamale explains in her book Decolonisation and Afro- Feminism.

Uganda’s 1890-1920 history is marked by unforgettable resistance movements that sprouted up against the unfair land taxes introduced by the British colonists led by the Omukama of Bunyoro, Kabalega and the Kabaka of Buganda, Kabaka Mwanga defending their people against the white man’s injustices. It would therefore be impossible to celebrate the colonial history of Parliament without watering down these struggles.

If we embrace the 100 year celebration as the beginning of Uganda’s Parliament, we not only endorse the revisionist history as told and taught through the coloniser’s lens but we also perpetuate the narrative that our history as a people starts with colonialism, a grave misconception that mars our identity as communities that had successfully led orderly lives prior to the epistemic violence that was visited upon us through colonisation.

In a book titled The Complete Guide to Uganda’s Fourth Constitution, David Mukholi writes about a pre-colonial Uganda with no written constitutions spelling out laws. Instead, each society had a set of conventions, customs and traditions which regulated behaviour and social relationships that ensured rules ensured harmony and stability.

In theory, parliaments are critical institutions of democracy, playing a crucial role in legislation, oversight and representation. However, in the Ugandan context, the foundation of Parliament is rooted in a dictatorship and colonisation. To celebrate the entire 100 years of its existence is to legitimise the violence of the British Empire. Like the history blurb on the Parliament’s website applies a colonial filter, applauding those years under occupation equates to exempting the British empire from the crimes committed against the people of Uganda during their violent dictatorship.

References

  • Rolandsen, Øystein H., and David M. Anderson. “Violence in the Contemporary Political History of Eastern Africa.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 48, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–12. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44715381. Accessed 11 Mar. 2021.
  • Rolandsen, Øystein H., and David M. Anderson. “Violence in the Contemporary Political History of Eastern Africa.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 48, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–12. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44715381. Accessed 17 Mar. 2021.
  • Kanyeihamba, W.. Constitutional and Political History of Uganda: from 1894 to Present: From 1894 to Present, LawAfrica Publishing (K)Limited, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://www.proquest.com/legacydocview/EBC/1996467?accountid=13375.
  • Adyanga, Onek C.. Modes of British Imperial Control of Africa: A Case Study of Uganda, c.1890-1990, Cambridge Scholars Publisher, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://www.proquest.com/legacydocview/EBC/1080428?accountid=13375.
  • Jamal, Vali. “Taxation and Inequality in Uganda, 1900-1964.” The Journal of Economic History, vol. 38, no. 2, 1978, pp. 418–438. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2119833. Accessed 1 Mar. 2021.
  • Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “The Rani of Sirmur: An Essay in Reading the Archives.” History and Theory, vol. 24, no. 3, 1985, pp. 247–272. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2505169. Accessed 17 Mar. 2021.
  • Uzoigwe, G. N. “Uganda and Parliamentary Government.” The Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 21, no. 2, 1983, pp. 253–271. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/160775. Accessed 1 Mar. 2021.

Women Of the Bush War

Today, we’re shining a light on the Ugandan women at the helm of the National Resistance Army (NRA) bush war from 1980 to 1986 and the crucial role they played in the eventual takeover of the National Resistance Army.

History Document here https://thecitizenreport.ug/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Uganda-and-the-EA-Community.pdf

Oliver Zizinga joined the National Resistance Army (NRA) struggle after three of her children were killed in 1980, by soldiers of the Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA), the armed wing of Milton Obote II’s government.

Together with Oliver Zizinga and Joy Mirembe, Gertrude Njuba joined the National Resistance Council in late 1981. She became one of the most powerful figures in the NRC, later assuming responsibility for a mass mobilisation at the NRM Secretariat.

Facts on Facts Privacy Policy

Facts on Facts Privacy Policy

The Citizen Report built the Facts on Facts game as a Free game. This SERVICE is provided by The Citizen Report at no cost and is intended for use as is.

This page is used to inform visitors regarding our policies with the collection, use, and disclosure of Personal Information if anyone decided to use our Service.

If you choose to use our Service, then you agree to the collection and use of information in relation to this policy. The Personal Information that we collect is used for providing and improving the Service. We will not use or share your information with anyone except as described in this Privacy Policy.

The terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, which is accessible at Facts on Facts unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy.

Information Collection and Use

For a better experience, while using our Service, we may require you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information, including but not limited to Login details. The information that we request will be retained by us and used as described in this privacy policy.

The game does use third party services that may collect information used to identify you.

Link to privacy policy of third party service providers used by the game

Log Data

We want to inform you that whenever you use our Service, in a case of an error in the game we collect data and information (through third party products) on your phone called Log Data. This Log Data may include information such as your device Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, device name, operating system version, the configuration of the game when utilizing our Service, the time and date of your use of the Service, and other statistics.

Cookies

Cookies are files with a small amount of data that are commonly used as anonymous unique identifiers. These are sent to your browser from the websites that you visit and are stored on your device’s internal memory.

This Service does not use these “cookies” explicitly. However, the game may use third party code and libraries that use “cookies” to collect information and improve their services. You have the option to either accept or refuse these cookies and know when a cookie is being sent to your device. If you choose to refuse our cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of this Service.

Service Providers

We may employ third-party companies and individuals due to the following reasons:

  • To facilitate our Service;
  • To provide the Service on our behalf;
  • To perform Service-related services; or
  • To assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

We want to inform users of this Service that these third parties have access to your Personal Information. The reason is to perform the tasks assigned to them on our behalf. However, they are obligated not to disclose or use the information for any other purpose.

Security

We value your trust in providing us your Personal Information, thus we are striving to use commercially acceptable means of protecting it. But remember that no method of transmission over the internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure and reliable, and we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Links to Other Sites

This Service may contain links to other sites. If you click on a third-party link, you will be directed to that site. Note that these external sites are not operated by us. Therefore, we strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of these websites. We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third-party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

These Services do not address anyone under the age of 13. We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13. In the case we discover that a child under 13 has provided us with personal information, we immediately delete this from our servers. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your child has provided us with personal information, please contact us so that we will be able to do necessary actions.

Changes to This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. Thus, you are advised to review this page periodically for any changes. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page. These changes are effective immediately after they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions or suggestions about our Privacy Policy, do not hesitate to contact us at thecitizenreportapp@gmail.com.