By Afrireport 
Fresh allegations of police brutality have once again ignited public debate, this time focusing not only on the actions caught on CCTV, but on what critics describe as a calculated effort by senior police bosses to shield culpable officers from accountability.
Despite clear video evidence circulating widely, authorities have declined to name or suspend the officers involved, opting instead for carefully worded statements that deflect responsibility.
In several recent incidents, police headquarters acknowledged that investigations are ongoing while referring questions to unnamed administrators or internal units.
Human rights groups argue that this language has become a familiar public relations strategy, designed to buy time and diffuse public anger without delivering concrete action.
They say the refusal to identify officers visible on CCTV raises serious doubts about the sincerity of internal probes.
Civil society organisations note that CCTV footage has increasingly become the primary tool through which abuse is exposed.
Yet even with visual evidence, outcomes remain predictable: promises of investigations, silence on disciplinary action and no public disclosure of those responsible.
According to activists, this cycle has contributed to a culture of impunity that allows misconduct to recur.
Legal experts point out that while due process is essential, it should not be used as a shield for inaction.
They argue that naming officers under investigation does not amount to conviction, but rather signals transparency and seriousness.
Also Read
- Trump vs Trevor Noah: Epstein Joke Sparks Fresh Legal Threats
- No More Excuses! CS Ruku Warns Underperforming Civil Servants
- Inside Kakamega’s Newest ECDE Block: What Governor Barasa Just Unveiled in Matungu
- Museveni Drops Uganda Airlines CEO in Sudden Midnight Shake-Up
- How a Promised Way Out Abroad Turned Into a Growing Labour Scandal
Police leadership however, maintains that confidentiality protects the integrity of investigations and the rights of officers.
In official briefings, spokespeople insist that internal mechanisms are working and that disciplinary measures will follow if wrongdoing is established.
They also caution against trial by media, urging the public to allow due process to take its course.
But for families of victims and ordinary citizens, patience is wearing thin.
Each new incident, critics say, reinforces the perception that senior commanders are more concerned with managing headlines than confronting abuse within the ranks.
As brutality cases continue to surface, the gap between official assurances and visible accountability is widening.
Ultimately, observers warn that without transparent action starting with naming officers caught on camera and outlining clear consequences public trust in law enforcement will continue to erode.
For many, the question is no longer whether brutality exists, but whether those at the top are willing to confront it openly.
