From February 20-22, 2012, JRP organized an exchange between victims’ groups from across the greater north. More than 35 representatives from West Nile, Acholi, Lango and Teso attended the Barlonyo memorial prayers and candlelight vigil and a 1-day exchange meeting to share experiences and develop a way forward for victim-led advocacy in northern Uganda.
[AFG_gallery id=’42’]
Note: JRP’s photo from the Kwoyelo trial opening was featured in this post.
“The Kwoyelo Trial: A Final(?) Roundup,” Justice in Conflict, 13 February 2012
http://justiceinconflict.org/2012/02/13/the-kwoyelo-trial-a-final-roundup/
By Patrick Wegner
Last summer Justice in Conflict regularly reported on the trial of former LRA Commander Thomas Kwoyelo. After being arrested by the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2009, the Ugandan Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided to charge Kwoyelo with war crimes under the Geneva Conventions and with crimes under national law.
The trial received considerable national and international attention as it was the first case of the newly created International Crimes Division (ICD) of the Ugandan High Court. The ICD had been founded in reaction to questions of accountability that arose during the Juba peace talks between the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the LRA. Meanwhile the Ugandan Parliament has passed the International Criminal Court (ICC) Act, which allows the ICD to prosecute Rome Statute crimes on the domestic level.
In a nutshell, the ICD referred the Kwoyelo case to the Constitutional Court when Kwoyelo’s defence lawyers protested that Kwoyelo had been denied amnesty under the Amnesty Act. In their view, this constituted a violation of equal treatment under the Ugandan Constitution. The Constitutional Court decided in late September 2011 that Kwoyelo should be eligible for amnesty and ordered the ICD to cease the case against him.
Even though the case was stopped, Kwoyelo remained in detention. He then decided to sue the GoU for illegal detention and petitioned the Ugandan High Court for amnesty on 23rd of November 2011. The High Court indeed ruled that Thomas Kwoyelo should be given amnesty and be set free. The Department of Public Prosecutions and the Amnesty Commission are the two competent institutions in this case and decided to meet to consult the Kwoyelo case after the High Court ruling. In early February the Department of Public Prosecutions again denied amnesty to Thomas Kwoyelo, citing that there can be no amnesty for charges of war crimes. Thomas Kwoyelo thus remains imprisoned in Luzira Prison in Kampala to date.
The judges of the ICD in charge of the Kwoyelo case (Justice and Reconciliation Project)
There are several conclusions that can be drawn out of the way the first domestic war crimes trial in Uganda developed. First and foremost, the ongoing back and forth concerning Thomas Kwoyelo’s amnesty again underlines that Uganda is at the crossroads with transitional justice. The actions of the DPP hint at a re-orientation towards more accountability and less amnesty in the future. The DPP has made that clear by repeatedly denying amnesty to Kwoyelo, despite court orders, and by announcing that it has prepared additional cases against former LRA rebels that it will pursue should Kwoyelo be found guilty. As far as I am aware there is no explicit government position on how amnesty and prosecution should relate to each other in the future, and the lack of clarity might well spark fears and unrest among LRA returnees as I have described in a piece last summer.
Secondly, the first case of the ICD has arguably also shown that demands for more positive complementarity, meaning more domestic trials, in ICC cases should be voiced more carefully. Creating institutions that are legally able to try ICC cases in the situation countries is an important goal. I have frequently argued for more positive complementarity at the ICC myself.
Yet just creating these institutions is not enough. One has to ensure that appropriate laws are in place and that the court is qualified to deal with international war crimes cases. There are several examples of how things went wrong in this context at the ICD. In general the GoU was seemingly in a hurry to demonstrate that the ICD was up and running by presenting a first case and preferably a conviction. Some sources have accused the GoU of presenting the ICD with a pre-determined budget and timeline for a ruling in the Kwoyelo case.
Thomas Kwoyelo before the ICD in Gulu
It is important to acknowledge that the ICD is doing something that has never been done anywhere else in Africa. Creating a High Court Division competent of ruling on Rome Statute Crimes is a novel development. The judges include well qualified experts with experience in international criminal law and most of them have attended best-practice training at the ICC in The Hague according to the ICD Registry.
Despite the ICD Project being generally commendable, there are some other problems that emerged from the rushed effort to try a first case at the ICD as quickly as possible. The case before the ICD showed that witness protection laws in Uganda are inadequate. The judges are only able to order ad-hoc measures to protect witnesses if there are clear signs for danger. The Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) of the Ugandan Government is working on laws to alleviate this problem, but results are not expected before mid-2012.
Last, but not least, the ICD is so far working with guiding principles instead of full rules of procedure. The guiding principles are open for best practice approaches from other cases of international criminal law, which makes them highly flexible. Yet, a lack of full rules of procedures may lead to problems of fair trial or delays in some cases. All in all the Kwoyelo trial has proven that the ICD is a politically independent institution that is to be taken seriously. Still, it has also shown the remaining weaknesses in the systems and has highlighted the danger of cases becoming politicized. The fact that Kwoyelo is still in jail despite numerous court rulings seems to be an indicator that the DPP was trying to make a political point by indicting Kwoyelo.
Today we posted four new internship openings for a Gender Justice Intern, Documentation Intern, Multimedia Intern and a Documentary Filmmaker (Volunteer). To learn more and find out how to apply, check out http://justiceandreconciliation.com/about/jobs-internships/.
Act fast because they are vacant until filled!
Community Theatre for Justice and Reconciliation, Soul Beat Africa, 27 Jan 2012
http://www.comminit.com/edutain-africa/content/theatre-justice-and-reconciliation
As part of community mobilisation activities, the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) is using community theatre performances as a tool for survivors of the Ugandan conflict to advocate for issues affecting them. The dramas are created by community members, and videos made of the performances to highlight key issues.
Communication Strategies:
The pilot community theatre programme was implemented through JRP’s Community Mobilisation department. The mobilisation department works to engage communities in identifying what needs to be done to promote justice and reconciliation. This includes providing information and updates on transitional justice processes and building capacity and opportunities for victims’ involvement in such processes.
JRP has used community theatre in various communities. For example, on September 16 2011, JRP facilitated survivors and families of those killed in Uganda’s 1989 Mukura massacre to hold a community performance on transitional justice issues. The performance was part of JRP’s ongoing engagement with the Mukura Memorial Development Initiative (MUMEDI) and the Kumi Network of Development Organizations (KUNEDO) and was designed to generate discussion among the community on how to best seek justice and reconciliation after the conflict in the area. The drama’s script and theme was entirely drafted by the actors (see video below). The video shows how the drama highlights key scenes and recommendations by survivors of the 1989 Mukura massacre. In the performance, they call for traditional reconciliation with the President of Uganda.
In another community on September 21, JRP and the MAYANK Development Association organised celebrations for the annual International Day of Peace 2011 in Yumbe district, West Nile sub-region. Survivors of the UNRF II conflict presented a drama that highlighted the cause and rise of the UNRF II and the resolution of the conflict through the Yumbe Peace Accord in 2002. Other similar performances have been facilitated in Lukodi and Abia.
Development Issues: Post Conflict, Peace
Key Points:
Established in 2005, The Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) in Gulu, northern Uganda, works for transitional justice in Uganda by seeking to understand and explain the interests, needs, concerns, and views of communities affected by conflict. JRP promotes sustainable peace through the active involvement of war-affected communities in research and advocacy.
Justice in north needs complex solutions, Daily Monitor, 29 Jan 2012
http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/ThoughtIdeas/-/689844/1315470/-/item/0/-/9le52p/-/index.html
By Lino Owor Ogora
In July last year, Thomas Kwoyelo became the first Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) commander to be charged before Uganda’s International Crimes Division (ICD). He was charged with 53 counts crimes against humanity. On September 22, a few months after the commencement of his trial, Uganda’s Constitutional Court ruled that Kwoyelo was entitled to amnesty in line with Uganda’s Amnesty Act of 2000, and ordered his trial to be halted forthwith, a ruling which was further upheld by the High Court on January 25, 2012.
This court ruling has attracted mixed reactions from national and international actors and the public at large. While some people have applauded the court ruling and amnesty alike, others condemned both.
The case of Kwoyelo, however, re-affirms the fact that the pursuit of justice in northern Uganda requires complex solutions beyond merely dragging ex-commanders of the LRA to the courts of law.
In this regard, it is vital to understand the significance of amnesty in stemming the conflict in northern Uganda, and the complications that come with handling individuals who carry dual victim-perpetrator identities.
Uganda’s Amnesty Act of 2000 offers pardon to ‘any Ugandan who has at any time since January 26, 1986, engaged in or is engaging in war or armed rebellion against the government of the Republic of Uganda’. In northern Uganda, amnesty has been instrumental in fostering the return of thousands of ex-combatants. Until August 22, 2008, the Amnesty Commission’s database indicated 22,930 reporters – 50 per cent of these were LRA reporters.
Success in the air
This is an indication that amnesty has registered a tremendous success. If it were not for amnesty, millions of people would still be living within IDP camps. Thousands more children would have been abducted, and even the Juba peace talks which ushered in the prevailing peace in northern Uganda would not have taken place.
Many critics of amnesty may argue that the amnesty law in northern Uganda is no longer relevant given that the LRA have been subdued. However, if you lived in northern Uganda during the period of the insurgency, or even simply visited an IDP camp at the height of the conflict and witnessed the suffering of the people, you would understand and appreciate the prioritisation of ‘peace first, justice later’ and amnesty. It is because of this prioritisation that northern Ugandans, led by religious and traditional leaders were at the forefront of advocating for amnesty as a crucial factor in ending the conflict.
With the LRA still very much alive and committing atrocities in Central African Republic and Southern Sudan, the amnesty law is still needed. In a situational survey conducted by the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) in December 2011 in Acholi region, more than 90 per cent of the respondents believed that amnesty was still relevant. Therefore, rather than argue for the total nullification of the amnesty law, perhaps the question we need to answer is whether amendments are required to specify clearly which commanders of the LRA should or should not be granted amnesty in the event that they return.
In addition, the case of Kwoyelo also raises complex questions regarding the perpetrators who are victims themselves. Kwoyelo was abducted at the age of 15 from his village of Pogo in Pabo Sub-County in Amuru District. Like other children and youth before him, he was carried off into captivity, trained into a child soldier and rose through the ranks to become a high ranking commander. The fate of adult commanders of the LRA who were abducted as children and turned into the killers they are today has been a topic of substantial discussion.
Having been abducted while young and vulnerable, Kwoyelo was a victim. Having committed crimes after the age of 18, Kwoyelo should be able to take responsibility for his actions. What then should be the fate of such individuals? Many human rights activists have often flatly insisted that on becoming adults, such individuals need to take full responsibility for their actions. Why is it that such human rights activists never talk of holding the government accountable for failing to protect children such as Kwoyelo from abduction in the first place? There is need to consider all these circumstances when dealing with cases such as Kwoyelo’s.
Furthermore, there is need to reflect on why cases of NRA/UPDF perpetrators who committed war crimes during the insurgency are not coming up. In northern Uganda, it is a known fact that all armed parties to the conflict, including state and non-state actors, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Court martials not good enough?
While the Juba Peace Agreement calls for handling state actors through other measures such as military court martials, many people in northern Uganda feel the outcomes of these courts would be highly unpredictable, and could lead to many state actor perpetrators being let off the hook.
Military court martial proceedings are often closed to the public and conducted by the army leadership and the participation of victims is often limited. For these reasons, many people in northern Uganda will continue reiterating their call for prosecution of state actors within the ICD. If charges are not brought against the UPDF, or at the very least investigations into state violations conducted, then DPP, runs the risk of being labeled partial.
Finally, beyond pursuing justice in courts of law, there is need to keep the needs of victims and survivors of the conflict in mind. Victims need reparations, compensation, restitution, and restoration of their livelihoods.
Beyond passing guilty or non-guilty verdicts, courts of law such as the ICD will not cater for these very important needs. For reparations to be effected in a proper and timely manner, Uganda requires a reparations policy, which is currently lacking. All these factors should be taken into consideration for justice to prevail in Northern Uganda.
The author is a researcher with the Justice & Reconciliation Project, an NGO based in Gulu District.
http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/ThoughtIdeas/-/689844/1315470/-/item/0/-/9le52p/-/index.html
Updates on the High Court Ruling of Ex-LRA Commander Thomas Kwoyelo
Kampala, 27 January 2012
By Evelyn Akullo Otwili
Summary
On 25 January 2011, ex-LRA commander Col. Thomas Kwoyelo appeared before the High Court of Uganda in Kampala. Presided by Justice Vincent Tiwangye Zehurikirize, the Court ordered the Amnesty Commission and the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) to grant Kwoyelo a certificate of amnesty and immediately release him.
To read more, click here.
On Wednesday, ex-LRA commander Col. Thomas Kwoyelo appeared before the High Court of Uganda in Kampala. JRP’s Evelyn Akullo Otwili was there to follow the ruling, in which the Court ordered the Amnesty Commission and the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) to grant Kwoyelo a certificate of amnesty and immediately release him.
To read the full 1-page update, click here.
“Justice and Reconciliation Project reports on Acholi perceptions of the Amnesty Act,” Resolve Blog, 9 Jan 2012
http://www.theresolve.org/blog/archives/3071031799
By Azy
We’re fans of the folks at The Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) — they’re great people doing great work. Recently, JRP released an interesting report that focuses on the feelings and perceptions of LRA-affected communities in northern Uganda toward Uganda’s Amnesty Act.
The Uganda Amnesty Act of 2000 grants amnesty to any rebel combatant from 1986 onward who lays down his or her weapons and renounces the rebellion. According to JRP’s report, more than 10,800 former members of the LRA have received amnesty through the Act as of August 2008, and have re-joined their communities with less harassment and stigma than they otherwise would have experienced without this national policy of forgiveness. The Amnesty Act has been shown to actively encourage combatants to defect from the LRA, with the promise that they will be accepted back home. This is very important, as so many LRA combatants were abducted as children and were unwilling combatants in the first place.
As reflected in the report, JRP researchers interviewed a spectrum of Acholi community members, from local leaders to former-abductees, and asked what they thought of amnesty. Their findings show overwhelming support for the Amnesty Act and many respondents argued that Uganda’s amnesty policy is partially to thank for the peace that the region has experienced since the LRA left Uganda’s borders in 2006. It helps clean the slate and faciliate forgiveness for the unwilling fighters, from both their community and their country.
Interestingly, some of the respondents said they wished that even the top commanders would be granted amnesty, arguing that almost everyone aside from LRA leader Joseph Kony was at one time a victim.
Currently, the Amnesty Act of 2000 is due to either expire or be extended in May 2012, making JRP’s report especially timely.
In this same vein, this spring Resolve will be lobbying our leaders in Washington with the recommendation that part of the $10 million in foreign aid Congress recently authorized for the LRA-affected communities should go towards the rescue, rehabilitation, and reintegration of LRA combatants.
In the case of the LRA, amnesty is an important component of peace and restoration that must go hand-in-hand with focused efforts to support ex-combatants as they seek healing and reintegrate with their communities.
This report is just 3 pages long and fascinating from beginning to end. Take a few minutes to read it yourself.
Today, JRP’s Community Documentation department released their latest publication, a brief situational analysis titled, “To Pardon or to Punish? Current Perceptions and Opinions on Uganda’s Amnesty in Acholi-land.”
Although Uganda’s Amnesty Act entered into force in 2000, it has recently been subjected to a renewed discussion, questioning its relevance in the current context of the conflict. Even in the war‐affected northern region of Uganda, it appears that mixed reactions prevail among the local population. Against this background, this brief situational analysis projects people’s opinions and perceptions on amnesty and provides recommendations for the Amnesty Commission as well as stakeholders concerned.
To read more, click here.
To Pardon or to Punish? Current Perceptions and Opinions on Uganda’s Amnesty in Acholi-land
Situational Brief: December 15, 2011
To read the full brief, click, here.
Uganda’s Amnesty Act of 2000 offers pardon to “any Ugandan who has at any time since the 26th day of January, 1986, engaged in or is engaging in war or armed rebellion against the government of the Republic of Uganda.”1 In northern Uganda, amnesty has been instrumental in fostering and encouraging the return of thousands of ex-combatants and abductees. The Amnesty Commission’s database indicates that, as of the 22nd August 2008, 22,520 former rebels have reported and been granted amnesty since the entering into force of the Amnesty Act (AA) in 2000. Approximately 48% of the reporters have been former members of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).
Recently, on the 22nd September 2011, Uganda’s Constitutional Court ruled that ex-LRA commander Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo – charged with 12 substantive counts and 53 alternative counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity – was entitled to amnesty in line with Uganda’s 2000 Amnesty Act. The court ordered his trial to be halted forthwith. However, this court ruling attracted mixed reactions from national and international actors. While some applauded the court ruling and amnesty alike, others condemned both. At a national workshop on amnesty in Kampala on the 18th November 2011, this divide was evident with some parties calling for the amendment of the amnesty law. Even in the war-affected regions, where the amnesty law has been instrumental in fostering the return of thousands of ex-combatants, mixed reactions prevail among the local population. Although research on amnesty in northern Uganda has been carried out previously, there is no topical prospect concerning the current situation. Pending review and possible extension and/or amendment, Uganda’s current Amnesty Act is slated to expire in May 2012.
Against this background, the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) carried out a rapid situational analysis between the 28th November and 06th December 2011 in the sub-counties of Bobbi and Unyama (Gulu district) and Koch Goma (Nwoya district), and Gulu and Kitgum towns to gauge the perceptions and opinions on amnesty and whether it is still relevant today in post-conflict northern Uganda. In this research, we spoke to 44 respondents – with a gender ratio of 26 male to 18 female – including local leaders, religious leaders, victims, formerly-abducted persons, and other community members, along with representatives of civil society organizations in Gulu town.
The analysis revealed that an overwhelming majority of our sample group still strongly support amnesty and consider it as vitally important for sustainability of the prevailing peace, reconciliation and rehabilitation. From this survey, a resounding 98% of respondents thought that the amnesty law was still relevant and that it should not be abolished. This situational analysis presents these perceptions concerning the relevance and role of amnesty and provides recommendations to policy-makers, organizations operating in these areas, as well as institutions working with victims and formerly-abducted persons.
To read the full brief, click, here.