Tag Archives: JLOS

Voices Magazine Issue 1, 2012 (Amnesty)

09 May 2012Newsletters & MagazinesAcholi, amnesty, Barlonyo, ICD, JLOS, JRP, Kony, Lango, LRA, northern Uganda, Teso, TJ, uganda, voices magazine, West NileJRP

Voices Magazine Issue 1, 2012 (Amnesty)

Click here to view.

Voices Iss1 2012 cover — Cover of the first edition of JRP’s Voices magazine

This is the first issue of the Justice and Reconciliation Project’s (JRP) latest publication, Voices magazine. JRP’s mission is to empower conflict-affected communities to participate in processes of justice, healing and reconciliation, and this magazine aspires to do just that. By providing a regular, open platform for victims and key stakeholders to dialogue on local and national transitional justice developments, we will be “sharing victim-centered views on justice and reconciliation in Uganda” each quarter.

The theme of this first issue is amnesty. With Uganda’s Amnesty Act up for expiration, renewal or renewal with amendments on 24 May, we have sought to present the views of the war-affected communities where we operate. In this issue, key stakeholders like Michael Otim of the International Center for Transitional Justice (pg 13), Ismene Nicole Zarifis, International Technical Advisor on TJ for JLOS (pg 6,) and members of the JRP team address the important question: What should be the future of Uganda’s Amnesty Act? Like all of our work, we hope this collection of views contributes to the policy-making process currently taking place in Kampala, and links the grassroots with the decision-makers.

Click here to view.

Note: If printing on a B&W printer, we recommend you print this grayscaled version.

“Where to With Transitional Justice in Uganda?” Justice in Conflict blog, 22 April 2012

24 Apr 2012In the Newsamnesty, Gulu, ICD, JLOS, Kwoyelo, LRA, northern UgandaLindsay McClain Opiyo

“Where to With Transitional Justice in Uganda? The Situation After the Extension of the Amnesty Act,” Justice in Conflict blog, 22 April 2012
http://justiceinconflict.org/2012/04/22/where-to-with-transitional-justice-in-uganda-the-situation-after-the-extension-of-the-amnesty-act/

By Patrick Wegner

Regular readers of this blog are aware that Uganda has both an amnesty law in force since 2000 as well as an International Crimes Division (ICD) at the High Court which is able to try crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The 2000 Amnesty Act is broad, essentially granting ‘blanket amnesty’ for all crimes committed during rebellion if the reporter agrees to renounce armed struggle. Despite the Amnesty Act being in force, the Department of the Public Prosecutor (DPP) in Uganda charged a mid-level commander of the LRA, Thomas Kwoyelo, with crimes against humanity under the Geneva Convention. JiC has reported extensively about the trial in the past, you find all the articles here. Despite several court rulings that Kwoyelo has a legal right to receive amnesty and should be set free, the DPP argued that amnesty is not applicable for crimes against humanity. In violation of these court rulings and due process, Kwoyelo remains in jail at Luzira Prison, Kampala.

The Government of Uganda (GoU) has not taken a clear position concerning the Kwoyelo case and the clash between the blanket amnesty and the existence of a Court Division able to try international crimes. Therefore the upcoming review of the Amnesty Act in May 2012 has been anticipated with uncertainty and curiosity by observers. Will the GoU move away from the past amnesty approach and give in to the DPP that had stated it wanted to bring more charges against former LRA rebels? Or would it uphold the amnesty approach followed since 2000?

Now the Deputy Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Jacob Oulanyah, announced on Saturday 14^th of April in Gulu that the extension of the Amnesty Act for two years is a done deal and that the law just waits being gazetted. (Thanks to Sharon Nakandha from Avocats sans Frontières Uganda for forwarding the article). This has some important implications for the way forward in transitional justice in Uganda.

It is important to acknowledge that the Amnesty Act was passed with strong civil society pressure from northern Uganda. Many northern Acholi see the LRA rebels as their abducted children and want them to lay down arms and return home. According to asurvey conducted by the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) in December 2011 98 per-cent of the northern population believe that the amnesty is still relevant and should not be abolished. Abolishing the amnesty would thus go against the wishes of the formerly war affected population in northern Uganda. President Museveni has no reason to alienate his northern constituency (he received a majority in northern Uganda for the first time in the 2011 elections) by attacking a law that many see as very useful.

Former LRA Commander Thomas Kwoyelo in the courtroom (Edward Echwalu/Reuters)

According to recent figures from the JRP survey, 22,520 rebels have taken amnesty so far – 48 per-cent of them LRA members. Abolishing the amnesty law now would not have revoked those amnesties but, in the context of the ongoing detention of Thomas Kwoyelo, it would surely have stirred fears among LRA returnees. In my interviews with LRA officers in northern Uganda their fears of being tried years after they returned from the bush, be it by the ICC or the ICD, was very tangible. The fact that the amnesty was prolonged is also important for the military efforts to combat the LRA in the DRC, Central African Republic and South Sudan as it ensures that the formerly abducted fighters have a way out. The Amnesty Act can thus contribute to weaken the LRA by luring out fighters from the ‘bush’.

Yet, the fact that the Amnesty Act will apparently simply be prolonged without any changes also means that Uganda’s national concept for transitional justice remains incoherent and contradictory. Uganda has a blanket amnesty in place that covers any and all crimes, a notion that is on the retreat in international law. Many would indeed even argue that a blanket amnesty is not acceptable in international law: The Inter-American Court for Human Rights ruled so famously in its Barrios Altos case and the UN has instructed its envoys to not endorse blanket amnesties in peace negotiations. Yet, under Uganda’s Amnesty Act even Joseph Kony himself would have a right to receive amnesty.

At the same time, Uganda created a Division that is capable of trying these crimes but will not be able to do so as long as the amnesty remains in place in its current form. The GoU could have solved this problem and brought the Amnesty Act into line with international standards.

A reception centre for LRA abductees (Centre for Children in Vulnerable Situations)

According to the Amnesty Act the Parliament of Uganda has the power to revoke the amnesty for individuals on request of the Minister of Defence. It would thus be theoretically possible to revoke the amnesty for the LRA Commanders most responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Museveni had threatened several times to exclude the LRA commanders from amnesty only to then publicly ask Kony and his Commanders to accept the amnesty offer of the government. The Ugandan High Court even explicitly ruled in October 2005 that amnesty remains available for the LRA commanders. These inconsistencies may re-emerge in the future as the GoU once again failed to clarify its stance. If Joseph Kony was arrested tomorrow, the GoU would be caught between its constitution and the amnesty law on the one side, and its international legal obligations to surrender Joseph Kony and his key commanders to the ICC on the other side.

It is also strange that the GoU apparently did not wait for a report of the Transitional Justice Working Group of the Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) of the Government in which JLOS would have published its results of conducting surveys about the amnesty and traditional justice in all of Uganda. The Transitional Justice Working Group is charged with developing a coherent concept for transitional justice in Uganda, presumably providing for a comprehensive approach including amnesty, traditional justice, a truth commission and trials. The JLOS plans are impressive on the paper and could provide a blueprint for transitional justice concepts in post-conflict areas (see here for details).

Why did the decision makers not wait for this valuable feedback before deciding whether and how to prolong the Amnesty Act? One can only hope that the final suggestions of the Transitional Justice Working Group will be taken more seriously for the sake of a coherent and comprehensive approach towards transitional justice in Uganda.

Gender Justice and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda, Policy Brief No. 4

13 Sep 2011Statements & BriefsAcholi, Brief, Friederike Bubenzer, gender justice, IJR, JLOS, Lango, Partners, policy brief, Sylvia Opinia, Teso, TJ Policy, West NileJRP

By Sylvia Opinia and Friederike Bubenzer

JRP-IJR Policy Brief No. 4

This policy brief assesses the gender‐specific transitional justice (TJ) needs of survivors of gender‐based violence in Northern Uganda.

From November 2010 to February 2011, the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP), in collaboration with the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR), organized a series of consultations with victims of conflict in Northern Uganda, entitled ‘Enhancing Grassroots Involvement in Transitional Justice Debates.’ The consultations, held in the Acholi/Lango, Teso, and West Nile sub‐regions, focused on truth‐telling, traditional justice, reparations and gender justice within the context of Uganda’s transitional justice processes.2 As part of the consultations, a separate session was held on the topic of gender justice and the extent to which it does / does not presently feature in Uganda’s transitional justice framework. Discussions at the consultations highlighted the need for Uganda’s unique gender relations and dynamics to be closely scrutinized and taken into consideration by policy‐makers in the development of transitional justice mechanisms.

The Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) is currently developing and implementing an accountability and reconciliation framework to deal with the legacies of conflict in Uganda. With the progress in the establishment of the International Crimes Division (ICD) of the High Court, JLOS has undertaken a series of consultations in order to propose law and policy reforms in line with its mandate. This process presents an excellent opportunity to critically examine and document the widespread occurrence of gender‐based violence in Northern Uganda and the vast implications on individuals and communities.

This policy brief describes gender‐based violence, its occurrence and effects on local communities during and after the conflict in Northern Uganda, as well as the needs of the victims as expressed during the JRP‐IJR consultations. It concludes with a series of recommendations to the Government of Uganda through the Justice Law and Order Sector.

To download the full brief, click here.

Pay Us so We Can Forget: Reparations for Victims and Affected Communities in Northern Uganda, Policy Brief No. 2

13 Sep 2011Statements & BriefsAcholi, Allan Ngari, Brief, IJR, JLOS, Lango, Lindsay McClain, Partners, policy brief, reparations, Teso, TJ Policy, West NileJRP

By Lindsay McClain and Allan Ngari

JRP-IJR Policy Brief No. 2

After more than two decades of conflict, victims, the Government and civil society in Uganda are grappling with how to implement effective transitional justice (TJ) mechanisms in the country. Informed by widespread consultations with victims across the greater northern region of Uganda, this policy brief focuses specifically on the right to reparations and aims to highlight the most pressing reparations needs identified by victims. The briefing concludes with specific recommendations to concerned parties, namely the imperative need for a national framework to guide reparations processes in Uganda.

The purpose of this briefing is to share the consultations’ findings on reparations and inform stakeholders on specific policy and programming needs which will best assist victims and their families. By highlighting the issues identified by victims and making specific recommendations to concerned parties, unique insight is provided into the right to reparations and the specific reparations mechanisms needed to support efforts for sustainable peace and reconciliation in Northern Uganda.

The title of this policy brief is derived from an emotional response of a participant at the West Nile regional consultation (held 24-25 November 2010) when discussing the topic of reparations. Although compensation forms one part of the reparations process, this phraseology reflects the state of mind of many victims and affected communities in Northern Uganda. They view compensation as a key component of justice.

To download the full brief, click here.

Traditional Justice and War Crimes in Northern Uganda, Policy Brief No. 1

13 Sep 2011Statements & BriefsAcholi, Brief, IJR, JLOS, Lango, Lino Ogora, Partners, policy brief, Teso, Tim Murithi, TJ Policy, traditional justice, West NileJRP

By Lino Owor Ogora and Tim Murithi

JRP-IJR Policy Brief No. 1

This policy brief assesses the continuing relevance of traditional justice in Northern Uganda. Over two years after the dissolution of the Juba peace negotiations in November 2008, several questions continue to remain unanswered regarding how traditional justice mechanisms can be utilized to promote accountability and reconciliation. More specifically, questions persist as to whether traditional justice can be utilized to address war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is still uncertainty in the field as to how traditional approaches can complement the wider national and international processes of transitional justice.

Between November 2010 and February 2011, the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP), in collaboration with the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR), organized a series of consultations with victims of conflict in Northern Uganda, entitled ‘Enhancing Grassroots Involvement in Transitional Justice Debates.’ The consultations, held in the Acholi/Lango, Teso and West Nile sub‐regions, focused on truth‐telling, traditional justice, reparations and gender justice within the context of Uganda’ s transitional justice processes. Based on views from grassroots communities, this policy brief notes that traditional mechanisms are still considered by many in Northern Uganda as mechanisms that can promote reconciliation and healing within war‐affected communities. It concludes with a series of recommendations to the Government of Uganda, cultural institutions and the International Criminal Court.

To download the full brief, click here.

One-Day Civil Society Dialogue with JLOS on TJ in Uganda, Meeting Summary

30 May 2011Statements & Briefsaccountability, Briefs, ICD, JLOS, Partners, reparations, TJ PolicyJRP

On Friday, May 20, 2011, the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP), and the Uganda Victims Foundation (UVF), organized a one-day dialogue between representatives of the Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) and civil society from northern Uganda. The event was held in Lira Town and was attended by 42 representatives, including His Worship Tadeo Asiimwe—Registrar of the War Crimes Division—and Ms. Rachel Odoi-Musoke—of the JLOS Secretariat.

The dialogue provided an opportunity for the two JLOS representatives to share updates and developments on TJ in Uganda, and more specifically the work of the JLOS Transitional Justice Working Group and the War Crimes Division (WCD), soon to be renamed the International Crimes Division (ICD). It also provided space for the various civil society representatives to ask questions and share comments on the processes involved and how these could impact their communities.

This event coincided with national community consultations by JLOS to gain perspectives on truth-seeking, traditional justice and reparations, and followed a consultative meeting organized by ICTJ and JRP on April 21^st in Gulu with civil society on an outreach strategy for the WCD.

To download the full meeting summary, click here.

JLOS/CSO Dialogue in Lira, 20 May 2011

21 May 2011Photosaccountability, ICD, JLOS, Media, Partners, TJ PolicyJRP

[AFG_gallery id=’28’]

Outreach Consultative Meeting with Civil Society for the First War Crimes Cases before the War Crimes Division, Meeting Summary

30 Apr 2011Statements & Briefsaccountability, Briefs, ICD, JLOS, Partners, reparations, TJ PolicyJRP

On April 21, JRP and ICTJ held a one-day consultative meeting organized by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) and the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) on outreach for the first war crimes cases before Uganda’s War Crimes Division (WCD).

The objectives of the meeting were to:

Assess civil society’s expectations and realistic understanding for potential outcomes of the work of the WCD;
Increase civil society’s engagement in all stages of legal proceedings before the WCD;
Provide input for the draft outreach strategy and briefing information on TJ by JLOS.

To access the full summary, click here.

CSO WCD Outreach Consultation, 21 April 2011

22 Apr 2011Photosaccountability, ICD, JLOS, Media, Partners, TJ PolicyJRP

[AFG_gallery id=’27’]

The objectives of the meeting were to:

Assess civil society’s expectations and realistic understanding for potential outcomes of the work of the WCD;
Increase civil society’s engagement in all stages of legal proceedings before the WCD;
Provide input for the draft outreach strategy and briefing information on TJ by JLOS.