Tag Archives: LRA

ICD outreach on Thomas Kwoyelo

Blog, , , , , , ,
Kwoyelo with Wardens
Kwoyelo arrives at the Gulu court building on Nov. 11, 2011

In April 2015, the Ugandan Supreme Court held that former LRA commander Thomas Kwoyelo could be tried at the International Crimes Division of the High Court of Uganda (the ICD). On 27 May, Avocats Sans Frontières and judges from the ICD held an outreach session meeting with victim and civil society organisations in Gulu town followed by a community outreach session with Lukodi village on the 28th of May with people who suffered during the LRA massacre attack on Lukodi village on the 19th May 2004. The purpose of the outreach was to introduce the ICD court to the communities and to discuss the way forward for Thomas Kwoyelo’s case.

In Lukodi, the people present included orphans, widows and widowers among others. The four ICD judges that conducted the outreach included Justices Nahamwa and Mukizi Ezekiel and during the session, they informed participants about the background of the ICD, including when it was formed and the law applicable to its jurisdiction. Justice Mukizi also highlighted the work of the Justice, Law and Order Sector of the Government of Uganda (JLOS) and police in the contributions they make to the court and said that the ICD court is not the government but rather a small part of the government which was formed to address capital crimes to stop impunity.

According to the judge, the first objective of the court is to try the case and make sure that if enough evidence is presented to the court that an accused person such as Kwoyelo would be convicted. Objective two is aimed at taking into account the rights of the victims and giving them an opportunity to be heard, which he said would be unlike traditional courts and allow them to testify and give evidence of their experiences, be present in court and be provided for their suffering in terms of compensation or reparation. 

The judges pronounced that their duties are bound by the law and that they have international standards to follow when a person is brought to court for a fair trial. Kwoyelo, they said, is also entitled to a lawyer for representation and to be allowed witnesses to support his case. If enough evidence is found to support him, he would not be convicted. His trial will be referred to Gulu where all people would be welcome to participate. Judge Nahamwa said that he is encouraging victims to report crimes to the police and JLOS for investigation though they can either choose to report the crimes or not.

During the outreach, Justice Mukizi pointed out that while there has been a provision for amnesty for LRA returnees, there are some crimes, such as those alleged to have been committed by Kwoyelo, which the Supreme Court confirms that amnesty cannot be extended to because of the graveness of the offences alleged to have been committed. The judge mentioned that Kwoyelo is charged with 52 counts of crimes against humanity and if there are victims who suffered according to his acts, they are called upon to come up and offer evidence to the court. Any efforts, he said, will help to stop impunity so that the acts are punished.

 

 

Forgotten Victims: Recounting Atrocities Committed in Odek Sub-County by the LRA and NRA

Field Notes, , , ,
Forgotten Victims - Recounting Atrocities Committed in OdekSub-County by the LRA and NRA_SM
Forgotten Victims: Recounting Atrocities Committed in Odek Sub-County by the LRA and NRA, JRP Field Note 21, November 2014

In its efforts to document the voices of the victims of the conflict in northern Uganda, based on the belief that through facilitating communities to tell their stories in their own terms and words not only helps to bring some relief to the victims but also contributes to better inform transitional justice processes, the Justice and Reconciliation Project launches this field note as a first step to acknowledge what happened in Odek sub-county. The purpose of this report is twofold. First, it seeks to make visible the atrocities committed by the NRA and the LRA in Odek and how it affected the lives of individuals and the community as a whole. Second, it aims to show how Odek is silently fighting another war; the war that comes with stigmatisation and exclusion. This report shows how the impact of the war continues to affect the daily lives of the people of Odek, and undermines its prospects of achieving lasting peace and reconciliation.
Read this entire report here: Forgotten Victims (pdf)

 

Amnesty consultations Barlonyo

Policy brief on amnesty released

Blog, , , ,

Amnesty consultations Barlonyo

JRP is pleased to announce the release of its latest policy brief, Who forgives whom? Northern Uganda’s grassroots views on the Amnesty Act.

After more than twelve years in force, Uganda discontinued blanket amnesty for reporters on 25 May 2012 by allowing Part 2 of the Amnesty Act of 2000 to lapse. The continued relevance of Uganda’s Amnesty Act had been fiercely debated in recent months in high-level discussions between government and civil society, with many asking, “What should be the future of the Amnesty Act?”

Recognizing the absence of grassroots voices in many of these debates, especially from a gendered perspective, JRP carried out a series of consultations from 21-27 March 2012 in conflict-affected regions of northern Uganda — including West Nile, Lango, Acholi and Teso — to discern the views of those most directly impacted by and benefiting from the Act on its role, achievements and continued relevance. The consultations unveiled mixed views at the grassroots level on the past and present relevance and equity of the Act, yet reached overwhelming general consensus for the renewal of the Act with amendments. Following the government’s decision to abolish amnesty, this brief seeks to contribute to the ongoing consultative and policy-making process to integrate elements of conditional amnesty into a national TJ policy.

Please visit http://justiceandreconciliation.com/2012/06/who-forgives-whom-northern-ugandas-grassroots-views-on-the-amnesty-act/ to read the full briefing.

For comments or questions, please write to info@justiceandreconciliation.com.

Amnesty consultations Barlonyo

Who Forgives Whom? Northern Uganda’s Grassroots Views on the Amnesty Act

Statements & Briefs, , , ,

JRP Amnesty Policy Brief CoverTo read the full briefing, click here.

Overview
After more than twelve years in force, Uganda discontinued ‘blanket’ amnesty for reporters on 25 May 2012 by allowing Part 2 of the Amnesty Act of 2000 to lapse. With positive developments in the creation of a transitional justice (TJ) framework and a shifting of the armed conflict to neighboring countries, the continued relevance of Uganda’s Amnesty Act of 2000 had been fiercely debated in recent months in high-level discussions between government and civil society, with many asking, “What should be the future of the Amnesty Act?”

Recognizing the absence of greater North grassroots voices in many of these debates, especially from a gendered perspective, the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) carried out a series of consultations from 21-27 March 2012 in conflict-affected regions of northern Uganda—including West Nile, Lango, Acholi and Teso—to discern the views of those most directly impacted by and benefitting from the Act on its role, achievements and continued relevance. As subsequent sections of this paper reveal, the consultations unveiled mixed views at the grassroots level on the past and present relevance and equity of the Act, yet reached overwhelming general consensus for the renewal of the Act with amendments. Such amendments were seen to better address the justice needs of both victims and perpetrators, while ensuring the sustainability of an already fragile peace.

Draft versions of this brief were circulated prior to the Act’s expiration to inform the Justice, Law and Order Sector’s (JLOS) decision to abolish, renew or renew with amendments Uganda’s Amnesty Act. However, with the JLOS Leadership Committee’s subsequent decision to abolish amnesty, this brief seeks to contribute to the Government of Uganda’s ongoing consultative and policy-making process to integrate elements of conditional amnesty into a national TJ policy.

To read the full briefing, click here.

Published with financial support from UNWOMEN under the Women’s Access to Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict in Uganda Programme.

Disclaimer: The views represented in this brief do not necessarily represent the views of UN Women.

JRP Abia Community Theatre Performance 28Sept2011

Video, , , , , , ,

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BN7WO-kDcI’]

On September 28, 2011, the Abia Children for Peace, Restoration and Reconciliation Club at Abia Primary School presented a community theatre performance on the 2004 Abia massacre and its impact on children and youth. This performance was supported by the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) under the Community Mobilization department’s theatre programme, which aims to empower conflict-affected persons and groups to use theatre as a medium for generating community discussions on seeking justice and reconciliation after conflict. The drama’s theme and script were entirely drafted by the actors.

©Justice and Reconciliation Project 2012

Voices Iss1 2012 cover

Voices Magazine Issue 1, 2012 (Amnesty)

Newsletters & Magazines, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

New video of the Attiak massacre memorial prayers

Blog, , , , , , , ,

As part of our objective to preserve memory of conflict-affected communities through documentation, JRP’s Community Documentation department has produced video coverage of the 17th annual Attiak massacre memorial prayers, which took place on April 20th. The footage has been divided into two parts, with both available below, here and on our YouTube page: JRPUganda.

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoaY28XUxpg’] [yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4lpjfoN8rA&feature=relmfu’]

The prayers were attended by the President of Uganda, H.E. Yoweri Museveni, and the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Jacob Oulanyah. Immediately following a performance by the Attiak Massacre Survivors Association, President Museveni delivered 400,000 Ugandan shillings in cash to the association. During his speech, he further pledged 50 million Ugandan shillings ($20,000 USD) to the group.

While we welcome this acknowledgment of need for the victims in Attiak, the President’s actions further demonstrate the urgency for a comprehensive, transparent reparations policy and programme for all victims of conflict in Uganda. For more information on our recommendations for reparations, please see our policy brief, “Pay Us so We Can Forget: Reparations for Victims and Affected Communities in Northern Uganda.”

For more information on the 1995 Attiak massacre, please see our field note, Remembering the Atiak Massacre.

Attiak Massacre Memorial Prayers 04/20/2012, Parts 1 & 2

Video, , , , , , , ,

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoaY28XUxpg&feature=youtu.be’]

Part 1 of footage of the 17th annual Attiak Massacre Memorial Prayers in Attiak, northern Uganda on April 20, 2012. Filmed by the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP).

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4lpjfoN8rA&feature=relmfu’]

Part 2 of footage of the 17th annual Attiak Massacre Memorial Prayers in Attiak, northern Uganda on April 20, 2012. Filmed by the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP).

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

In the News, , , , , ,

“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 14th 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.