Tag Archives: northern Uganda

Voices Iss1 2012 cover

Introducing JRP’s Voices Magazine (Issue 1 – Amnesty)

Blog, , , , , , ,

Voices Iss1 2012 cover

Cover of the first edition of JRP’s Voices magazine

Click here to view the full issue.

JRP is pleased to announce the release of its latest quarterly publication, Voices magazine. Our 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.

We hope to hear from you on what you think of this first issue. To share your comments, please write to info@justiceandreconciliation.com or SMS +256(0)783300103. Your comments might just appear in the next edition!

We also welcome article submissions of no more than 1,500 words for future issues. The next issue will focus on reparations for victims of conflict.

Click here to view the full issue.

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

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.

“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.

Mato Oput in Acholi

Pending Questions Regarding Traditional Justice

Blog, , , ,

Today marks the beginning of regular posts from JRP team leaders. This was written by Documentation Team Leader, Lino Owor Ogora. For comments or questions related to the post, please email ogoralino(at)gmail.com or follow the instructions at the bottom of the post.

——————————————————–

Mato Oput in Acholi
A mato oput ceremony in Acholi-land

Today I am concluding a regional consultation organized by the Northern Uganda Transitional Justice Working Group (NUTJWG) on traditional justice in northern Uganda. The consultations were held in the four sub-regions of Teso, Lango, West Nile, and Acholi.

Since the Juba Peace Talks were held between 2006 and 2008, northern Uganda has grappled with the question of how to use alternative justice mechanisms, and in particular traditional justice, for reconciliation and accountability. However, almost four years after the close of these talks, questions remain pending around traditional justice that are not answered. They include questions such as the following:

 

  1. How should traditional justice and formal justice mechanisms complement each other?
  2. How should accountability be pursued within traditional justice mechanisms? Or are traditional justice mechanisms punitive enough?
  3. What is the role of women?
  4. How can capacity of traditional institutions be built to handle traditional justice mechanisms?
  5. How can traditional justice mechanisms be funded?

If anyone has answers to some of these questions or wishes to engage in a discussion on the role of traditional justice, leave a comment on the JRP Facebook page or tweet to us on Twitter at @JRP_Uganda using the hashtag #traditionaljustice.

 

Barlonyo vigil

Victims from northern Uganda attend Barlonyo prayers in solidarity

Blog, , ,

Barlonyo vigil

From 20-22 February 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 8th annual memorial prayers and candlelight vigil for the 2004 Barlonyo massacre. Afterwards, they met for a 1-day learning and exchange visit to share experiences (both personal and group) and set a way forward that will enhance and unite victim-led advocacy for transitional justice in Uganda.

Photos from the 3 days are available here, with a video advocacy documentary coming soon.

Barlonyo vigil

Barlonyo Prayers & Victim Exchange 20-22Feb2012

Photos, , , ,

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’]

“The Kwoyelo Trial: A Final(?) Roundup,” Justice in Conflict, 13 February 2012

In the News, , ,

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.