Isaac Okwir Odiya

In the West Nile sub-region of Uganda, as may be the case in other parts of Uganda and the rest of the world, former combatants of a rebel movement and members of the very community to whom crimes were perpetrated are living a parallel lives. West Nile experienced rebel activities of the Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRF) I and II which was characterised by the looting of civilians’ properties and killings, displacement and abduction among others. The rebel group is claimed to have started as a protest against bad government policies and unfair treatment to people of West Nile. Through peace negotiation, the Government of Uganda and the rebel group signed a peace agreement which returned the rebels back home. The rebels of UNRF I and II were pardoned by the Government after denouncing war and were resettled to their respective communities.

Community outreaches are one of Community Mobilisation’s core activities and helps to engage conflict affected communities to disseminate and discuss transitional justice issues in their communities. In 2012, we engaged community members of Lefori Sub-county, Moyo District in a community dialogue to discuss with them post conflict challenges and opportunity for reconciliation within their region. The dialogue was attended by former rebels of UNRF I and II and members of the community who suffered the brunt of the two rebels groups. The discussion presented a parameter of co-existence between former rebels and other members of the community characterised by victims’ grievances on towards the former rebels for the atrocities imposed onto them.

Victims claim that the rebels looted their properties, killed their spouses, disrupted the education of their children and displaced their communities. Because of this they are not able to provide basic requirements to their families. They also claim that the Government has pardoned and resettled people who perpetuated crimes against them, forgetting the losses they incurred. To them, the former rebels have been well resettled and the Government has pledged to give them more resettlement packages despite the atrocities they committed on the civilians. Victims are living a parallel life with former rebels whom they claim are the source of their suffering and state of helplessness. They hold former rebels responsible and want them to account for their losses.

On the other hand, the former rebels of UNRF I and II claim that they went to the bush in demand for their rights which were being violated by the Government of Uganda and while in the bush, they did everything possible to attract the attention of the Government to listen to them. The Government responded to their plea in a round table discussion during which Government delegates pledged to better their condition of living if they denounce war which they did and reported back home. They claim that the Government promised to pay them resettlement packages to start a new life but this promise has never been fulfilled. Just like victims are holding former rebels accountable for the losses they met during the war, former rebels are aggrieved towards the Government of Uganda for returning them home empty handed and not fulfilling their pledge.

To the former rebels victims fail to understand their point of view, blame them for wrongs committed during the conflict and as such have not fully accepted them in the community. Victims are disassociating them from development opportunities in the area and are not cooperating with them in community social events. All sorts of continuing evils and criminal acts in the community are blamed on them. Having been failed by the Government to properly resettle them into the community and following all sorts of accusation and abuses by members of the community, ex-combatant thinks they have been pardoned for easy prosecution at a later time.

In this context therefore, it is important to note that the principle of accountability for crimes committed during conflict and the needs for reconciliation are fundamental in a post conflict situation. The parallel life between ex-combatants and victims in West Nile is a result of lack of accountability and a mechanism to foster reconciliation in the region. The resettlement of former rebel into their communities was not systematic and instead should have been used to help to foster social acceptance and reconcile victims and former rebels in as far as their needs are concerns thus the approach used did not address the future justice needs of victims and ex-combatants. The resettlement of ex-combatants lacked the involvement of community members by way of participating in the peace process which is why the ex-combatants are not easily accepted home. This would have helped to connect members of the community with former rebels during resettlement and own the process of resettling former rebels back home.

To address the injustices causing pain among victims and ex-combatants, accountability should be made through a dialogue meeting in which apologies should be made to victims for the crime committed onto them. This would foster social acceptance of ex-combatants by way of forgiveness and enhance a mutual co-existence among members of the parties. The return of former rebels has promoted political stability with marked end of atrocities on the civilians in the region but what is required to be done is addressing obstacle to mutual co-existence after resettlement. Therefore stakeholders in peace making and conflict resolution should pay close attention to dialogue to reconcile victims of rebels’ atrocities and former rebels in West Nile. 

Evelyn Akullo Otwili

IN THE COURSE of the conflict in northern Uganda serious crimes of concern to Ugandans as a whole – particularly regular use of torture, murder, abductions and forceful displacement – were perpetuated against civilian populations in places like Palabek, Burcoro, Lukome, Awach, Alero, Acholi Bur, Purongo, and Namukora  in the 1990’s not only by LRA but also by State Actors. As early as the 1990’s, Amnesty International reported inhumane acts by the then National Resistance Army (NRA). A particularly serious set of human rights violations are reported by a several sources to have taken place between 16 and 18 April 1991 in Paicho Sub-County in Gulu District. On these dates people from villages around Burcoro were brought to a temporary NRA camp at Burcoro primary school for “screening”. NRA soldiers rounding people up are alleged to have done so in a violent manner, beating some of those held (see ‘Uganda: Human rights violations by the National Resistance Army’. Amnesty International. December, 1991). There were also reports of rape, torture and extrajudicial execution. JRP in its work has also come up with similar report on Palabek (see ‘When A Gunman Speaks, You Must Listen’, JRP Field Note XV, August 2012) and Mukura. These treatments of civilians were not only inhumane but seem to portray a pattern of consistent human rights violation across northern Uganda, leaving the people with very many unanswered questions.

In Palabek, charges are yet to be brought on Captain Abiriga. To date, not only has his identity remained a mystery but also the silence surrounding this man and his atrocities in Palabek is unbecoming. While documenting the experiences of the victims in Palabek, we discovered that most of the tortures, beatings, rapes and killings by the NRA soldiers in Palabek in the early 1990’s happened under the mastership of Captain  Abiriga. All the available options seem to exonerate him – he can’t be tried in the ICD nor the ICC. Other than the sound in his name, nothing much seems to be known about him. Should we now say he goes unpunished? The victims feel otherwise.

In Burcoro a similar situation, where countless rape episodes, torture, killings by suffocation, abductions and loot were carried out by the 22nd Battalion of the NRA, allegedly under the command of Ikondere. Much as this was 1991, the brutality and cruelty that these soldiers displayed on unarmed civilians can only be compared to the ravage of beasts. Much as the hurts and ruins inflicted upon this population still stand out up to today, nothing much has been done to hold the perpetrators of these crimes accountable. Time and again some individuals have attempted to explain that these were a “bunch of foolish boys who went on rampage”. Do we believe that? Do the victims believe that? Shall we ever travel that road to bring justice? It remains nothing but a road less traveled.

 What has been done to remedy these rights violations? Have these NRA commanders ever been held accountable or silently rewarded and promoted? Where are they? Shall we ever travel that road which will see us hold these people accountable and bring justice to the victims in Palabek, Burcoro, Lukome, Awach, Namukora, Mucwini and even Mukura? For the two decades that open violence raged some of those questions were too hard to be asked or the road was too ‘bushy’ to be traveled. A lot of the politicians who drummed this cry such as Zacary Olum, Andrew Adimola and Teberio Atwoma found themselves tortured and imprisoned for allegedly ‘using government fund to wrongly mobilise the masses’ according to Amnesty International. It became extremely difficult for anyone to stand up against this brutal violence lest the same happen to them. When the ‘serious’ Juba peace talk of 2008 finally came, many civilian populations expected part of these questions to be answered. Unfortunately these questions remained more mysterious and eluded all tangible possible answers.

Yes, peace has returned to the region but the question of accountability and possible prosecution of state actors especially has eluded the victims and northern Uganda as a whole.

Instead of providing a viable solution, the Juba Peace Agreement called for the handling of State Actors through other methods such as Court Martial. This has created frustration for the victims in some of the places aforementioned, who bore the wrath of these state actors. None of them can concretely say a court of this nature has happened in relation to their specific sufferings. Many feel that even if there were to be such a court, its outcome would always remain unpredictable because not only are their proceedings closed to the public but they are more often than not conducted by the army leadership. Victim participation in these courts is also unheard of. This makes them feel that the road to hold state actors accountable is yet to be traveled.

Which road should victims travel?

As noted from the experiences of these communities, most of the crimes committed by the NRA were crimes before 2002. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court only allows the Court to deal with crimes committed after the 1st of July 2002. Therefore, while peace is here and recovery is underway, where will accountability of State Actors be? Not with the ICC of course.

Can the victims travel the road of the International Crimes Division (ICD) of the High Court – formed as a result of the negotiations between the Government of Uganda and the LRA for trying LRA leaders in Uganda? As much as this would have been another viable option, the timing of the violations makes it less traveled as well.

As I conclude, there is need for state actors to be held accountable in other fora other than the court martial and this can only happen when there is a political will for it. 

Lino Owor Ogora

AS NORTHERN UGANDA continues on its road to recovery, complex questions remain unanswered regarding how perpetrators who committed crimes during the conflict can be held accountable. One of these complicated questions is how to hold accountable individuals who bear dual victim-perpetrator identities. Another key question is whether or not amnesty should be granted to former perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Debates on reparations, and what forms it will take, also continue to dominate the post-conflict discourse in northern Uganda. Then there is the question of how to hold state perpetrators accountable and finally, what options can be pursued as alternatives to prosecutions. The ongoing trial of Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo before Uganda’s International Crimes Division (ICD) offers a case study of how the pursuit of justice in northern Uganda is complicated by various factors.

 Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo is the first senior commander of the LRA to be subjected to trial in Uganda’s International Crimes Division (ICD) court. He was born around 1972 to Oyella Roselina from Gaya Parubanga in Pabo and the late Jokodino Omona Opototap from Cici clan in Pogo. He was the fourth child out of eleven children of which only seven (three boys and four girls) survived, with the other four dying in their infancy. In line with his paternal lineage, Kwoyelo’s ancestry is traced to the Cici clan, who mostly hail from Acut-Cama village, Pogo parish, Pabo sub-county in present-day Amuru District, northern Uganda. He is said to have been abducted by the LRA in 1987 and carried off into captivity where he was trained into a soldier. Over the years, he rose through the ranks and eventually became one of the high ranking LRA commanders. In February 2009 he was captured by the UPDF and detained for a few months before being presented in court in July 2009.

On 11 July 2011, he appeared before the ICD charged with 12 substantive counts and 53 alternative counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity to which he pleaded not guilty. His defense lawyers then raised a preliminary objection concerning the question of whether or not Kwoyelo was entitled to amnesty. The question of amnesty sparked off a succession of court battles between the prosecution and the defense team, culminating in a referral of the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which is yet to make a ruling on this matter. Clause 3 of 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.”

On 25 May 2012, Part 2 of this Act, regarding the awarding of Amnesty expired. Despite the fact that there will be no more granting of amnesty to future reporters, the case of Thomas Kwoyelo may have established a precedent for future cases that could come up for trial before the ICD. In the absence of official granting of amnesty, questions will remain regarding which perpetrators qualify for prosecution before the ICD and which perpetrators need to be handled through other alternative justice mechanisms such as traditional justice.

In addition, the fate of adult commanders of the LRA who were abducted as children and turned into the perpetrators they are today has been a topic of substantial discussion. People like Kwoyelo carry dual identities in which they can be labeled victims and perpetrators at the same time. Having been abducted while young and vulnerable, Kwoyelo was a victim. Having committed crimes after the age of 18 years, Kwoyelo should take responsibility for his actions. On the other hand, any human rights activists and proponents of accountability proceedings frequently insist that on becoming adults, such individuals need to take full responsibility for their actions. The dual victim-perpetrator identity presents a dilemma which needs to be solved when handling future perpetrators of the LRA.

As the ICD goes about its mission of ending impunity in Uganda, discussions on reparations must not be left out. According to the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, victims of gross and serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law are entitled to reparations for harm suffered. Some generally accepted forms of reparations include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. These reparations may be delivered materially or symbolically, and individually or collectively. For the ICD to truly serve the interests of victims in northern Uganda, reparations must be integrated into the trial process, regardless of trial outcomes. A comprehensive reparations programme by the Government, implemented in conjunction with the ICD, can go a long way in delivering justice to victims of conflict in northern Uganda.

Furthermore, another complex question is how to hold all perpetrators of crimes accountable. 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 against the civilian population. The Juba agreement, however, does not subject state actors or the UPDF in this instance, to prosecution in special courts such as the ICD which were created as a result of the peace negotiations. This is why many people in northern Uganda will continue reiterating their call for prosecution of state actors within the ICD.

Finally, the case of Thomas Kwoyelo also points to the fact that the time has perhaps come to consider options for using alternative justice mechanisms. This would include the use of traditional justice mechanisms to promote reconciliation, truth-seeking and healing between Kwoyelo’s clan and that of his victims. Many representatives of civil society organizations on the ground have advocated for the use of traditional ceremonies to rehabilitate Kwoyelo. Many local residents of Pabo pointed out that after the community is sensitized and ready to receive Kwoyelo back, traditional rituals will be necessary for reconciliation and rehabilitation. However, respondents also had reservations about traditional justice, specifically regarding the fact that ceremonies like mato oput might not be appropriate for Kwoyelo’s situation. Mato oput requires the participation of the perpetrator’s clan as well as clan members of the victim. Nevertheless, Kwoyelo’s trial demonstrated that court prosecution alone may not be the answer to holding perpetrators of crimes accountable. In the event that trials end in a stalemate or cases against perpetrators are dismissed, there is need to promote reconciliation and healing between perpetrators and victims on the ground. Alternative mechanisms are best suited for this.

 In conclusion, questions will remain pending regarding how to go about pursuing justice in northern Uganda. As demonstrated by the trial of Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo, these questions are complex, and will require an enormous amount of work before appropriate solutions are found. 

Dear Readers,

In this edition of Voices magazine we take a look at accountability for gross human rights violations. The contributions in this issue explore the local context of justice and suggest that Ugandans are at a dilemma when it comes to justice for crimes committed during the conflict in northern Uganda. A one size fits all approach doesn’t necessarily apply to victims of conflict.

At JRP, we believe that a bottom to top approach to accountability is the best solution for communities decimated by conflict. We have learnt from the experiences of other countries that transitional justice interventions, ranging from truth commissions, international and national trials, reparations and security sector reforms have helped societies move beyond the past. And yet despite this, in some places such interventions, no matter how well meaning they may be, have made very little difference in the lives of ordinary people.

For more than 20 years, northern Uganda was home to numerous rebellions against the Government of Uganda – most notably the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony. In 2000, an amnesty law was enacted in an attempt to put an end to the bloodshed. The Amnesty Act introduced a simple, non-onerous procedure by which people previously involved in rebellion could renounce violence and return to the community.

To date, tens of thousands of former combatants have returned, taking advantage of government amnesty. Some of the most senior commanders live under the protection and support of the government in military barracks away from the community who suffered violence they perpetuated. The majority, however, have found themselves returning and living side by side with those communities. There, they must co-exist with the very persons against whom they committed atrocities. Many have also opted to join the military, seeing no future for themselves within the community.

Adding to this tension is the fact that the war is not yet over. Kony and his senior commanders remain at large and are on the run causing mayhem in neighboring countries; abducting new children and training them. How do we address the problems that will arise when thousands of ex-combatants return to villages and seek to live alongside victims of the conflict? 

Many people have pointed to prosecution. Ugandans needs no reminder that the intervention of the ICC remains controversial. It is argued that the indictments pushed the LRA to the negotiation table, but on the other hand, the indictments have arguably made negotiations with the LRA more difficult, because Joseph Kony declared that he will not surrender until the ICC indictments are lifted. This stance continues to make many in the North view the ICC as an obstacle to peace —at least in the short term – given the military operations in the region. We are also reminded that punitive approaches alone are limited in their ability to address the complex situation in northern Uganda.

A narrow, punishment-oriented definition of justice is deeply problematic as it does not take into account the political and social dynamics of the conflict or peace building. Paying too much attention to the prosecution of perpetrators may cause one to disregard the pattern of abduction and use of extreme violence used by the LRA to force the will of its commanders. It also does not take into account the widely held view of northern Ugandans that their society as a whole is the collective victim of historical injustice: It does not, for example, take into account the longstanding injustices perpetrated by  the government (such as those in Corner Kilak and Mukura, to mention but a few).

The major concern, therefore, is that a punitive approach to accountability leads to a narrow solution which has the potential to skew our pursuit for justice. Where do we draw the line between the victim and the perpetrator? Many of the articles in this magazine attest to these and other the challenges of accountability and prosecution in northern Uganda.

I wish to thank every contributor and members of JRP staff for this month’s publications. 

Boniface Ojok,

Programme Coordinator