Former LRA commander Thomas Kwoyelo pleads not guilty to all charges

Former Lord’s Resistance Army warlord- Thomas Kwoyelo has denied the 93 charges brought against him by the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) in Uganda. Kwoyelo appeared before the International Crimes Division (ICD) of the High Court of Uganda sitting at the Court in Gulu on Monday 12, and Tuesday 13, November for mention of charges and plea taking. While responding to charges being read by the ICD registrar Harriet Ssali, Kwoyelo said, “I have heard and understood the charge…I did not do it and I don’t know anything about it.” The proceedings attracted a number of people including the Civil Society, and the general public.

Kwoyelo is facing 93 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity confirmed by the pre-trial judge on August 30 thereby paving way for the main trial to open on September 24, 2018 but it was cut short due to defense objections that the accused was not fully aware of the charges against him due to a poorly translated indictment to the accused. The trial panel was forced to adjourn reading of charges and plea taking to November 12 in order to give time for proper translation to Kwoyelo in Acholi language. The charges result from his alleged role as a top LRA commander during the war in northern Uganda. He has been in detention since the Ugandan army captured him in 2008, and his trial has progressed at a slow pace.

All the charges against Kwoyelo were brought under Customary International Law common to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Penal Code Act. In the indictment, prosecution alleges that the accused and others still at large commanded and took part in several violations of the law despite being aware of the outcomes of such acts and the law that protect the victims of such acts. The charges include pillaging, murder, torture, rape, outrages upon personal dignity and other war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Pabbo during the conflict in Northern Uganda.

Meanwhile during reading of charges, the defense objected redacted disclosure by the prosecution. The prosecution used codes such as C1, C2, C3 while referring to certain persons as a means of witness protection but Defense Lawyer Caleb Alaka argued that for the accused to plead, all aspects in a charge must be sufficiently understood. “The particulars in the charge sheet must be sufficient to answer…who is C4? If we can’t understand, he can’t understand,” added Opwonya another defense lawyer.

In response to this matter, prosecution lawyer William Byansi insisted that coding of victims was done in accordance with the law i.e. ICD rule 22 (2) of 2016 which provides for redacted disclosure, delayed disclosure and non-disclosure. “It was the only way to protect some of the most vulnerable witnesses since the trial had not yet begun…full disclosure will be done at a later date.” Byansi further insisted that security of vulnerable witnesses is still an issue and there is no other form of protection other than not disclosing their identity, he further mentioned that the scope of disclosure was not properly defined during pretrial.

Legal representatives of victims on their part held that it was almost impossible to know whether the coded victims have a dual status [witnesses and victims at the same time]. “It might not be beneficial to disclose at this point, but the question is, at what point will the court allow disclosure,” said Henry Kilama. He also emphasized that in absence of protective measures, thorough assessment must be done before disclosing identities. “Court should be guided by rules 21, 22 (3) (6) (7) of the ICD rules,” Henry Kilama a victims lawyer argued.

This matter prompted the trial panel to adjourn the session for 20 minutes so as to resolve the matter. When proceedings resumed the defense counsel allowed plea taking to go on by stating that, “The prosecution has consulted the accused and done restricted disclosure…they explained to him in details…we are ready to proceed,” Dalton Opwonya said.

Plea taking ended on November 13, and the matter was adjourned to February 4, 2019 for the prosecution to make their opening statement. The next item is bail application hearing set to take place on November 15.