It has been over two months since the trial of Dominic Ongwen started at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the Netherlands. Once a commander in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), Ongwen is charged with 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the former Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok in northern Uganda. His trial began on December 6, 2016, with opening statements from the ICC prosecutor and lawyers representing victims in the case. On January 16, the main phase of the trial commenced with the prosecution presenting its first witness. On February 3, Presiding Judge Bertram Schmitt announced that the court would take a three weeks’ break with trial proceedings resuming on February 27.
This article presents a brief summary of perceptions and opinions from people in northern Uganda based on what has transpired in the three weeks of witness testimony. It is based on consultations with 20 community members, civil society organization (CSO) representatives, and local leaders in northern Uganda regarding their impression about the trial thus far. The questions posed to them specifically rotated around four areas: if they had been following the trial or not; what they thought about the progress made so far; if they thought that the trial was on the right track; and any other general thoughts and recommendations they had.
The majority of the people who were consulted said they had been following the trial, although they also admitted they had not been doing so on a full-time basis. They cited reasons ranging from inability to access internet connectivity for viewing the trial, to being too pre-occupied with other matters. Five out of the 20 people consulted were straightforward in saying they had not been following the trial at all.
The overall majority of those consulted thought the trial was proceeding well. One community member commended the ICC for having got the trial underway on time. In his words, “The ICC has done a good job in ensuring that Ongwen’s trial starts on time. If you compare with the trial of [Thomas] Kwoyelo [the former LRA commander currently on trial in Uganda], which has stalled since 2008 then you can clearly see that the ICC is more effective than our Ugandan courts.”
Other people thought the prosecution was doing a good job. Susan, a lawyer and CSO representative said, “So far, so good. The prosecution is presenting its case well with strong evidence. I am optimistic that the trial will go well.”
Patrick, another CSO representative said, “The prosecution has presented its evidence well so far, but it is too early to tell whether it will be enough. We need to wait and see how Ongwen’s defense lawyers will argue.”
According to Gibson, a community member from Lukodi, “The narrative about what happened during the attack on our village and other places is being presented well by the prosecution, which is a sign that the court is dealing with the truth.”
Despite a general consensus that the trial was proceeding well, some people expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s first expert witness to testify. Tim Allen, a professor at the London School of Economics, testified on January 16 about a report he wrote for the prosecution explaining how the conflict in northern Uganda began and the LRA’s role in that conflict. Allen was called as an expert witness because he has been researching the LRA and northern Uganda since the 1980s. Some people felt he was not the ideal witness based on the fact that his knowledge of the conflict is theoretical and research based. Many people claimed they were hearing about him for the first time.
In the words of Eli, a CSO representative, “The trial is turning out to be artificial because how do you call a professor from London to testify in a trial where he has not experienced even a hint of the suffering that people went through. I will not be surprised if this professor has never stepped in northern Uganda. If he has, then it was probably for research purposes. This makes the trial look artificial. I do not think the ICC could fail to get an expert from northern Uganda who has also physically experienced the conflict.”
Susan agreed with Eli by saying, “There is a disconnect between witnesses and victims on the ground. I do not think a foreign researcher who has been to Uganda only for purposes of research would be the ideal witness.”
An issue of concern expressed by almost everyone I spoke to was the slow pace at which the trial was progressing. Almost all the people who had been following the trial thought it was proceeding too slowly for their liking. For example while expressing optimism about the prosecution’s efficiency, Susan was also quick note that, “The trial is progressing too slowly. I understand that the prosecution intends to call over 60 witnesses. But at the current pace the trial will drag through the next five years. I noticed that the first expert witness [Tim Allen] took up an entire two days just to describe the background of the conflict in northern Uganda. While it is important that the evidence is presented in detail, time should also be managed,” she said.
Joyce Sebit, the director of a CSO called Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative noted that, “The trial is taking too long. The communities are grumbling that the speed at which the trial is proceeding is not good enough. They are saying that the trial should be finished quickly so that communities rest.”
Joyce’s opinion was shared by Eli who noted that, “A delay in finalizing the trial means a delay in effecting reparations for the victims. Many people are saying that the trial is delaying and they just want the trial to end so that they can be compensated, but this cannot take place until the trial is finished. The delay, therefore, does not correspond to their sense of justice.”
Gibson from Lukodi was not happy about the speed at which the trial is progressing. “The court [ICC] is delaying. If possible they should at least provide assistance to the victims as we wait for the verdict. Some of the victims are dying off, while others are being reminded of what happened as the trial progresses.”
Fred, another CSO representative noted that, “The community members do not understand the cause of the delay, and this is reducing their interest in following the proceedings, while increasing their mistrust in the court.”
It should be noted that the Trust Fund for Victims has had ongoing projects in northern Uganda, although their reach is limited and not specific to victims in the Ongwen trial. Furthermore, despite the fact that the ICC outreach team in Uganda has repeatedly explained to victims and communities in northern Uganda that the trial would be prolonged; complaints about the slow pace at which the trial was progressing were repeated by respondents. The speed of the trial will likely remain a difficult point for victims to accept for the duration of the trial.
There are still many people who strongly believe that Ongwen deserves forgiveness based on the unique circumstances surrounding his abduction and role in the LRA. These opinions emerged during their assessment of the trial so far. Bishop Macleod Baker Ochola, the retired Bishop of Kitgum Diocese in northern Uganda said, “I cannot provide an assessment of a trial which in my opinion is not right. If Ongwen was abducted then he is a victim of circumstances. His humanity was destroyed and he became a killing machine. He is like a tree that was planted inside a dark house. Such a tree will never be the same as other trees. In saying Ongwen should be tried, the world is worse than the LRA that committed the atrocities in northern Uganda.”
Patrick agreed with Bishop Ochola by saying, “While Ongwen should not be completely exonerated of all guilt, the circumstances of his abduction should be taken into consideration by the prosecution.”
In the opinion of Joyce, “The ICC judges need to be careful when passing judgment because people in the communities still have mixed reactions about whether Ongwen should be punished not. Their opinions are not harmonized”.
Eli noted that, “People in the communities are reacting differently to the trial of Ongwen because they have different perspectives on what justice means. Some people still feel Ongwen should not be tried. Others think he should tried at home in Uganda.”
In line with Eli’s last comments, three other people expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the court was being held far away in The Hague, a factor which they felt did not allow victims to participate effectively. James, a CSO representative from Teso pleaded that, “At least one session of the trial should be held in Uganda. We don’t mind if all the rest are held in The Hague.”
Bernard, another CSO represented noted that, “Some people feel like they should have attended in person, but unfortunately they cannot because of the distance.”
The ICC declined to hold the confirmation of charges proceedings and opening statements of the trial in northern Uganda, notwithstanding recommendations from lawyers in case. However, in the latter decision, judges were open to the idea of a judicial site visit at a later stage of the proceedings.
Despite the slow pace at which witnesses are being examined and the mixed reactions regarding whether or not Ongwen should be on trial, many people overall believed that the trial was proceeding well as demonstrated by the above opinions. Ongwen’s trial resumes on Monday, February 27. It remains to be seen how the people of northern Uganda will react to the trial of Ongwen in the long run.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Thursday, 23 February 2017
Relatives in Coorom Say Ongwen Deserves Forgiveness
Approximately 40 kilometers north of Gulu town lies the little village of Coorom, located in Lamogi Sub-County, Amuru District, Uganda. Coorom is the home of Dominic Ongwen, the former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) who is currently on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the Netherlands.
Prior to the capture Ongwen in 2015, Coorom was just another quiet and tranquil village in post-conflict northern Uganda, struggling to re-establish itself after many years of fighting. However, after the capture of Ongwen, Coorom has risen to prominence, attracting researchers and transitional justice practitioners. In addition, since the trial of Ongwen started in December 2016, the ICC field office in Uganda has ensured that trial proceedings are screened to the residents of Coorom. Given that Coorom is largely inhabited by Ongwen’s kinsmen, this move by the ICC has attracted criticism from some people, especially those who consider themselves victims of Ongwen’s alleged crimes. This criticism is even more pronounced given that many people in Coorom that I spoke to think Ongwen deserves to be forgiven.
Asked why the court decided to conduct outreach in Coorom, Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC field outreach coordinator for Kenya and Uganda explained, “In addition to ensuring that victims and affected communities that fall within the scope of the case are provided adequate information and access to the proceedings against Dominic Ongwen, the outreach program also makes efforts to reach out to supporters or sympathizer communities and groups that show huge interest in following the proceedings. Coorom, being the birth place of Ongwen is therefore a community that has to see ’justice in motion’ – the conduct of a fair and transparent trial in a manner that guarantees due respect to the rights of all the parties and participants in the proceedings.”
The people of Coorom seem to be happy with this move by the ICC. “If anyone told me that Ongwen was so well dressed and can even take notes, I would have dismissed that as a lie. Now I see, therefore I believe,’’ said another community leader during one of the screening sessions.
I traveled to Coorom in late January to have a direct interaction with the residents there. While many of the people I interacted with were happy to be following the proceedings as a result of the initiative by the ICC, many were also direct and straightforward in voicing their opinion that Ongwen should be forgiven.
Just before I arrived in Coorom, I stopped at a large trading center called Olwal and approached a group of three youthful bodaboda (motorcycle) taxi riders who were seated by the roadside, greeted them, introduced myself, and engaged them in a friendly chat. One of the young men who identified himself as Robinson told me they had heard of the trial of Ongwen but had not had time to attend any of the community screening events being organized by the ICC field office. I asked them why, and one of his other colleagues called Godfrey told me they were too busy working to attend the trial. Another young man called Alfred who had joined us said he had been following the proceedings on and off through the radio.
We chatted for a while as I updated them about the trial of Ongwen, but there appeared to be little enthusiasm on their part. I then told them I was heading to Coorom to talk to the people there about the trial. In a move that surprised me, they immediately offered to come with me on condition that I would drop them off on my way back. I accepted as this was an opportunity to further chat with them about the trial. They piled into the car and we set off.
After we had driven for about a minute or two in silence, I asked them why they did not seem to be enthusiastic about following the trial of Ongwen.
Robinson, who was seated next to me in the front passenger seat, replied: “This trial is taking place in The Hague, at a very high level. It makes it very difficult for us to follow closely. Many people are also saying that he [Ongwen] is going to lose since he is being tried by a big court [the ICC].” His response attracted a laugh from his two colleagues in the back seat.
I then asked the other two what their opinion about the trial was. Godfrey said, “In my opinion, I think Ongwen should be forgiven because he was acting under orders of people higher than him. I am also told that he was abducted at a young age.”
Alfred concurred with Godfrey by saying, “Ongwen cannot be compared to Joseph Kony who started the war and formed the LRA. I heard that when Ongwen was asked by the judge to respond to the charges against him, he said it was the LRA to blame for all what happened and not him as an individual. I think I agree with him.”
Interestingly, the above opinion was what I would repeatedly hear from many people in Coorom for the next hour I was to spend there. We continued chatting as we drove, and a few minutes later we got to the small trading center that was the village of Ongwen. The trading center itself was so small, with only a few kiosks and huts in sight given that many people lived in the outskirts. It was also deserted with only a few women selling goods in the nearby market.
My arrival did not go unnoticed. I was soon surrounded by a group of youth and a few elderly people. I explained my mission to them and asked if they were comfortable chatting about the trial. No one had any objections, I spent the next hour casually chatting with them and walking around the trading center as I took notes. I narrowed my questions down to asking them their opinion about the ongoing trial of Ongwen and what they thought about the outreach being conducted by the ICC.
Generally, many people I talked to were happy with the live screenings being conducted by the ICC field office. A local leader said, “At least our fears are reduced when we see him in court, alive and healthy.” His opinion concurred with an earlier conversation I had had with Kamara where she had noted that, “They [people of Coorom] feel reassured seeing that Ongwen is well taken care of at the ICC and that he has a lawyer that represents his interests.”
A general consensus, however, seemed to be that Ongwen should be forgiven. The people cited reasons ranging from the fact that he was abducted and forced to fight, to saying he was acting under orders from Joseph Kony, and that he was not the only LRA commander to have committed crimes in northern Uganda.
One young man who identified himself as Jackson told me that “the program [live screening] by the ICC is enabling us to follow what is happening at the court, and we are grateful for that. However, many people are praying that Ongwen wins the case.”
Another young man called Patrick chipped in and said, “Ongwen should be forgiven because he did not join the LRA willingly. He also did not commit the crimes alone.”
I asked them why the majority of the people in Coorom were in favor of having Ongwen forgiven and if there were any people who had expressed a contrary opinion. Jackson replied before anyone else by saying, “Ongwen is our relative and the majority of people here are related to him.” A local leader called Mukora explained more patiently that “the majority of people here say he should be forgiven because he was abducted while young, but there are some few people who say he should be tried and convicted.”
In my short interaction with the few people I met in Coorom, I was not able to come across anyone with a contrary opinion.
I then asked them if they would be comfortable with having Ongwen coming back to live among them in the event that he was acquitted. This attracted mixed reactions, but the majority of people seemed to have no problem with Ongwen returning to live among them. A young man called Owiny replied, “It will be his choice. If he wants to come back and live here we shall welcome him.” Another young man called Patrick said, “I am not sure if Ongwen will want to come back and live in northern Uganda. I am sure he will be afraid because of the crimes he accused of committing. If he chooses to return to Uganda I think he will not stay in northern Uganda.”
I finally asked them how they would react to a guilty verdict given that the majority of the people in Coorom were calling for Ongwen to be forgiven.
The local leader called Mukora replied, “The people should not be saddened by a guilty verdict because that is part of the law. I only pray that people are properly sensitized on why he was convicted then they will accept the verdict.” His opinion was shared by many other people present.
Robinson, my new friend from the trip had the last word saying, “People in Coorom will not be happy with a guilty verdict, however, the law is the law and there is nothing we can do. The people will only need to understand why he had to be convicted. We also pray that if he is convicted they give him a sentence that takes into consideration the fact that he was abducted.”
As the trial of Ongwen continues, the above opinions from the people of Coorom indicate the mixed reactions that people in northern Uganda have had. It is also an indicator of the need for continuous outreach even in the aftermath of the trial. As significantly noted by Kamara, “The screening of the trial in such a community does not only bring the process closer and accessible to interested stakeholders, it’s a conduit that addresses the concerns and fears of such communities, reinforces key messages, thereby dispelling rumours and creating a better understanding of the Court’s judicial procedures.”
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Prior to the capture Ongwen in 2015, Coorom was just another quiet and tranquil village in post-conflict northern Uganda, struggling to re-establish itself after many years of fighting. However, after the capture of Ongwen, Coorom has risen to prominence, attracting researchers and transitional justice practitioners. In addition, since the trial of Ongwen started in December 2016, the ICC field office in Uganda has ensured that trial proceedings are screened to the residents of Coorom. Given that Coorom is largely inhabited by Ongwen’s kinsmen, this move by the ICC has attracted criticism from some people, especially those who consider themselves victims of Ongwen’s alleged crimes. This criticism is even more pronounced given that many people in Coorom that I spoke to think Ongwen deserves to be forgiven.
Asked why the court decided to conduct outreach in Coorom, Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC field outreach coordinator for Kenya and Uganda explained, “In addition to ensuring that victims and affected communities that fall within the scope of the case are provided adequate information and access to the proceedings against Dominic Ongwen, the outreach program also makes efforts to reach out to supporters or sympathizer communities and groups that show huge interest in following the proceedings. Coorom, being the birth place of Ongwen is therefore a community that has to see ’justice in motion’ – the conduct of a fair and transparent trial in a manner that guarantees due respect to the rights of all the parties and participants in the proceedings.”
The people of Coorom seem to be happy with this move by the ICC. “If anyone told me that Ongwen was so well dressed and can even take notes, I would have dismissed that as a lie. Now I see, therefore I believe,’’ said another community leader during one of the screening sessions.
I traveled to Coorom in late January to have a direct interaction with the residents there. While many of the people I interacted with were happy to be following the proceedings as a result of the initiative by the ICC, many were also direct and straightforward in voicing their opinion that Ongwen should be forgiven.
Just before I arrived in Coorom, I stopped at a large trading center called Olwal and approached a group of three youthful bodaboda (motorcycle) taxi riders who were seated by the roadside, greeted them, introduced myself, and engaged them in a friendly chat. One of the young men who identified himself as Robinson told me they had heard of the trial of Ongwen but had not had time to attend any of the community screening events being organized by the ICC field office. I asked them why, and one of his other colleagues called Godfrey told me they were too busy working to attend the trial. Another young man called Alfred who had joined us said he had been following the proceedings on and off through the radio.
We chatted for a while as I updated them about the trial of Ongwen, but there appeared to be little enthusiasm on their part. I then told them I was heading to Coorom to talk to the people there about the trial. In a move that surprised me, they immediately offered to come with me on condition that I would drop them off on my way back. I accepted as this was an opportunity to further chat with them about the trial. They piled into the car and we set off.
After we had driven for about a minute or two in silence, I asked them why they did not seem to be enthusiastic about following the trial of Ongwen.
Robinson, who was seated next to me in the front passenger seat, replied: “This trial is taking place in The Hague, at a very high level. It makes it very difficult for us to follow closely. Many people are also saying that he [Ongwen] is going to lose since he is being tried by a big court [the ICC].” His response attracted a laugh from his two colleagues in the back seat.
I then asked the other two what their opinion about the trial was. Godfrey said, “In my opinion, I think Ongwen should be forgiven because he was acting under orders of people higher than him. I am also told that he was abducted at a young age.”
Alfred concurred with Godfrey by saying, “Ongwen cannot be compared to Joseph Kony who started the war and formed the LRA. I heard that when Ongwen was asked by the judge to respond to the charges against him, he said it was the LRA to blame for all what happened and not him as an individual. I think I agree with him.”
Interestingly, the above opinion was what I would repeatedly hear from many people in Coorom for the next hour I was to spend there. We continued chatting as we drove, and a few minutes later we got to the small trading center that was the village of Ongwen. The trading center itself was so small, with only a few kiosks and huts in sight given that many people lived in the outskirts. It was also deserted with only a few women selling goods in the nearby market.
My arrival did not go unnoticed. I was soon surrounded by a group of youth and a few elderly people. I explained my mission to them and asked if they were comfortable chatting about the trial. No one had any objections, I spent the next hour casually chatting with them and walking around the trading center as I took notes. I narrowed my questions down to asking them their opinion about the ongoing trial of Ongwen and what they thought about the outreach being conducted by the ICC.
Generally, many people I talked to were happy with the live screenings being conducted by the ICC field office. A local leader said, “At least our fears are reduced when we see him in court, alive and healthy.” His opinion concurred with an earlier conversation I had had with Kamara where she had noted that, “They [people of Coorom] feel reassured seeing that Ongwen is well taken care of at the ICC and that he has a lawyer that represents his interests.”
A general consensus, however, seemed to be that Ongwen should be forgiven. The people cited reasons ranging from the fact that he was abducted and forced to fight, to saying he was acting under orders from Joseph Kony, and that he was not the only LRA commander to have committed crimes in northern Uganda.
One young man who identified himself as Jackson told me that “the program [live screening] by the ICC is enabling us to follow what is happening at the court, and we are grateful for that. However, many people are praying that Ongwen wins the case.”
Another young man called Patrick chipped in and said, “Ongwen should be forgiven because he did not join the LRA willingly. He also did not commit the crimes alone.”
I asked them why the majority of the people in Coorom were in favor of having Ongwen forgiven and if there were any people who had expressed a contrary opinion. Jackson replied before anyone else by saying, “Ongwen is our relative and the majority of people here are related to him.” A local leader called Mukora explained more patiently that “the majority of people here say he should be forgiven because he was abducted while young, but there are some few people who say he should be tried and convicted.”
In my short interaction with the few people I met in Coorom, I was not able to come across anyone with a contrary opinion.
I then asked them if they would be comfortable with having Ongwen coming back to live among them in the event that he was acquitted. This attracted mixed reactions, but the majority of people seemed to have no problem with Ongwen returning to live among them. A young man called Owiny replied, “It will be his choice. If he wants to come back and live here we shall welcome him.” Another young man called Patrick said, “I am not sure if Ongwen will want to come back and live in northern Uganda. I am sure he will be afraid because of the crimes he accused of committing. If he chooses to return to Uganda I think he will not stay in northern Uganda.”
I finally asked them how they would react to a guilty verdict given that the majority of the people in Coorom were calling for Ongwen to be forgiven.
The local leader called Mukora replied, “The people should not be saddened by a guilty verdict because that is part of the law. I only pray that people are properly sensitized on why he was convicted then they will accept the verdict.” His opinion was shared by many other people present.
Robinson, my new friend from the trip had the last word saying, “People in Coorom will not be happy with a guilty verdict, however, the law is the law and there is nothing we can do. The people will only need to understand why he had to be convicted. We also pray that if he is convicted they give him a sentence that takes into consideration the fact that he was abducted.”
As the trial of Ongwen continues, the above opinions from the people of Coorom indicate the mixed reactions that people in northern Uganda have had. It is also an indicator of the need for continuous outreach even in the aftermath of the trial. As significantly noted by Kamara, “The screening of the trial in such a community does not only bring the process closer and accessible to interested stakeholders, it’s a conduit that addresses the concerns and fears of such communities, reinforces key messages, thereby dispelling rumours and creating a better understanding of the Court’s judicial procedures.”
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Thursday, 15 December 2016
An ‘Opportunity of a Lifetime’ for Community Leaders from Northern Uganda
On December 6, the trial of Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) started in The Hague. Ongwen is accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in former internally displaced persons’ camps of Odek, Lukodi, Pajule, and Abok, in northern Uganda. Ongwen has been in detention since January 2016 when he surrendered to the Séléka rebels in the Central Africa Republic and was transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to await trial.
To bolster victim participation, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, mobilized and sponsored a delegation of ten community representatives to attend the opening of Ongwen’s trial.
The delegation was led by His Highness Rwot David Onen Acana, the Paramount Chief of Acholi; accompanied by Archbishop John Baptist Odama, the Archbishop of Gulu Archdiocese; Bishop Nelson Onono Onweng, the retired Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Uganda; Ambrose Oola, the Prime Minister of Ker Kwaro Acholi; and myself as the founder and director of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a non-governmental organization based in northern Uganda.
Among the delegation also were five community representatives from Lukodi, Pajule, Abok, and Odek.
As part of the visit, the participants not only had the opportunity to witness the commencement of Ongwen’s trial at the court’s new premises, but also met and exchanged ideas with representatives of the ICC. Meetings were held with the Presidency and Judicial Division, the Office of the Prosecutor, the Registry, as well as the parties and participants involved in the trial of Ongwen.
In a statement issued while in The Hague, the delegation noted that “the case of Dominic Ongwen remains very important to us because it is a milestone in defining one way in the attempt to secure justice and accountability for the people of Northern Uganda, and ultimately to help people reconcile with their past and move towards peace.”
Many people in northern Uganda have on several occasions expressed the importance of ensuring that victims follow proceedings as an important aspect of victim participation. The ICC is the first international criminal justice court in history to allow victims to share their views and concerns during all stages of the proceedings through their legal representatives, which is enshrined in both the Rome Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. It was therefore not surprising when all the community representatives were unanimous in expressing their joy at being able to travel to The Hague for this important occasion.
As Esther, from Pajule noted, “I am privileged to have travelled and confirmed with my own eyes that the ICC in fact exists. I saw Ongwen in the court, and this means we have not been told lies about his trial. Even if not all people were able to come, they have at least been represented by us.”
As Justin from Lukodi community said, “We were able to see Ongwen in the court. We saw that he was well dressed and he was treated with respect. The court also gave him time to speak.”
Patrick, a community representative from Odek said, “When I heard that few people had been selected I could not believe it. We saw Ongwen with our eyes even if we did not touch him. We saw the lawyers and interacted with them. This is an opportunity of a lifetime.”
As a result of various meetings held with different sections of the ICC, the participants were also able to get a better understanding of how the court functions, a factor that was also instrumental in increasing their understanding appreciation of the trial process. As Esther from Pajule said, “We were happy to hear about how the court works and how victims and witnesses are protected. This gives us confidence that our relatives who are participating will be protected.”
Justin from Lukodi agreed with the above opinion, noting that, “The functioning of the court was made clear to us. We toured the court and met with various representatives. This made us to believe that there is transparency at the ICC.”
The community representatives were also immensely impressed by the new structure that houses the ICC premises. Although many of the participants were overwhelmed by the security protocols in place, they thought the facilities contained in the building were excellent, including the courtroom and office spaces. As Justin from Lukodi said, “The setup of the court is very good. The courtroom is set in such a way that visitors can follow proceedings without interfering with the work of the judges and lawyers. This is not the case in Uganda where someone from the audience can easily reach the judges and lawyers and even attack them. The equipment being used is also very good, and we do not have this in Uganda.”
In addition to the delegation from Uganda, there were many other visitors also present in the public gallery for the first day of the hearing, including many students, journalists, and researchers. This is a matter that did not go down well with one of the community representatives from Abok who said, “Students and journalists were the majority in the court. This makes us to think that the court is being taken as a learning opportunity. There should have been more community and victims’ representatives.”
Over the course of two days, the community representatives attended the court sessions and watched as the prosecution team made its opening remarks. Some of the representatives later remarked that the gruesome pictures of the killings in their communities that were displayed by the prosecution evoked strong memories in them. In a comment that did not go well over with Archbishop Odama and Bishop Onono, Francisco Cox, one of the victims representatives, noted in his opening remarks that “[i]t is usually people that did not suffer consequences of Ongwen’s crimes that ask for forgiveness.” Otherwise all the community representatives felt that the hearing had gone well.
It can be concluded that the initiative by the ICC field office and Danish Embassy in Uganda achieved its intended impact of promoting community participation and increased the community representatives’ understanding and appreciation of the ICC. Furthermore, community representatives will be expected to engage in public outreach and share their experiences back home. However, as noted by one participant, to increase impact the court should consider bringing a larger delegation of people living in communities affected by the alleged crimes of the accused.
Ongwen’s trial resumes on January 16, 2017. International Justice Monitor will be following the trial, and regular updates will be posted to the LRA Trials page.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
To bolster victim participation, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, mobilized and sponsored a delegation of ten community representatives to attend the opening of Ongwen’s trial.
The delegation was led by His Highness Rwot David Onen Acana, the Paramount Chief of Acholi; accompanied by Archbishop John Baptist Odama, the Archbishop of Gulu Archdiocese; Bishop Nelson Onono Onweng, the retired Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Uganda; Ambrose Oola, the Prime Minister of Ker Kwaro Acholi; and myself as the founder and director of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a non-governmental organization based in northern Uganda.
Among the delegation also were five community representatives from Lukodi, Pajule, Abok, and Odek.
As part of the visit, the participants not only had the opportunity to witness the commencement of Ongwen’s trial at the court’s new premises, but also met and exchanged ideas with representatives of the ICC. Meetings were held with the Presidency and Judicial Division, the Office of the Prosecutor, the Registry, as well as the parties and participants involved in the trial of Ongwen.
In a statement issued while in The Hague, the delegation noted that “the case of Dominic Ongwen remains very important to us because it is a milestone in defining one way in the attempt to secure justice and accountability for the people of Northern Uganda, and ultimately to help people reconcile with their past and move towards peace.”
Many people in northern Uganda have on several occasions expressed the importance of ensuring that victims follow proceedings as an important aspect of victim participation. The ICC is the first international criminal justice court in history to allow victims to share their views and concerns during all stages of the proceedings through their legal representatives, which is enshrined in both the Rome Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. It was therefore not surprising when all the community representatives were unanimous in expressing their joy at being able to travel to The Hague for this important occasion.
As Esther, from Pajule noted, “I am privileged to have travelled and confirmed with my own eyes that the ICC in fact exists. I saw Ongwen in the court, and this means we have not been told lies about his trial. Even if not all people were able to come, they have at least been represented by us.”
As Justin from Lukodi community said, “We were able to see Ongwen in the court. We saw that he was well dressed and he was treated with respect. The court also gave him time to speak.”
Patrick, a community representative from Odek said, “When I heard that few people had been selected I could not believe it. We saw Ongwen with our eyes even if we did not touch him. We saw the lawyers and interacted with them. This is an opportunity of a lifetime.”
As a result of various meetings held with different sections of the ICC, the participants were also able to get a better understanding of how the court functions, a factor that was also instrumental in increasing their understanding appreciation of the trial process. As Esther from Pajule said, “We were happy to hear about how the court works and how victims and witnesses are protected. This gives us confidence that our relatives who are participating will be protected.”
Justin from Lukodi agreed with the above opinion, noting that, “The functioning of the court was made clear to us. We toured the court and met with various representatives. This made us to believe that there is transparency at the ICC.”
The community representatives were also immensely impressed by the new structure that houses the ICC premises. Although many of the participants were overwhelmed by the security protocols in place, they thought the facilities contained in the building were excellent, including the courtroom and office spaces. As Justin from Lukodi said, “The setup of the court is very good. The courtroom is set in such a way that visitors can follow proceedings without interfering with the work of the judges and lawyers. This is not the case in Uganda where someone from the audience can easily reach the judges and lawyers and even attack them. The equipment being used is also very good, and we do not have this in Uganda.”
In addition to the delegation from Uganda, there were many other visitors also present in the public gallery for the first day of the hearing, including many students, journalists, and researchers. This is a matter that did not go down well with one of the community representatives from Abok who said, “Students and journalists were the majority in the court. This makes us to think that the court is being taken as a learning opportunity. There should have been more community and victims’ representatives.”
Over the course of two days, the community representatives attended the court sessions and watched as the prosecution team made its opening remarks. Some of the representatives later remarked that the gruesome pictures of the killings in their communities that were displayed by the prosecution evoked strong memories in them. In a comment that did not go well over with Archbishop Odama and Bishop Onono, Francisco Cox, one of the victims representatives, noted in his opening remarks that “[i]t is usually people that did not suffer consequences of Ongwen’s crimes that ask for forgiveness.” Otherwise all the community representatives felt that the hearing had gone well.
It can be concluded that the initiative by the ICC field office and Danish Embassy in Uganda achieved its intended impact of promoting community participation and increased the community representatives’ understanding and appreciation of the ICC. Furthermore, community representatives will be expected to engage in public outreach and share their experiences back home. However, as noted by one participant, to increase impact the court should consider bringing a larger delegation of people living in communities affected by the alleged crimes of the accused.
Ongwen’s trial resumes on January 16, 2017. International Justice Monitor will be following the trial, and regular updates will be posted to the LRA Trials page.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Friday, 9 December 2016
Statement by Ugandan cultural, religious, community and civil society leaders attending the opening trial of Dominic Ongwen at the ICC in The Hague Netherlands – 5-8 December 2016 -
Statement by Ugandan cultural, religious,
community and civil society leaders attending the opening trial of Dominic
Ongwen at the ICC in The Hague Netherlands
– 5-8 December 2016 -
From 5 – 8 December, we attended the opening of
the trial of Dominic Ongwen in The Hague, The Netherlands as representatives of
our communities in Northern Uganda Led by His Highness Rwot David Onen Acana
the Paramount Chief of Acholi, accompanied by Archbishop John Baptist Odama the
Archbishop of Gulu Archdiocese, we not only had the opportunity to witness the
commencement of the trial of Dominic Ongwen in the Court’s new premises but
also met and exchanged ideas with representatives of the International Criminal
Court (ICC): Presidency and Chambers, Office of the Prosecutor, Registry, and
the parties and participants involved in the trial of Dominic Ongwen.
Dominic Ongwen has come before the ICC for
trial following an indictment for crimes against humanity and war crimes he is
alleged to have committed as a senior commander of the LRA.
Over the years during and after the conflict
in Northern Uganda, cultural, religious, community and civic leaders have been
the centerpiece for peace and reconciliation. They were instrumental in the
outcomes of the Juba peace process. Today, the case of Dominic Ongwen remains
very important to us because it is a milestone in defining one way in the
attempt to secure justice and accountability for the people of Northern Uganda,
and ultimately to help people reconcile with their past and move towards peace.
As leaders and representatives of various
groups and interests in the Acholi region, we note that various grave crimes
were committed in Northern Uganda during the time the LRA was active in Uganda;
the nature of the crimes committed violated traditional, Ugandan and
international law and therefore warranted action against perpetrators in terms
of securing justice for the victims and holding the perpetrators accountable.
With the ICC process, we believe that matters related to such crimes will be
adjudicated.
Beyond Dominic Ongwen’s specific case, the
Acholi people still have to contend with the broader question of justice and
accountability arising from the conflict. The fact that the LRA is still out
there obliges us to remain focused on the broader issues of peace
reconciliation, justice and accountability. Indeed other mechanisms do exist in
Uganda that have been extensively used in handling matters relating to
obtaining accountability from perpetrators and securing justice for victims in
the LRA conflict, including the law in Uganda and the traditional law norms,
values and practices of the Acholi people. Though mechanisms and certain
definitions may differ, the Acholi justice system gives a broader context and
definition to questions of accountability and justice which is hinged primarily
on restorative justice other than a punitive one.
Since justice is a long process especially when
it is searching for truth, we call upon our people to allow the judicial
process and those who wish to testify to come and do so without any fear of
reprisals. We also urge the international community and the Government of
Uganda to remain focused on the wider question of transitional justice in Northern
Uganda which remains largely unattended to and is grossly affecting many lives.
This trial is at its beginning and we hope to
see it continue smoothly and be beneficial to the victims of Northern Uganda.
We express our gratitude to the Danish Embassy
in Uganda for its financial assistance and to the ICC for having planned and
coordinated the visit.
Rwot David Onen Achana
Archbishop John Baptist Odama
Bishop Onono Onweng
Olaa Ambose
Innocent Olwoc
Patrick Sila Lakwonyero
Lino Owor Ogora
Betty Piloya
Esther Aol
Justine Ochan
Monday, 5 December 2016
Hopes and Expectations: Perceptions of Victims and Civil Society on the Eve of Ongwen’s Trial
The trial of Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is due to start Tuesday at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, with opening statements from the prosecution and the victims’ representatives. Ongwen is charged with 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, allegedly committed in the former IDP camps of Odek, Lukodi, Pajule, and Abok in northern Uganda.
In light of this, the International Justice (IJ) Monitor conducted a brief consultation with community members and select representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) working in northern Uganda to get an understanding of what their expectations about the trial was.
The overall reactions were mixed. While many of them were happy that the trial was finally getting underway, they also expressed reservations about certain aspects. Even though all the respondents who were consulted expressed their support for the trial, many still stressed that the trial is not a comprehensive solution for solving post-conflict challenges that continue to exist in northern Uganda.
As Francis Opio from Grassroots Reconciliation Group (GRG) said, “Stating whether the trial will be a good thing for bringing justice to people in northern Uganda would be relative. It should be noted that when it comes to rebuilding relationships, an aspect that is very important in our culture, the ICC is not helpful.”
Expressing a similar view, Chris Ongom, the Director of the Uganda Victims’ Foundation (UVF) said, “The trial of Ongwen will address a very tiny part of the justice. It will send a signal to international community that Uganda is committed to fighting impunity. However, the suffering and causes of the war in the northern is rooted in the structural systems of governance so this trial won’t bring total justice to the people.”
In regard to the above, some of the participants who were consulted suggested complementary measures such as the use of traditional justice mechanisms for the promotion of reconciliation and the pursuit of accountability domestically.
Another expectation that was frequently mentioned by respondents who were consulted was the need for a fair trial based on evidence and the importance of ensuring the impartiality and neutrality of the court. Rosalba Oywa, who heads the People’s Voice for Peace (PVP) said, “I will keep my fingers crossed. I think they will penalize Ongwen if he is found guilty and if the verdict is based on evidence.”
James Engemu, a human rights activist from Teso sub-region said, “I expect that the trial will be a true hearing and that the verdict will rely on real evidence not purported issues. The judgment should be very impartial.”
Hellen Acham, a peace-building practitioner from Lango sub-region said, “As far as the hearing is concerned, we are looking forward to the impartiality of the court. The victims must not be intimidated, and the court must administer justice. It should not end up like the Kenyan one where some of the victims were threatened.”
In addition to the above, most respondents also expressed the need for a speedy trial in order to ensure justice for the victims. As Nathan Ebiru, the head of the Amuria District Development Association (ADDA) said, “Being a victim myself and a person working for the victims in Uganda, I expect the trial to be expedited in favor of victims.”
All in all, most people who were consulted agreed that the ultimate determinants of whether or not justice will have been attained at the conclusion of the trial will be the victims themselves. In the words of Oywa, “It shall depend on the victims…Victims are the ones who are key in saying whether they are satisfied or not.”
With the ICC investigations focused mainly on four case locations linked to crimes allegedly committed by Ongwen (Lukodi, Odek, Abok, and Pajule), IJ Monitor asked participants whether they believed that the trial would serve as a mechanism for brining justice to all victims in northern Uganda, including areas outside the Acholi sub-region. There were mixed reactions to this question. Some respondents believed that the limited geographic scope did not matter and would still result in justice for all victims in northern Uganda. “If the trial is based on critical evidence, victims of Ongwen’s crimes will get healing in Teso, Lango, and Acholi. If the victims see Ongwen [acquitted] and walking free, they will get angry,” said Engemu.
In the words of Acham, “In one way or another, the victims will feel that there is someone concerned with their suffering. It will bring justice to northern Uganda. Even the current prevailing peace in northern Uganda is being enjoyed because of the indictment of Ongwen.”
Other respondents, however, believed that the current scope of investigations excluded victims from other sub-regions. According to Ebiru, “There are quite a number of victims who have not been reached in Teso sub-region. The areas that have been identified in the charge sheet do not extend to Teso. I don’t see much hope in this. But what every victim and community wants is that Dominic Ongwen must be made accountable for his crime.”
Respondents who were consulted also expressed expectations regarding victim participation. Many reiterated the need to ensure that victims follow proceedings. It was the expectation of many that the trial would be broadcast live. As Opio from GRG said, “Live screening of the trial process will allow victims to follow the process giving them ground to react to some of the issues when called upon.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office in Uganda has set up viewing centers in the four communities of Lukodi, Pajule, Odek, and Abok. According to Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC Field Outreach Coordinator for Kenya and Uganda, “A viewing center will also be opened in Coorom, the birthplace of Ongwen to provide access of the judicial processes to his family members, his relatives, and clan members.” Additional viewing centers have also been set up in Gulu town and in Kampala to enable people outside the affected communities to participate.
The ICC field office has also made arrangements to web stream proceedings from the opening of the trial in the Acholi language and on two radio stations in northern Uganda. According to Kamara, “For the first time, the court has provided the options for the proceedings to be web streamed in Acholi. This means that followers can actually select from the list of languages and follow their preference. So Mega FM Radio and Gulu FM Radio will broadcast live from the Acholi channel. It has not happened so far in other cases.”
At all these centers the ICC field office has provided the equipment necessary for conducting live streaming broadcasts from The Hague and has conducted outreach to sensitize and encourage many people to go to these centers, which are open to the public free of charge. However, it is not known whether the ICC will conduct live broadcasts throughout the trial itself.
Findings from the consultation also revealed that respondents still strongly believe that the physical presence of victims during hearings is important for victim participation in the trial. As Acham said, “Victim participation is very important. There will come a moment where some victims will request to attend hearings by themselves. Since there are very many victims, election of people to represent them is important.”
According to Ongom of the UVF, “The court says that they don’t have money to facilitate victims [to attend the trial]. It sends doubt to the victims, because the small window of hope is being narrowed. The victims should have been air lifted to attend the trial, if truly [the court] values the victims.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, chose 10 influential representatives from the affected community to attend the opening of the trial. In a press briefing conducted in Uganda, Kamara said, “These people will attend and follow the proceedings at The Hague so that they explain what they will have witnessed upon return. This will help build trust of the community in the ICC processes.”
All in all, respondents expected to be kept informed during the entire duration of the trial and not simply at the beginning or at the end. As Ebiru said, “I recommend frequent consultation with the victims throughout the trial and provision of feedback to them on a frequent basis. Victims should know how far the case has gone and must be kept informed at all times.”
In addition to the above, a few respondents also expressed the need to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected. In the words of Oywa, “Participation is important to the public, and the ICC has worked towards ensuring that this happens. But I am not sure what is being done towards victims and witnesses’ protection. This trial is sensitive and can put the victims at risk which would not be a good thing.”
A final expectation that was expressed by all respondents was the need to ensure that reparations are implemented at the conclusion of the trial in the event that Ongwen is found guilty.
In the words of Engemu from Teso, “If Ongwen is convicted, then the court should provide reparations for the victims. Victims are in need and reparations must be expedited in order to provide justice. The Trust Fund for Victims should play its role to the vulnerable victims.” It is clear from community members, as can be seen in previous blog posts, that reparations will be central in determining the success of Ongwen’s trial.
In conclusion, as presented by the views expressed above, the trial of Ongwen has generated excitement and anxiety in equal measures. It is clear that while many people want a speedy and fair trial, they also believe that important aspects, such as victim participation and reparation, must be addressed if the trial is to be viewed as successful.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
In light of this, the International Justice (IJ) Monitor conducted a brief consultation with community members and select representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) working in northern Uganda to get an understanding of what their expectations about the trial was.
The overall reactions were mixed. While many of them were happy that the trial was finally getting underway, they also expressed reservations about certain aspects. Even though all the respondents who were consulted expressed their support for the trial, many still stressed that the trial is not a comprehensive solution for solving post-conflict challenges that continue to exist in northern Uganda.
As Francis Opio from Grassroots Reconciliation Group (GRG) said, “Stating whether the trial will be a good thing for bringing justice to people in northern Uganda would be relative. It should be noted that when it comes to rebuilding relationships, an aspect that is very important in our culture, the ICC is not helpful.”
Expressing a similar view, Chris Ongom, the Director of the Uganda Victims’ Foundation (UVF) said, “The trial of Ongwen will address a very tiny part of the justice. It will send a signal to international community that Uganda is committed to fighting impunity. However, the suffering and causes of the war in the northern is rooted in the structural systems of governance so this trial won’t bring total justice to the people.”
In regard to the above, some of the participants who were consulted suggested complementary measures such as the use of traditional justice mechanisms for the promotion of reconciliation and the pursuit of accountability domestically.
Another expectation that was frequently mentioned by respondents who were consulted was the need for a fair trial based on evidence and the importance of ensuring the impartiality and neutrality of the court. Rosalba Oywa, who heads the People’s Voice for Peace (PVP) said, “I will keep my fingers crossed. I think they will penalize Ongwen if he is found guilty and if the verdict is based on evidence.”
James Engemu, a human rights activist from Teso sub-region said, “I expect that the trial will be a true hearing and that the verdict will rely on real evidence not purported issues. The judgment should be very impartial.”
Hellen Acham, a peace-building practitioner from Lango sub-region said, “As far as the hearing is concerned, we are looking forward to the impartiality of the court. The victims must not be intimidated, and the court must administer justice. It should not end up like the Kenyan one where some of the victims were threatened.”
In addition to the above, most respondents also expressed the need for a speedy trial in order to ensure justice for the victims. As Nathan Ebiru, the head of the Amuria District Development Association (ADDA) said, “Being a victim myself and a person working for the victims in Uganda, I expect the trial to be expedited in favor of victims.”
All in all, most people who were consulted agreed that the ultimate determinants of whether or not justice will have been attained at the conclusion of the trial will be the victims themselves. In the words of Oywa, “It shall depend on the victims…Victims are the ones who are key in saying whether they are satisfied or not.”
With the ICC investigations focused mainly on four case locations linked to crimes allegedly committed by Ongwen (Lukodi, Odek, Abok, and Pajule), IJ Monitor asked participants whether they believed that the trial would serve as a mechanism for brining justice to all victims in northern Uganda, including areas outside the Acholi sub-region. There were mixed reactions to this question. Some respondents believed that the limited geographic scope did not matter and would still result in justice for all victims in northern Uganda. “If the trial is based on critical evidence, victims of Ongwen’s crimes will get healing in Teso, Lango, and Acholi. If the victims see Ongwen [acquitted] and walking free, they will get angry,” said Engemu.
In the words of Acham, “In one way or another, the victims will feel that there is someone concerned with their suffering. It will bring justice to northern Uganda. Even the current prevailing peace in northern Uganda is being enjoyed because of the indictment of Ongwen.”
Other respondents, however, believed that the current scope of investigations excluded victims from other sub-regions. According to Ebiru, “There are quite a number of victims who have not been reached in Teso sub-region. The areas that have been identified in the charge sheet do not extend to Teso. I don’t see much hope in this. But what every victim and community wants is that Dominic Ongwen must be made accountable for his crime.”
Respondents who were consulted also expressed expectations regarding victim participation. Many reiterated the need to ensure that victims follow proceedings. It was the expectation of many that the trial would be broadcast live. As Opio from GRG said, “Live screening of the trial process will allow victims to follow the process giving them ground to react to some of the issues when called upon.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office in Uganda has set up viewing centers in the four communities of Lukodi, Pajule, Odek, and Abok. According to Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC Field Outreach Coordinator for Kenya and Uganda, “A viewing center will also be opened in Coorom, the birthplace of Ongwen to provide access of the judicial processes to his family members, his relatives, and clan members.” Additional viewing centers have also been set up in Gulu town and in Kampala to enable people outside the affected communities to participate.
The ICC field office has also made arrangements to web stream proceedings from the opening of the trial in the Acholi language and on two radio stations in northern Uganda. According to Kamara, “For the first time, the court has provided the options for the proceedings to be web streamed in Acholi. This means that followers can actually select from the list of languages and follow their preference. So Mega FM Radio and Gulu FM Radio will broadcast live from the Acholi channel. It has not happened so far in other cases.”
At all these centers the ICC field office has provided the equipment necessary for conducting live streaming broadcasts from The Hague and has conducted outreach to sensitize and encourage many people to go to these centers, which are open to the public free of charge. However, it is not known whether the ICC will conduct live broadcasts throughout the trial itself.
Findings from the consultation also revealed that respondents still strongly believe that the physical presence of victims during hearings is important for victim participation in the trial. As Acham said, “Victim participation is very important. There will come a moment where some victims will request to attend hearings by themselves. Since there are very many victims, election of people to represent them is important.”
According to Ongom of the UVF, “The court says that they don’t have money to facilitate victims [to attend the trial]. It sends doubt to the victims, because the small window of hope is being narrowed. The victims should have been air lifted to attend the trial, if truly [the court] values the victims.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, chose 10 influential representatives from the affected community to attend the opening of the trial. In a press briefing conducted in Uganda, Kamara said, “These people will attend and follow the proceedings at The Hague so that they explain what they will have witnessed upon return. This will help build trust of the community in the ICC processes.”
All in all, respondents expected to be kept informed during the entire duration of the trial and not simply at the beginning or at the end. As Ebiru said, “I recommend frequent consultation with the victims throughout the trial and provision of feedback to them on a frequent basis. Victims should know how far the case has gone and must be kept informed at all times.”
In addition to the above, a few respondents also expressed the need to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected. In the words of Oywa, “Participation is important to the public, and the ICC has worked towards ensuring that this happens. But I am not sure what is being done towards victims and witnesses’ protection. This trial is sensitive and can put the victims at risk which would not be a good thing.”
A final expectation that was expressed by all respondents was the need to ensure that reparations are implemented at the conclusion of the trial in the event that Ongwen is found guilty.
In the words of Engemu from Teso, “If Ongwen is convicted, then the court should provide reparations for the victims. Victims are in need and reparations must be expedited in order to provide justice. The Trust Fund for Victims should play its role to the vulnerable victims.” It is clear from community members, as can be seen in previous blog posts, that reparations will be central in determining the success of Ongwen’s trial.
In conclusion, as presented by the views expressed above, the trial of Ongwen has generated excitement and anxiety in equal measures. It is clear that while many people want a speedy and fair trial, they also believe that important aspects, such as victim participation and reparation, must be addressed if the trial is to be viewed as successful.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Thursday, 10 November 2016
Why Reparations Will Be Central in Determining the Success of Ongwen’s Trial
Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has been in the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) since January 2015 on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Ongwen’s trial, due to commence on December 6, 2016, presents the best opportunity yet for victims of conflict in northern Uganda to receive reparations but only in the event that Ongwen is found guilty.
As ICC Outreach Coordinator for Kenya and Uganda Maria Mabinty Kamara explained in a conversation, ”Reparations can be ordered by the court only after the trial is concluded and if the accused is found guilty. In such eventuality, the court may issue an order for reparations to victims of the crimes and to establish the monetary liability of the convicted person for their crimes. Reparations for victims may be individual, collective, or both. The form and manner of reparations is dependent on a number of factors including the scale and scope of the crimes in the conviction, the number of victim harmed by the crimes, and the source and magnitude of funding for reparations are among the important factors to be considered by the court when deliberating reparations.”
Setting aside that it may still take several years to come to a conclusion about reparations in the event of a conviction, as evidenced by the first ICC trial of Thomas Lubanga, this article looks at what victims in northern Uganda would ideally like from a reparations program.
Uganda as a country has been ravaged by different conflicts since attaining independence in 1962. The longest and most brutal of these conflicts has been the war between the LRA and the government of Uganda, in which Ongwen is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged. However, despite the intensity of human rights violations, destruction, and loss of property that has marred Uganda’s history, there has never been a formal reparations program developed and implemented by any government.
Reparations for victims of the LRA war and debates surrounding it have always been a topic very much shunned by the current government in Uganda. Post conflict development programs, such as the Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for northern Uganda, have been criticized for overly focusing on development programs at the expense of peace building programs that include reparations. For example, one of the most important pillars of the PRDP on peace building and reconciliation constituted only 2.7 percent of an entire budget of $606 million. Matters are not helped by the fact that Uganda lacks a reparations policy despite its violent past.
The prospect of reparations presented by the Ongwen case before the ICC is the first real opportunity that victims in Uganda will have had to benefit from a formal reparations scheme. This is why reparations will be crucial in determining the success of the trial. Already, thousands of victims have registered to participate in the trial of Ongwen, a clear sign that they are looking forward to reparations.
The UN basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparations calls upon states to make available adequate, effective, prompt, and appropriate remedies, including reparations for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Article 75(1) of the Rome Statute of the ICC stipulates that “The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and will state the principles on which it is acting.”
Rule 97(1) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence further states: “Taking into account the scope and extent of any damage, loss or injury, the Court may award reparations on an individualized basis or, where it deems it appropriate, on a collective basis or both.”
While the above guidelines and rules establish general principles on reparations, they do not explicitly provide a breakdown of the type of reparations that victims are entitled to. The ICC has started to consider and make decisions in relation to reparations in other ICC cases, but those decisions are related to the specific circumstances to each case. Therefore, the court will have to consider many different options when it comes to providing reparations for victims of Ongwen’s alleged crimes, provided that Ongwen is found guilty. The reflections below on victims’ preferences for reparations will be relevant in case of a conviction. As per the experience of other ICC cases, victims should have an opportunity to voice such preferences, through direct consultations or via their legal representatives.
The first and most important option that is frequently mentioned by community members is cash compensation, or ‘cul,’ as they refer to it in the Acholi language. While consulting with victims in the process of writing this article, all individuals who were interviewed from the communities of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok, mentioned cash compensation as the most desired form of reparations they were looking forward to. As one community member in Lukodi said, “People want money to help them to meet their needs, such as paying school fees for their children.”
Another community member noted, “People are highly expectant that they will be paid. I cannot say how much people expect because that is a matter for the court to determine. Even if it is little, we expect that at least some money will be paid.”
The above is an indicator that while money cannot be an end in itself in undoing the harm that was suffered, many victims consider it important in enabling them to live dignified lives. Many of these victims lost their property as a result of attacks and killings that happened in their communities. In the aftermath of the conflict they have little to rely on to sustain themselves and their families. It is therefore not a surprise that most of them express interest in receiving cash compensation, which they believe is a means to living their lives in dignity.
Other forms of individual reparations that are considered important by community members are education and healthcare for survivors. As a result of the atrocities committed in their communities many children who were orphaned are finding it difficult to meet their educational needs, and many survivors still live with health complications suffered as a result of injuries they suffered. In addition, the livelihoods of many survivors were disrupted and victims recounted how they lost livelihood sources, such as cattle. These victims would like to see reparations in the form of a replacement of their stolen or destroyed property.
Victims could also benefit from programs that help them earn a living again in the affected communities, give educational scholarships for children who were orphaned, and provide a medical care for survivors who still have serious health problems. As a community leader in Abok said, “We have victims who were disabled permanently as a result of the atrocities they suffered, and they are finding it very difficult to survive. There are people who still have health complications. They need to get medical assistance.”
In addition to cash compensation and other individual forms of reparations, collective reparations schemes may be beneficial. Those would include projects such as the construction of monuments and memorials for victims who lost their lives in the affected communities. As one community member in Lukodi said, “There should be structures that benefit the community and help them to heal. These can include things like monuments or community centers where information about what happened during the conflict is kept.”
While communities like Lukodi and Odek have memorials that were sponsored by civil society organizations, others like Pajule and Abok do not have any tangible memorials. Victims may wish to have existing memorials improved or rebuilt, or to build new ones in communities that do not have any. However, as one community member emphasized, this would rank second on their list behind cash compensation: “Monuments and memorials would be good, but people prefer individual payments.”
If Ongwen is found guilty for crimes committed in the four communities concerned by the charges, only victims from those communities would benefit from reparations programs. However, victims in other parts of northern Uganda similarly believe they are entitled to reparations. A community member from Lukodi said, “Ideally we [all victims in northern Uganda] should have all benefited because we all suffered. The challenge that I see is that the policy of the ICC may not allow it. But as community members of Lukodi we welcome the idea of all people in northern Uganda benefiting from reparations by the ICC.”
A case in point is Atiak village, located near the border of South Sudan, where over 300 civilians were massacred in a single day by the LRA. However, Atiak is not among the locations where Ongwen is charged with crimes by the ICC. As one community member from Atiak village, who also happens to be a survivor of this massacre said, “People in Atiak should also [be] compensated… Those who say Ongwen did not operate in Atiak should tell us how they reached that conclusion. The people in Atiak are also victims of the LRA like those ones in Lukodi.”
The above indicates that victims outside the communities of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok may be angered by their exclusion from any proposed reparations program. This is because they feel strongly that a reparations scheme must benefit the whole of northern Uganda, not just victims from the four communities Ongwen is charged with committing crimes in. Therefore, it would be important to start providing clear explanations to victims now so that they understand the limitations of any future reparations plan.
However, Kamara noted that victims outside the four communities can still benefit from assistance offered by the ICC Trust Fund for Victims (Trust Fund), which can implement assistance projects for the benefit of victims not concerned by ICC cases, i.e. victims who suffered crimes as a result of the conflict in northern Uganda from 2002 onwards but whose crimes are not reflected in the Ongwen case.
”Independent of the reparations related to a specific case, the ICC Trust Fund for Victims has spent 22.7 billion shillings (UGX) on its victim assistance program in northern Uganda from 2008 to 2016. The Trust Fund’s victim assistance program in Uganda have benefited an estimated 43,000 victims and their families and more than 200,000 indirect victims in the community. The Trust Fund implements an integrated assistance program in partnership with NGO’s to provide physical and psychological rehabilitation and material support to victims and their families in communities across 18 districts of northern Uganda,” said Kamara.
However, should there be a conviction, Ongwen will possibly be unable to pay for reparations if he is found indigent. Reparations would therefore likely be funded through the Trust Fund, whose resources are limited. It would be important for the ICC and NGOs assisting victims to start managing expectations on reparations as early as possible. In light of the limitations of ICC reparation programs and considering the state’s obligation, the government of Uganda should also fulfill its duty to provide reparations.
There is clear evidence of the high expectations victims have in regard to reparations concerning the case of Ongwen. The fact that there has never been a formal reparations program for victims of conflict in northern Uganda further raises these expectations. For victims, it may be the only sign of a successful trial.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local non-government organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
As ICC Outreach Coordinator for Kenya and Uganda Maria Mabinty Kamara explained in a conversation, ”Reparations can be ordered by the court only after the trial is concluded and if the accused is found guilty. In such eventuality, the court may issue an order for reparations to victims of the crimes and to establish the monetary liability of the convicted person for their crimes. Reparations for victims may be individual, collective, or both. The form and manner of reparations is dependent on a number of factors including the scale and scope of the crimes in the conviction, the number of victim harmed by the crimes, and the source and magnitude of funding for reparations are among the important factors to be considered by the court when deliberating reparations.”
Setting aside that it may still take several years to come to a conclusion about reparations in the event of a conviction, as evidenced by the first ICC trial of Thomas Lubanga, this article looks at what victims in northern Uganda would ideally like from a reparations program.
Uganda as a country has been ravaged by different conflicts since attaining independence in 1962. The longest and most brutal of these conflicts has been the war between the LRA and the government of Uganda, in which Ongwen is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged. However, despite the intensity of human rights violations, destruction, and loss of property that has marred Uganda’s history, there has never been a formal reparations program developed and implemented by any government.
Reparations for victims of the LRA war and debates surrounding it have always been a topic very much shunned by the current government in Uganda. Post conflict development programs, such as the Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for northern Uganda, have been criticized for overly focusing on development programs at the expense of peace building programs that include reparations. For example, one of the most important pillars of the PRDP on peace building and reconciliation constituted only 2.7 percent of an entire budget of $606 million. Matters are not helped by the fact that Uganda lacks a reparations policy despite its violent past.
The prospect of reparations presented by the Ongwen case before the ICC is the first real opportunity that victims in Uganda will have had to benefit from a formal reparations scheme. This is why reparations will be crucial in determining the success of the trial. Already, thousands of victims have registered to participate in the trial of Ongwen, a clear sign that they are looking forward to reparations.
The UN basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparations calls upon states to make available adequate, effective, prompt, and appropriate remedies, including reparations for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Article 75(1) of the Rome Statute of the ICC stipulates that “The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and will state the principles on which it is acting.”
Rule 97(1) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence further states: “Taking into account the scope and extent of any damage, loss or injury, the Court may award reparations on an individualized basis or, where it deems it appropriate, on a collective basis or both.”
While the above guidelines and rules establish general principles on reparations, they do not explicitly provide a breakdown of the type of reparations that victims are entitled to. The ICC has started to consider and make decisions in relation to reparations in other ICC cases, but those decisions are related to the specific circumstances to each case. Therefore, the court will have to consider many different options when it comes to providing reparations for victims of Ongwen’s alleged crimes, provided that Ongwen is found guilty. The reflections below on victims’ preferences for reparations will be relevant in case of a conviction. As per the experience of other ICC cases, victims should have an opportunity to voice such preferences, through direct consultations or via their legal representatives.
The first and most important option that is frequently mentioned by community members is cash compensation, or ‘cul,’ as they refer to it in the Acholi language. While consulting with victims in the process of writing this article, all individuals who were interviewed from the communities of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok, mentioned cash compensation as the most desired form of reparations they were looking forward to. As one community member in Lukodi said, “People want money to help them to meet their needs, such as paying school fees for their children.”
Another community member noted, “People are highly expectant that they will be paid. I cannot say how much people expect because that is a matter for the court to determine. Even if it is little, we expect that at least some money will be paid.”
The above is an indicator that while money cannot be an end in itself in undoing the harm that was suffered, many victims consider it important in enabling them to live dignified lives. Many of these victims lost their property as a result of attacks and killings that happened in their communities. In the aftermath of the conflict they have little to rely on to sustain themselves and their families. It is therefore not a surprise that most of them express interest in receiving cash compensation, which they believe is a means to living their lives in dignity.
Other forms of individual reparations that are considered important by community members are education and healthcare for survivors. As a result of the atrocities committed in their communities many children who were orphaned are finding it difficult to meet their educational needs, and many survivors still live with health complications suffered as a result of injuries they suffered. In addition, the livelihoods of many survivors were disrupted and victims recounted how they lost livelihood sources, such as cattle. These victims would like to see reparations in the form of a replacement of their stolen or destroyed property.
Victims could also benefit from programs that help them earn a living again in the affected communities, give educational scholarships for children who were orphaned, and provide a medical care for survivors who still have serious health problems. As a community leader in Abok said, “We have victims who were disabled permanently as a result of the atrocities they suffered, and they are finding it very difficult to survive. There are people who still have health complications. They need to get medical assistance.”
In addition to cash compensation and other individual forms of reparations, collective reparations schemes may be beneficial. Those would include projects such as the construction of monuments and memorials for victims who lost their lives in the affected communities. As one community member in Lukodi said, “There should be structures that benefit the community and help them to heal. These can include things like monuments or community centers where information about what happened during the conflict is kept.”
While communities like Lukodi and Odek have memorials that were sponsored by civil society organizations, others like Pajule and Abok do not have any tangible memorials. Victims may wish to have existing memorials improved or rebuilt, or to build new ones in communities that do not have any. However, as one community member emphasized, this would rank second on their list behind cash compensation: “Monuments and memorials would be good, but people prefer individual payments.”
If Ongwen is found guilty for crimes committed in the four communities concerned by the charges, only victims from those communities would benefit from reparations programs. However, victims in other parts of northern Uganda similarly believe they are entitled to reparations. A community member from Lukodi said, “Ideally we [all victims in northern Uganda] should have all benefited because we all suffered. The challenge that I see is that the policy of the ICC may not allow it. But as community members of Lukodi we welcome the idea of all people in northern Uganda benefiting from reparations by the ICC.”
A case in point is Atiak village, located near the border of South Sudan, where over 300 civilians were massacred in a single day by the LRA. However, Atiak is not among the locations where Ongwen is charged with crimes by the ICC. As one community member from Atiak village, who also happens to be a survivor of this massacre said, “People in Atiak should also [be] compensated… Those who say Ongwen did not operate in Atiak should tell us how they reached that conclusion. The people in Atiak are also victims of the LRA like those ones in Lukodi.”
The above indicates that victims outside the communities of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok may be angered by their exclusion from any proposed reparations program. This is because they feel strongly that a reparations scheme must benefit the whole of northern Uganda, not just victims from the four communities Ongwen is charged with committing crimes in. Therefore, it would be important to start providing clear explanations to victims now so that they understand the limitations of any future reparations plan.
However, Kamara noted that victims outside the four communities can still benefit from assistance offered by the ICC Trust Fund for Victims (Trust Fund), which can implement assistance projects for the benefit of victims not concerned by ICC cases, i.e. victims who suffered crimes as a result of the conflict in northern Uganda from 2002 onwards but whose crimes are not reflected in the Ongwen case.
”Independent of the reparations related to a specific case, the ICC Trust Fund for Victims has spent 22.7 billion shillings (UGX) on its victim assistance program in northern Uganda from 2008 to 2016. The Trust Fund’s victim assistance program in Uganda have benefited an estimated 43,000 victims and their families and more than 200,000 indirect victims in the community. The Trust Fund implements an integrated assistance program in partnership with NGO’s to provide physical and psychological rehabilitation and material support to victims and their families in communities across 18 districts of northern Uganda,” said Kamara.
However, should there be a conviction, Ongwen will possibly be unable to pay for reparations if he is found indigent. Reparations would therefore likely be funded through the Trust Fund, whose resources are limited. It would be important for the ICC and NGOs assisting victims to start managing expectations on reparations as early as possible. In light of the limitations of ICC reparation programs and considering the state’s obligation, the government of Uganda should also fulfill its duty to provide reparations.
There is clear evidence of the high expectations victims have in regard to reparations concerning the case of Ongwen. The fact that there has never been a formal reparations program for victims of conflict in northern Uganda further raises these expectations. For victims, it may be the only sign of a successful trial.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local non-government organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Friday, 4 November 2016
A Reversal of Roles: How the Government and Victims in Northern Uganda Have Switched Their Positions on the ICC
Opening statements in the International Criminal Court (ICC) trial of Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) who is charged with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in northern Uganda, are scheduled to begin December 6, 2016. Ongwen’s trial, however, comes after several years of an uphill battle by the ICC to win support in Uganda. Having been asked to investigate the LRA for war crimes and crimes against humanity in 2004, the ICC is today openly criticized by the very government that invited it in the first place. Oppositely, the ICC now has significant support from conflict-affected communities who initially opposed it.
The ICC’s involvement in Uganda started in 2004 with a referral by the Ugandan government, asking the ICC to investigate the LRA for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in northern Uganda. The ICC’s intervention came at a time when the conflict in northern Uganda was at its peak, with the LRA carrying out daily attacks against the civilian population, the majority of whom were living in internally displaced persons’ (IDP) camps.
Given the prevailing situation, the ICC’s entry into Uganda was met with stiff opposition from religious leaders, traditional leaders, civil society organizations, and other peace activists who argued that the ICC would interfere with ongoing efforts to end the conflict. An amnesty program was being promoted to encourage LRA combatants to abandon the rebellion, and this had tremendous success leading to the surrender of thousands of rebels. The Juba Peace Talks were also about to commence under the mediation of the government of South Sudan. The ICC was therefore seen as a destabilizing factor that would increase the LRA’s resolve to continue with rebellion.
Despite the above negative sentiments, the government of Uganda went ahead and referred the situation in the country to the ICC. The announcement of the decision to begin an investigation by the ICC was made at a joint press conference convened by the ICC prosecutor and attended by President Museveni, in London on January 29, 2004. The ICC relied on the government for gathering evidence and making decisions on which LRA commanders to prosecute, and the government cooperated with the court’s requests. For example, during Ongwen’s confirmation of charges hearing, the prosecution relied heavily on radio communication interceptions gathered by the national army, Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF).
Backed by the government on the one hand, but opposed by conflict-affected communities on the other hand, the ICC met a hostile reception, particularly in northern Uganda. In response, the ICC’s then-Public Information and Dissemination Section (PIDS) in Uganda heavily engaged in a public relations campaign aimed at promoting an understanding of the ICC and changing public perceptions. Numerous community visits were made, hundreds of radio talk shows were conducted, and several information sessions were held. The people in northern Uganda slowly came to appreciate the ICC and what it stood for.
The return of peace to northern Uganda further helped to change community perceptions about the ICC. More than ten years ago when they virulently opposed the ICC, the conflict in northern Uganda was at its peak, and thousands of people were confined in IDP camps. The people in northern Uganda simply wanted the conflict to end and viewed the ICC as a destabilizing factor that would disrupt the ongoing peace processes. With the end of the fighting, however, many survivors became willing to support accountability processes.
The capture of Ongwen is perhaps another factor that played a role in further changing community attitudes about the ICC. When the ICC intervened in 2004, nobody believed it was possible to capture the LRA top leadership, who had evaded the Ugandan army for close to two decades. Many people who wanted peace were quickly disappointed when they discovered that the ICC had no army and relied instead on the government. With the capture of Ongwen and a trial actually in the offing, the trust of many people in the ICC has been restored. Many victims now look forward to reparations in the event that Ongwen is convicted.
Far from the hostile reception it received in 2004, the ICC today enjoys a much higher level of popularity, demonstrated by a show of public support from local leaders, civil society organizations, and conflict survivors. For example, on May 19, 2016, Rwot David Onen Acana II, the Acholi Paramount Chief publicly expressed support for the ICC at a ceremony commemorating the anniversary of the Lukodi massacre. The support for the ICC has also been demonstrated by the mass registration of thousands of victims to participate the trial of Ongwen.
The government of Uganda, on the other hand, has turned into a bitter critic of the ICC. Contrary to the cooperation exhibited in 2004, the government is one of the biggest critics of the ICC today, not just in Uganda, but in Africa as a whole. Indeed President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, who led efforts to invite the ICC in 2004, has recently been one of the foremost opponents of the court. But why?
The first reason has to do with the question of why the government called in the ICC in the first place. Some proponents, in what has been referred to as the politics of the ICC, have argued that the government referred their situation to the ICC not because they wanted the LRA prosecuted, but because they had failed to defeat the LRA. The government’s strategy at the time was to isolate the LRA in the face of the international community. The government was never genuinely interested in prosecution of the LRA.
The second factor lies in Uganda’s fear of a possible ICC intervention in the future as a result of the deteriorating political situation in Uganda. President Museveni has been in power for over 30 years, facilitated by a repeated amendment of the constitution and a violent crackdown of the opposition. In the run up to the last presidential election, held in February 2016 and thereafter, the government used extreme force to suppress the opposition. The current situation points to a future where crimes against humanity are inevitable as the government, through police brutality, suppresses any opposition, a factor that will put Uganda on a collision course with the ICC. Uganda’s attempt to distance itself from the ICC could therefore be in a bid to avoid a scenario of the Kenyan situation when the ICC intervened following the post-election violence in 2007. Although a formal withdrawal from the ICC would be the only way to more effectively avoid future ICC interventions.
Matters are also not helped by the wave of unpopularity against the ICC that is currently taking hold across the African continent. African states, led by the African Union (AU) believe that the ICC is a biased institution focusing only on the prosecution of African leaders. This is demonstrated inter-alia by repeated demands from African states that immunity should be granted for sitting heads of state. As an act of defiance against the ICC, many African ICC member states have allowed Sudan President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, to travel freely to their countries rather than arresting him. Most recently on October 18, 2016, Burundi’s parliament passed a resolution for the country to withdraw from the ICC. In the days following Burundi’s decision, both South Africa and Gambia also formally communicated their intention to withdraw from the ICC.
Uganda, as a key player in the African Union, has also been vocal in criticizing the ICC. At the swearing in ceremony of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta on April 09, 2013, President Museveni referred to the ICC as an institution that was being abused by western powers to promote their agenda. In a show of opposition to the ICC, President Museveni invited President Al-Bashir to Uganda for his inauguration in May 2016, where he called the ICC “a bunch of useless people.”
As the ICC prepares to commence the trial of Dominic Ongwen in December, it remains to be seen how it will deal with hostility from the Ugandan government. The government of Uganda’s support is critical in ensuring the success of the trial of Ongwen and any future trials that the ICC may hold for the other LRA commanders who are still at large. The outcome of the trial and whether or not victims get reparations will also be a key determinant of the ICC’s popularity with conflict-affected communities.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local non-government organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
The ICC’s involvement in Uganda started in 2004 with a referral by the Ugandan government, asking the ICC to investigate the LRA for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in northern Uganda. The ICC’s intervention came at a time when the conflict in northern Uganda was at its peak, with the LRA carrying out daily attacks against the civilian population, the majority of whom were living in internally displaced persons’ (IDP) camps.
Given the prevailing situation, the ICC’s entry into Uganda was met with stiff opposition from religious leaders, traditional leaders, civil society organizations, and other peace activists who argued that the ICC would interfere with ongoing efforts to end the conflict. An amnesty program was being promoted to encourage LRA combatants to abandon the rebellion, and this had tremendous success leading to the surrender of thousands of rebels. The Juba Peace Talks were also about to commence under the mediation of the government of South Sudan. The ICC was therefore seen as a destabilizing factor that would increase the LRA’s resolve to continue with rebellion.
Despite the above negative sentiments, the government of Uganda went ahead and referred the situation in the country to the ICC. The announcement of the decision to begin an investigation by the ICC was made at a joint press conference convened by the ICC prosecutor and attended by President Museveni, in London on January 29, 2004. The ICC relied on the government for gathering evidence and making decisions on which LRA commanders to prosecute, and the government cooperated with the court’s requests. For example, during Ongwen’s confirmation of charges hearing, the prosecution relied heavily on radio communication interceptions gathered by the national army, Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF).
Backed by the government on the one hand, but opposed by conflict-affected communities on the other hand, the ICC met a hostile reception, particularly in northern Uganda. In response, the ICC’s then-Public Information and Dissemination Section (PIDS) in Uganda heavily engaged in a public relations campaign aimed at promoting an understanding of the ICC and changing public perceptions. Numerous community visits were made, hundreds of radio talk shows were conducted, and several information sessions were held. The people in northern Uganda slowly came to appreciate the ICC and what it stood for.
The return of peace to northern Uganda further helped to change community perceptions about the ICC. More than ten years ago when they virulently opposed the ICC, the conflict in northern Uganda was at its peak, and thousands of people were confined in IDP camps. The people in northern Uganda simply wanted the conflict to end and viewed the ICC as a destabilizing factor that would disrupt the ongoing peace processes. With the end of the fighting, however, many survivors became willing to support accountability processes.
The capture of Ongwen is perhaps another factor that played a role in further changing community attitudes about the ICC. When the ICC intervened in 2004, nobody believed it was possible to capture the LRA top leadership, who had evaded the Ugandan army for close to two decades. Many people who wanted peace were quickly disappointed when they discovered that the ICC had no army and relied instead on the government. With the capture of Ongwen and a trial actually in the offing, the trust of many people in the ICC has been restored. Many victims now look forward to reparations in the event that Ongwen is convicted.
Far from the hostile reception it received in 2004, the ICC today enjoys a much higher level of popularity, demonstrated by a show of public support from local leaders, civil society organizations, and conflict survivors. For example, on May 19, 2016, Rwot David Onen Acana II, the Acholi Paramount Chief publicly expressed support for the ICC at a ceremony commemorating the anniversary of the Lukodi massacre. The support for the ICC has also been demonstrated by the mass registration of thousands of victims to participate the trial of Ongwen.
The government of Uganda, on the other hand, has turned into a bitter critic of the ICC. Contrary to the cooperation exhibited in 2004, the government is one of the biggest critics of the ICC today, not just in Uganda, but in Africa as a whole. Indeed President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, who led efforts to invite the ICC in 2004, has recently been one of the foremost opponents of the court. But why?
The first reason has to do with the question of why the government called in the ICC in the first place. Some proponents, in what has been referred to as the politics of the ICC, have argued that the government referred their situation to the ICC not because they wanted the LRA prosecuted, but because they had failed to defeat the LRA. The government’s strategy at the time was to isolate the LRA in the face of the international community. The government was never genuinely interested in prosecution of the LRA.
The second factor lies in Uganda’s fear of a possible ICC intervention in the future as a result of the deteriorating political situation in Uganda. President Museveni has been in power for over 30 years, facilitated by a repeated amendment of the constitution and a violent crackdown of the opposition. In the run up to the last presidential election, held in February 2016 and thereafter, the government used extreme force to suppress the opposition. The current situation points to a future where crimes against humanity are inevitable as the government, through police brutality, suppresses any opposition, a factor that will put Uganda on a collision course with the ICC. Uganda’s attempt to distance itself from the ICC could therefore be in a bid to avoid a scenario of the Kenyan situation when the ICC intervened following the post-election violence in 2007. Although a formal withdrawal from the ICC would be the only way to more effectively avoid future ICC interventions.
Matters are also not helped by the wave of unpopularity against the ICC that is currently taking hold across the African continent. African states, led by the African Union (AU) believe that the ICC is a biased institution focusing only on the prosecution of African leaders. This is demonstrated inter-alia by repeated demands from African states that immunity should be granted for sitting heads of state. As an act of defiance against the ICC, many African ICC member states have allowed Sudan President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, to travel freely to their countries rather than arresting him. Most recently on October 18, 2016, Burundi’s parliament passed a resolution for the country to withdraw from the ICC. In the days following Burundi’s decision, both South Africa and Gambia also formally communicated their intention to withdraw from the ICC.
Uganda, as a key player in the African Union, has also been vocal in criticizing the ICC. At the swearing in ceremony of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta on April 09, 2013, President Museveni referred to the ICC as an institution that was being abused by western powers to promote their agenda. In a show of opposition to the ICC, President Museveni invited President Al-Bashir to Uganda for his inauguration in May 2016, where he called the ICC “a bunch of useless people.”
As the ICC prepares to commence the trial of Dominic Ongwen in December, it remains to be seen how it will deal with hostility from the Ugandan government. The government of Uganda’s support is critical in ensuring the success of the trial of Ongwen and any future trials that the ICC may hold for the other LRA commanders who are still at large. The outcome of the trial and whether or not victims get reparations will also be a key determinant of the ICC’s popularity with conflict-affected communities.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local non-government organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)