The Ugandan peace process in perspective
The proposition of a traditional form of justice, Mato Oput, as an alternative to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the Ugandan peace process, raises many questions. Dieu-Donné WEDI DJAMBA points out that the use of Mato Oput, the withdrawal of ICC warrants of arrest against the LRA leaders, and the granting of a blanket amnesty to the LRA leaders have been raised as the conditions for peace in Uganda, yet are posing a threat to the existence of this and even the ICC, whose philosophy is: “There is no justification for worse crimes.” This article is the first part of a two-part series.
The international community is very interested in the ongoing peace process in Uganda between the Ugandan government and the Lord’s Resistance Army, (LRA), a rebel group active in northern Uganda for the past 19 years.
This process started in July 2006 in Northern Uganda and Juba in Southern Sudan. One of the key countries observing the peace process is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Having many events in common with Uganda in the past, there are many factors linking the DRC to the ongoing Ugandan peace process, such as the shared Northeastern border between the DRC and Uganda. The LRA has one of its camps in the Karamba forest in Ituri District, northeast DRC, and many Ituri militia groups who have been involved in many human rights violations and other atrocities are still active there, with links with Uganda.
The end of the civil war in Uganda will be beneficial for the DRC as it will end any justification for the Ugandan government to violate the DRC border under the pretence of fighting the LRA rebellion. In particular, the end of the war will impact positively on the Ituri District, which has been deeply affected by the militia groups connected with Uganda.
The DRC is just emerging from a protracted war involving Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda, Rwanda, Chad, during which over three million people were killed, thousands displaced, thousands still becoming refugees, many atrocities committed, and the HIV/AIDS rate increased. Many issues are outstanding, not least the accountability of the perpetrators and the issue of reparation for the victims of those atrocities.
However, the proposition of a traditional form of justice, Mato Oput [1], as an alternative to the International Criminal Court (ICC) trial, the dropping off of the warrant of arrest against the LRA leaders, the blanket amnesty promised to the LRA leaders by the Ugandan government in exchange for a peace agreement despite the warrant of arrest from the ICC pending upon them, are areas of concern for the DRC. Any outcome on these three issues in Uganda - signatory to the Rome Statute as the DRC - will have implications for the DRC, and the Ituri District.
What impact can the Ugandan peace process have in Ituri (DRC) in the perspective of transitional justice? What other issues does the Ugandan peace process raise? These are the questions I will try to respond to through this paper.
The peace process in Uganda.
The current peace process in Uganda between the Ugandan government and the LRA began in July 2006. The peace talks are taking place in Juba in Southern Sudan and led by Dr Riek Machar, the Vice President of Southern Sudan. [2]
The LRA is a rebel group led by Joseph Kony, that has fought in northern Uganda for the past 19 years. Born in the early 1960’s in Odek, a village East of Gulu, Kony is thought to be the cousin of Alice Lakwena who founded the Holy Spirit Movement in 1986. This group represented the Acholi people in northern Uganda who felt excluded from power after the overthrow of the northern leader Milton Obote by Museveni. Lakwena promised her followers immunity from the bullets of the Ugandan army, but Museveni troops defeated her movement in 1988 and she fled to Kenya. After this defeat, Kony founded his own group which has operated through the abduction of thousands of children to become fighters or sex slaves. Kony himself is thought to have at least 60 wives as he and his senior commanders take the pick of the girls they capture. [3]
According to IRIN [4], nineteen years of the conflict has condemned some two million people in northern Uganda to live in appalling conditions in huge camps within their home districts. Thousands have died during this conflict. The Kony rebel group initially claimed to be fighting to topple a government that has “marginalized” the people of the region but they quickly turned against the same people when support was not forthcoming. [5]
Indeed, Kony appears to believe that his role is to cleanse the Acholi people. He uses biblical references to explain why it is necessary to kill his own people since they - in his view - failed to support his cause. “If the Acholi don’t support us, they must be finished”, he told one abducted person.[6]
Death was not the only one punishment that Kony has afflicted on his people. Mutilation, rape, abduction, slavery and burning of houses were also among the arsenal of weapons he employed against his people. [7]
As a leader, Kony sees himself as a spirit medium and he has created an aura of fear and mysticism around himself, thus his rebels follow strict rules and rituals.[8] His LRA movement demands that Uganda be ruled according to the biblical Ten Commandments. IRIN [9] has observed that over the past 19 years, Kony and his rebel group have not controlled any territory and have rarely tried to control strategic government assets. This made fighting and arresting perpetrators a nightmare for the government until the government petitioned the ICC in The Hague to investigate and indict rebel leaders for their crimes against humanity.[10] The ICC responded and last year issued warrants of arrest for five rebel leaders: Joseph Kony, Vince Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen.[11]
However, since these warrants were issued, peace talks between the LRA and Ugandan government began. A major breakthrough was made when the parties signed a ‘cessation of hostilities agreement’ whereby the LRA agreed to assemble within three weeks at designated points. Rebels in Uganda and Sudan were to go to Owiny-Ki-Bulm in Eastern Equatoria, and rebels in Congo to Ri-Kwangban in Western Equatoria.[12] The rebels would be protected by the Southern Sudanese and the Ugandan government undertook not to attack them. [13]
But the mediators who tried to broker negotiations in the war were not amused as they felt that the justice being sought by the ICC was not the immediate requirement, but a luxury that could be put aside for a while until peace was achieved. [14]
The Ugandan peace process versus the I CC
Very often, when a country wishes to move from war to peace, the search for justice may include trials in an national or international court of law as well as other non-punitive approaches. In recent years there has been a growing demand around the world for transitional mechanisms, such as truth commissions.[15] Juan E. Mendez argues that because accountability problems occur within a broad range of contexts, accountability for past abuses must be considered not only in transitions to democracy, but in seeking solutions to armed conflicts as well. [16]
However, after the ICC issued warrants of arrest against the LRA leaders, some analysts expressed concerns that these warrants effectively ended the peace efforts led by former Uganda minister Betty Bigombe. Once officially charged by the ICC with crimes against humanity, the LRA commanders cannot receive amnesty as part of any political settlement of the conflict. Bigombe herself complained that the court had “rushed too much” as a result of which “there is now no hope of getting (the LRA commanders) to surrender’’. The Roman Catholic Church, which had also helped facilitate the mediation effort, expressed fears too that a political settlement has now been made more difficult. [17]
On the other hand, Juan E. Mendez argues that the ICC warrants of arrest arehelpful for the Ugandan peace process. He told IRIN that, “when you have spoilers like the five people who have been indicted who are really not interested in peace, at some point it is important to remove them from the negotiating table so you can bargain with people who are more interested in peace. This removal, by the fact they are now under indictment, may initially be seen as an obstacle to peace, but farther down the road it may be exactly what is need to get a stable peace in northern Uganda”. [18]
History confirms the validity of Mendez’ argument. The indictment of Charles Taylor [19] was beneficial for the peace process in Liberia, and the death of Dr Jonas Savimbi [20], the ex-UNITA rebel leader, allowed the Angola government to embark on a successful peace process with another UNITA leader.
The road towards peace is sometimes very surprising indeed. A further more complicated proposal is that made by some Ugandans of using ‘Mato Oput’, the traditional form of justice, as an alternative to the ICC processes.
Still others are asking for the ICC warrants of arrest to be withdrawn and there are also those who believe the Ugandan Amnesty Commission (UAC) is good enough to deal with the case.
Thus, the three issues posited as the conditions for peace - the use of Mato Oput, the withdrawal of arrest warrants issued against LRA leaders, and the granting of a blanket amnesty to the LRA leaders, - are becoming a threat to the existence even of the ICC for which the philosophy is: “There is no justification for worse crimes.” [21]
Mato Oput
In reference to the principle of complementarity in the preamble of the ICC, which states that “The International Criminal Court shall be complementary to national criminal court jurisdiction” [22], some observers in Uganda are suggesting that the traditional Mato Oput process of reconciliation be implemented in order to deal with Kony and his commanders. [23]
To confirm this trend, one of the elders in the Internally Displaced People’s (IDPs) camp at Opit, Gulu, in northern Uganda said, “the amount of death in Acholi should not be equated to the pursuing of five LRA commanders’. The elder added that “the Acholi people have a system that is capable of delivering justice in region” [24], referring here to Mato Oput.
Indeed, in Acholi, Mato Oput means drinking the herb of the Oput tree, [25] a blinding-bitter tree [26]. The reconciliation process is called Mato Oput because it ends in a significant ceremony of reconciling the parties in conflict. Barney Afako, a Ugandan Human rights lawyer and consultant to the Amnesty Commission, argues that among the Acholi “many offenses including homicides” were traditionally resolved by reconciliation. [27] If one kills a person, the clan of the killer approaches the clan of victim for reconciliatory justice. [28]
Mato Oput is not a happy ceremony. The moods of all present express the seriousness of the occasion. The process involves the guilty acknowledging responsibility, repenting, asking for forgiveness, paying compensation and being reconciled with the victim’s family through sharing the bitter drink -Mato Oput. [29] The victim’s clan must accept the plea for forgiveness for the reconciliation to be complete. [30]
Mato Oput is to be distinguished from other ceremonies, particularly the nyono tong gweno (stepping of the egg) ceremony which is a cleansing ritual that has been adapted for the reintegration of returnees. The latter is not a reconciliation ceremony that involves any measure of accountability or admission of guilt. [31]
The accountability issue that Mato Oput addresses raises a couple of questions such as will Mato Oput apply to types of crimes such as mutilation, burning of houses, abduction, use of children soldiers and slavery, which are crimes against humanity? These are the crimes for which Kony and his senior commanders are wanted by the ICC. Similarly, will Mato Oput be a suitable alternative mechanism to the ICC? Can LRA leaders can be tried by Mato Oput after the ICC already issued warrants of arrest for them, since there is no provision allowing the ICC to drop this case?
From the above arguments, Mato Oput can be described as conciliatory justice dealing with less serious crimesresponsibility. [32]
The gross violations of human rights, such as abduction, slavery, children, and mass killing are out of its jurisdiction as is confirmed by George Omona from Koc Goma in southwestern Gulu. Omona states that “the Mato Oput did not envisage monstrous crimes against a community, like killing of hundreds of people by Kony rebels”. [33] Therefore, Mato Oput will not be appropriate way to deal with Kony and his senior commanders.
Furthermore, to be suitable as an alternative mechanism to the ICC, Mato Oput has to comply with international law standards. Indeed, Joseph Yav Katshung argues that there is a need to ‘test if this Mato Oput mechanism implies good faith. Is this effort designed to generate more truth, more justice, reparation, and genuine institutional reform? If so, it is welcome. If the objective is to evade the state and society’s legal, ethical and political obligations to their people, it should be rejected. If not, someone could say that the purpose of this Mato Oput mechanism is just to shield certain perpetrators (Kony and others). In this hypothesis, the process will violate international law and will not be in the interest of justice and society as whole.” [34]
Indeed, Alex Boraine argues that the rule of law is fundamental to the existence of a free society. It separates us from anarchy. He adds that legal prosecutions have at least three additional advantages: firstly, prosecutions in most case prevent high-ranking perpetrators from returning to positions of authority; secondly, tribunals and special courts aim to punish those who bear the greatest responsibility for human rights violations and thus assist in breaking the cycle of collective reprisals; thirdly, due process avoids summary justice.[35] Charles Villa Vincencio [36] argues that organized systems of justice based on international standards of human rights include the entrenchment of the right of all persons to a legal defense and access to courts that administer the law in an even-handed and efficient manner - even in the face of the most hideous gross violations of human rights and ruthless manifestations of crime.
However, Mato Oput as a court raises similar concerns to those expressed about the Gacaca community courts established on 30 August 1996 by the Rwandese authority in order to deal with the alleged genocidaires.[37] These concerns relate to expertise and competence. The elders in charge of Mato Oput would be expected to understand complex legal issues without the benefit of legal training or legal arguments, and they would be expected to distinguish between genuine and false testimonies. They would have to deal with the problem of evidence and witness statements despite their lack of expertise in legal matters. They would be expected to hand down heavy sentences, including life imprisonment. In addition Mato Oput would be expected to set a framework for prosecuting and sentencing people suspected of having committed crimes against humanity. If Mato Oput could not provide for fair trials, reparations, appeals, witness and victim protection and for theaccused to be allowed to be represented by defence counsel, this system would not conform to international standards of fairness. [38]
Indeed, the Dakar Declaration adopted in September 1999, following the seminar on the Right to Fair Trial in Africa organized by the Africa Commission on Human and People’s Rights stated clearly that ‘it is recognized that traditional courts are capable of playing a role in the achievement of peaceful societies and exercise authority over a significant proportion of African countries. Traditional courts are not exempted from the provisions of the African Charter relating to fair trial. [39] And Mato Oput is not an exception to this statement.
• Dieu-Donné WEDI DJAMBA is a lawyer (Advocate)at the Lubumbashi Bar association/DRC; Consultant; Assistant lecturer in the College of Law in Lubumbashi/ DRC; Human Rights Activist and Writer. Tel:+243812485222;+27738362921 ; Fax:+18016727206 Email: [email][email protected];[email protected]
• Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
References:
[1] Birgit brock-Utne, “Indigenous conflict resolution in Africa”, University of Oslo, >( accessed 9 September 2006)
[8] BCC New.ibid
[9] BBC news.op.cit
[10] IRIN.op.cit
[11] ICC, “Situation and Cases: Uganda”,
[12] BBC News.op.cit.
[13] International Crisis Group; “Peace in northern Uganda?”, Africa Briefing Nº
[14] Naibi/Brussel,13October 2006, BBC News/Africa/Ugandan rebels assemble in sudan.
[15] Joseph Yav Katshung,“Justice At A Glance In Uganda:Mato Oput versus ICC”, African Security Analysis Programme,ISS Pretoria
[16] Juan E.Mandez, ‘Accountability for Past Abuses’ in HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY,Vol.19(1997),.pp256
[17] Marlise Simmons, “Court in The Hague issues Arrest Warrant for Uganda Rebels”,in the News york Times
[18] IRIN.op.cit.
[19] HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS: “West Africa:Taylor adictment avances justice” ,accessed]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0901288.html>,accessed 25 October)
[21] News .
[22] Rome Statute.