Why <i>mato oput</i> system should come before ICC
THERE have been some concerns about <i>mato oput</i>, the Acholi traditional mechanism of conflict resolution, as opposed to prosecution of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) commanders by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The issue here is between peace and justice: which one sho
By Fabius Okumu-Alya
THERE have been some concerns about mato oput, the Acholi traditional mechanism of conflict resolution, as opposed to prosecution of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) commanders by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The issue here is between peace and justice: which one should prevail first? Secondly, whose justice are we talking about?
The ICC is representing the western concept of justice, while mato oput is representing the traditional concept of justice and reconciliation. These are two divergent conceptions, which should be merged in the interest of peace and justice in northern Uganda.
If you go by international standards, and look at the United Nations Charter of 1945, you will find that after realising the horrendous effects of the Second World War (1939-1945), they (UN founding fathers) came up with the preamble which talks about peace first, then justice comes later.
That is why, more than 60 years now, the Nazis are still being tried in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is different from ICC although both are based in The Hague, Netherlands. So I look at peace as having been the priority of the United Nations founding fathers.
If you use that parameter, and then translate it locally, then it appears to me that the people’s aspiration (in northern Uganda) is peace first. And that peace should be got within their needs and wishes. The justice should be done in relation to the maintenance or sustenance of the peace.
For instance, if you bring the ICC, they will prosecute the suspects (Kony and his commanders) in The Hague and maybe imprison them for life. The life imprisonment should be interpreted to mean maybe 20 years. So after 20 years, taking the age of Kony (45), he will not be too old by the time he finishes his sentence. How will he fit into the community when he comes back to resettle in northern Uganda? Will that prosecution have resolved the conflict? That is why there is that preference that, locally, we should aim for peace first, then justice will follow on case by case basis.
After mato oput, these people (LRA leaders) can still be arrested. The Acholi are not saying we don’t want Kony to be prosecuted. They are not supporting impunity. But what they want is prioritization: which one should come first – the ICC or mato oput?
At international level, they say ‘there is no peace without justice, and there is no justice without peace’, an argument that is a bit ridiculous to me as an international lawyer. At least there is one of the two which comes first. If you go by what I have told you in the UN Charter of 1945, peace is first. Justice is continuous. Anytime LRA leaders can be prosecuted, because a crime never abets.
Since this is the clamour of the people of northern Uganda, who are themselves the victims, why don’t we respect their views?
The ICC seems to be a consistent intrusion into these traditional views. And sometimes people also make unnecessary sentiments, that ‘you see, the Acholi traditional system of justice is primitive’. What is the parameter for judging civilisation? civilisation in whose eyes? And for whose benefit?
For the people of northern Uganda, they are saying ‘this (mato oput) is our preferred system of justice and reconciliation.’ Why don’t people give it a try first before the ICC comes in? After all, the rebel leaders can still be brought to justice at a later date, probably after the most desired peace has been attained in northern Uganda.
The writer is the Director of the Centre for Conflict Management and Peace Studies, Gulu University
As told to Denis Ocwich
THERE have been some concerns about mato oput, the Acholi traditional mechanism of conflict resolution, as opposed to prosecution of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) commanders by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The issue here is between peace and justice: which one should prevail first? Secondly, whose justice are we talking about?
The ICC is representing the western concept of justice, while mato oput is representing the traditional concept of justice and reconciliation. These are two divergent conceptions, which should be merged in the interest of peace and justice in northern Uganda.
If you go by international standards, and look at the United Nations Charter of 1945, you will find that after realising the horrendous effects of the Second World War (1939-1945), they (UN founding fathers) came up with the preamble which talks about peace first, then justice comes later.
That is why, more than 60 years now, the Nazis are still being tried in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is different from ICC although both are based in The Hague, Netherlands. So I look at peace as having been the priority of the United Nations founding fathers.
If you use that parameter, and then translate it locally, then it appears to me that the people’s aspiration (in northern Uganda) is peace first. And that peace should be got within their needs and wishes. The justice should be done in relation to the maintenance or sustenance of the peace.
For instance, if you bring the ICC, they will prosecute the suspects (Kony and his commanders) in The Hague and maybe imprison them for life. The life imprisonment should be interpreted to mean maybe 20 years. So after 20 years, taking the age of Kony (45), he will not be too old by the time he finishes his sentence. How will he fit into the community when he comes back to resettle in northern Uganda? Will that prosecution have resolved the conflict? That is why there is that preference that, locally, we should aim for peace first, then justice will follow on case by case basis.
After mato oput, these people (LRA leaders) can still be arrested. The Acholi are not saying we don’t want Kony to be prosecuted. They are not supporting impunity. But what they want is prioritization: which one should come first – the ICC or mato oput?
At international level, they say ‘there is no peace without justice, and there is no justice without peace’, an argument that is a bit ridiculous to me as an international lawyer. At least there is one of the two which comes first. If you go by what I have told you in the UN Charter of 1945, peace is first. Justice is continuous. Anytime LRA leaders can be prosecuted, because a crime never abets.
Since this is the clamour of the people of northern Uganda, who are themselves the victims, why don’t we respect their views?
The ICC seems to be a consistent intrusion into these traditional views. And sometimes people also make unnecessary sentiments, that ‘you see, the Acholi traditional system of justice is primitive’. What is the parameter for judging civilisation? civilisation in whose eyes? And for whose benefit?
For the people of northern Uganda, they are saying ‘this (mato oput) is our preferred system of justice and reconciliation.’ Why don’t people give it a try first before the ICC comes in? After all, the rebel leaders can still be brought to justice at a later date, probably after the most desired peace has been attained in northern Uganda.
The writer is the Director of the Centre for Conflict Management and Peace Studies, Gulu University
As told to Denis Ocwich