Peace talks need to focus on
Jun 26, 2007
<b>PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDAN IN CANADA</b><br><br>The LRA through its chief of delegation, Mr. Martin Ojul, has come up with a position on the way forward in the peace process in northern Uganda.
OPIYO OLOYA
PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDAN IN CANADA
The LRA through its chief of delegation, Mr. Martin Ojul, has come up with a position on the way forward in the peace process in northern Uganda.
The clearly articulated paper asks the Government of Uganda to create a judicial framework that will allow those accused of war crimes in northern Uganda to face justice within Uganda. This arrangement would specifically stop International Criminal Court (ICC) proceedings against the indicted LRA leadership including Joseph Kony.
The LRA position is very similar to the win-win proposal put forward by six Acholi Diaspora members in May 2006. In the proposal labelled Te Cwaa (under the tamarind tree), Dr. Ben Latigo, Dr. Ben Omara, Dr. Ogaba Oloya, Dr. George Otto, Daudi Abe and this writer, suggested that the ICC work with the government to create an alternative justice framework for trying those accused of serious war crimes in northern Uganda. Speaking as individuals rather than as representatives of Acholi Diaspora, the authors of the Te Cwaa proposal, long before the current peace process began in earnest, had foreseen the impasse created by the ICC indictments of the LRA leadership. They also recognised that other individuals not named by the ICC needed to face justice for crimes committed in northern Uganda.
For example, there is evidence that certain individuals within the UPDF knew and even actively abated atrocities on civilians in northern Uganda. A formal investigation by an independent body should determine who these individuals are so that they face justice alongside the LRA accused of similar crimes.
The heart of the Te Cwaa proposal rested on four specific points. First, that there be ample opportunity for the people of Uganda generally and specifically of Acholi to be included in the deliberations that follow the surrender of Joseph Kony and his officers. Secondly, that the ICC establish its seat of justice in Acholi to hear the case against Kony and his compatriots under the jurisdiction and protection of the United Nations.
Thirdly, that traditional Acholi elders and leaders headed by His Royal Highness Rwot Acana constitute an advisory body to the ICC, participating in the judicial process to provide an Acholi cultural dimension in the resolution of the conflict between the LRA and the people of Uganda. And, finally, that during its deliberations, the ICC consult with representatives of the Acholi elders and leaders, religious leaders, other Ugandans, and members of the Acholi community inside and outside Uganda.
In essence, where the LRA position slightly differs from Te Cwaa is that at no point do the authors of Te Cwaa assume that consensus exists on what form justice should take in northern Uganda. Instead, Te Cwaa clearly calls for consultation with stakeholders as the only viable means of establishing a legitimate judicial framework that everyone can live with. By contrast, Ojul asserted that “in the wisdom of most of the stakeholders, including the victims most affected by the conflict, the preferred way for Uganda to satisfy its obligations under international and internationalised criminal tribunals is through enactment of domestic legislations that would enable it to fulfil its obligations that arise through its adherence to the ICC… â€. The problem with that statement is that Ojul speaks for the LRA, as well as for the victims of LRA atrocities.
It may very well be that the victims of the war strongly agree with the positions taken by the LRA on an alternative justice system to the ICC. But, until they have spoken on the issue, it is mere speculation about what they want.
Clearly, to ensure that the victims of the war are not victimised a second time, the best way forward is to convene a consultative conference within the next four to six weeks. The goal of the conference would be to allow the victims and other stakeholders to speak with their own voices, and not through someone else, least of all, the LRA, about the kind of justice they feel will bring lasting resolution. Such a conference will also act as a vehicle to sample the general opinion on accountability and reconciliation. Like the successful Juba Conference held in February, this conference will focus exclusively on the topic of alternative justice. Recommendations arising from the conference would guide the LRA, the Government, the Chief Mediator Dr. Riek Machar and the international community on what the alternative judicial framework to the ICC would look like.
The conference may well concur with the position taken by Te Cwaa and the LRA. However, it is also possible that the collective voices coming out of the conference may decide that justice is best served after all by allowing the ICC to carry out its mandate in the Hague and not in Uganda.
In addition to the recommendations, the conference would have given much needed platform to those who were directly affected by the war, and who continue to live with the consequences.
Convened by Rwot Acana ll, the conference will need the expertise, funding and logistics from the international community. This would need to be undertaken in mid-July or early August in order to allow the peace process to continue with minimum delay.
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca
PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDAN IN CANADA
The LRA through its chief of delegation, Mr. Martin Ojul, has come up with a position on the way forward in the peace process in northern Uganda.
The clearly articulated paper asks the Government of Uganda to create a judicial framework that will allow those accused of war crimes in northern Uganda to face justice within Uganda. This arrangement would specifically stop International Criminal Court (ICC) proceedings against the indicted LRA leadership including Joseph Kony.
The LRA position is very similar to the win-win proposal put forward by six Acholi Diaspora members in May 2006. In the proposal labelled Te Cwaa (under the tamarind tree), Dr. Ben Latigo, Dr. Ben Omara, Dr. Ogaba Oloya, Dr. George Otto, Daudi Abe and this writer, suggested that the ICC work with the government to create an alternative justice framework for trying those accused of serious war crimes in northern Uganda. Speaking as individuals rather than as representatives of Acholi Diaspora, the authors of the Te Cwaa proposal, long before the current peace process began in earnest, had foreseen the impasse created by the ICC indictments of the LRA leadership. They also recognised that other individuals not named by the ICC needed to face justice for crimes committed in northern Uganda.
For example, there is evidence that certain individuals within the UPDF knew and even actively abated atrocities on civilians in northern Uganda. A formal investigation by an independent body should determine who these individuals are so that they face justice alongside the LRA accused of similar crimes.
The heart of the Te Cwaa proposal rested on four specific points. First, that there be ample opportunity for the people of Uganda generally and specifically of Acholi to be included in the deliberations that follow the surrender of Joseph Kony and his officers. Secondly, that the ICC establish its seat of justice in Acholi to hear the case against Kony and his compatriots under the jurisdiction and protection of the United Nations.
Thirdly, that traditional Acholi elders and leaders headed by His Royal Highness Rwot Acana constitute an advisory body to the ICC, participating in the judicial process to provide an Acholi cultural dimension in the resolution of the conflict between the LRA and the people of Uganda. And, finally, that during its deliberations, the ICC consult with representatives of the Acholi elders and leaders, religious leaders, other Ugandans, and members of the Acholi community inside and outside Uganda.
In essence, where the LRA position slightly differs from Te Cwaa is that at no point do the authors of Te Cwaa assume that consensus exists on what form justice should take in northern Uganda. Instead, Te Cwaa clearly calls for consultation with stakeholders as the only viable means of establishing a legitimate judicial framework that everyone can live with. By contrast, Ojul asserted that “in the wisdom of most of the stakeholders, including the victims most affected by the conflict, the preferred way for Uganda to satisfy its obligations under international and internationalised criminal tribunals is through enactment of domestic legislations that would enable it to fulfil its obligations that arise through its adherence to the ICC… â€. The problem with that statement is that Ojul speaks for the LRA, as well as for the victims of LRA atrocities.
It may very well be that the victims of the war strongly agree with the positions taken by the LRA on an alternative justice system to the ICC. But, until they have spoken on the issue, it is mere speculation about what they want.
Clearly, to ensure that the victims of the war are not victimised a second time, the best way forward is to convene a consultative conference within the next four to six weeks. The goal of the conference would be to allow the victims and other stakeholders to speak with their own voices, and not through someone else, least of all, the LRA, about the kind of justice they feel will bring lasting resolution. Such a conference will also act as a vehicle to sample the general opinion on accountability and reconciliation. Like the successful Juba Conference held in February, this conference will focus exclusively on the topic of alternative justice. Recommendations arising from the conference would guide the LRA, the Government, the Chief Mediator Dr. Riek Machar and the international community on what the alternative judicial framework to the ICC would look like.
The conference may well concur with the position taken by Te Cwaa and the LRA. However, it is also possible that the collective voices coming out of the conference may decide that justice is best served after all by allowing the ICC to carry out its mandate in the Hague and not in Uganda.
In addition to the recommendations, the conference would have given much needed platform to those who were directly affected by the war, and who continue to live with the consequences.
Convened by Rwot Acana ll, the conference will need the expertise, funding and logistics from the international community. This would need to be undertaken in mid-July or early August in order to allow the peace process to continue with minimum delay.
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca