The ICC and the legacy of the LRA Abductions in Uganda

 By Rawlings Magede

With a former LRA Commander

Over the past weeks, I had  a series of engagements  with representatives from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and former commanders and returnees of Uganda’s notorious rebel group, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).The rebel group remains active today and its led   by Joseph Kony.The engagements touched on a number of issues ranging from the conviction of former LRA commander, Dominic Ongwen by the ICC,the issue of reparations for victims of Ongwen and then the integration process of former LRA returnees into communities in Northern Uganda.

The ICC and LRA

On 16 December 2003, the Ugandan government referred the war crimes by the LRA to the prosecutor of the ICC.Since 1986, the LRA led by its leader, Joseph Kony had wrecked havoc on the Acholi people of Northern Uganda. The move by the Uganda government  was the first time that a state party had invoked Articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute in order to vest the Court with jurisdiction. These two articles  provide for the Exercise of jurisdiction and Referral of a situation by a state party respectively. The ICC set up an office in Uganda subsequently following this development. In 2005,the ICC issued a warrant of arrest for Kony  and his charges ranged from crimes against humanity,murder,enslavement,cruel treatment of civilians among others. Since then, several warrants of arrest have been issued against LRA commanders such as Vincent Otti.In 2021, the ICC successfully convicted Dominic Ongwen of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, torture, and enslavement and sentenced him to 25 years. Following the conviction, the ICC   plans to roll out a reparations program for victims who suffered at the hands of Ongwen. This has been received with mixed reactions by a cross section of victims of LRA in Northern Uganda. Some of the arguments by survivors is why the ICC reparations program is only targeting victims from the area where Ongwen operated. This has created critical conversations about reparations and the work of the ICC in Uganda. This move, if successful will likely create tensions and conflicts in Northern Uganda, an area that is also beset by a myriad of challenges.

The Ugandan Amnesty Act

In the year 2000, the Ugandan government enacted an Amnesty act as a tool to end rebellions in Uganda by encouraging LRA rebels to lay down their arms without the fear of prosecution for crimes committed during the fight against the government. Amnesties offer communities saddled with intractable conflicts to inevitably seek ways of breaking out of painful cycles of violence. The promise of amnesty and reintergration played a vital role in motivating fighters to escape or defect from the LRA.Following this enactment, several LRA Commanders, child soldiers and children born in captivity took heed of the call and fled LRA camps and fled  back to Northern Uganda.While this was a positive move to weaken the rebel group,a lot of challenges ranging from stigmatization,exclusion and poverty awaited the returnees.

In my engagements with a former LRA Commander, Charles Otim there are a wide range of concerns. Key among these is the lack of integration and inclusion of former LRA commanders in the army of Uganda. If anything, the controversial withdrawal of the 2000 Amnesty by government in 2012 has created serious suspicions among the returnees as they fear future prosecution. His other argument is that most alleged perpetrators within the rank and file of the LRA are victims themselves. In his case, he was abducted by LRA rebels when he was only 12 years old on his way to school and became a child soldier. Many young soldiers who were abducted during forceful conscriptions were subjected to other serious abuses. Otim argued that while the integration LRA senior commanders has posed a complex challenge, Ugandan communities particularly from the North continue to flag this issue with courage. While the offer for amnesty for LRA returnees was a minimum form of reparation from the government, it is issues of exclusion that have continued to fuel disgruntlement among returnees.

For example, another survivor that I met, MS Evelyn Amony highlighted that just like Mr. Otim, she was also a victim who was abducted by the LRA when she was only four years old. She spent more than eleven years held up in a LRA camp and gave birth to three children. She highlighted that since her return, she and her fellow returnees have suffered serious discrimination. Access to documents, especially by returnees, has also been a challenge and attempts to have these issues addressed have been met with stiff resistance even by the authorities. In 2014, through her organisation composed of women returnees, Women’s Advocacy Network (WAN) she petitioned the Ugandan parliament to take swift action and improve the welfare and challenges faced by LRA returnees. To date, there has been no response on the matter from the Ugandan Parliament. More worrying is the failure by government to roll out a robust rehabilitation program for most survivors. According to a 2018 study conducted by the Firoz Lalji Centre for Africa Research titled, “Politics of Return” which explores the return and reintegration of ex-rebels, notes   that poverty and denied access to land for returnees have hampered their reintegration and recovery. The study was conducted in the districts of Gulu, Nwoya and Amuru (Northern Uganda) targeting children born during the LRA war to identify gaps that exist in their birth registration. The findings also revealed that most children born in LRA captivity were born in DR Congo, The Central African Republic, and South Sudan. Getting these children key documents such as birth certificates and identity card documents has proved to be a mammoth task. This, coupled with lack of access to land and exclusion has compounded the modern-day challenges for the returnees.

In the final analysis, while debates on the exclusion of returnees will continue to run, legitimate as it is, such debates should not be allowed to paralyze the need for swift decision making and sound responses to the plight of LRA returnees. For there is, in fact considerable common ground across the population in Uganda that the majority of LRA returnees were first victims before they were forced to become perpetrators. To successfully address and recover from the legacy of the LRA conflict, Uganda needs to retain an official response on the plight of returnees, going beyond the use of force and prosecutions. The ICC needs to revise its reparation program in Northern Uganda and initiate a process that will target all victims of the LRA atrocities. Such a step acknowledges complexity and seeks to meet the needs of victims of all shades. In the words of Ms Evelyn Amony, “peace doesn’t have a language or ethnicity. Everyone has a responsibility to build peace”.

Rawlings Magede is Rotary Peace fellow based in Uganda, Kampala. He is also a Development Practioner.Feedback on rawlingsmagede2@gmail.com