By HALIMA ABDALLAH
In Summary
- Uganda's unwavering support to the court as demonstrated in the trial of former Lord Resistant Army commander Dominic Ongwen is portraying a country caught between a case it referred and its recent position as the leading critic.
- Uganda has been the “African voice” backing countries agitating for withdrawal from the global court, but its actions at home remains silent. The government has not in the past discussed withdrawal question in Cabinet nor intimated its intention to do so before parliament where it commands majority.
Uganda will officially announce its position on the International Criminal Court in January.
However, its unwavering support to the court as demonstrated in
the trial of former Lord Resistant Army commander Dominic Ongwen is
portraying a country caught between a case it referred and its recent
position as the leading critic.
Critics argue that Uganda is playing diplomacy — being the
loudest voice rallying the continent’s discomfort with the court while
reluctant or unable to extricate itself from a processes it helped
trigger.
Burundi, South Africa and the Gambia have written to UN
Secretary General and the UN Office of Legal Affairs with notification
of their intent to withdraw from the Rome Statute. Kenya has equally
made loud noise while Uganda remains unclear whether it will join those
pulling out or not.
Under the Rome Statute, full withdrawal comes into effect one year after notification to the UN treaty office.
President Yoweri Museveni has dismissed the court as “useless,” and urged his colleagues on the continent to withdraw.
But when Mr Ongwen’s trial — referred by Uganda along-side other
LRA commanders more than 10 years ago — started with victims especially
in the north of the country following closely, the government remained
mute until The EastAfrican reached out to Minister in charge of
International Affairs Okello Oryem. Mr Ongwen faces 70 counts for war
crimes and crimes against humanity.
“Why should we care about what other countries think about us?
We are an independent country. This is Uganda. Our position will be
announced in January during African Union Heads of State Summit in Addis
Ababa,” said Mr Oryem.
“Uganda’s current position is that as long as ICC improves their
system, they have no problems, but it is also very strategic. They do
not want to be at the forefront, but go along with the AU position,”
says Dr Livingstone Sewanyana, executive director of Foundation for
Human Rights Initiative.
“African voice”
In October 2013, AU distributed a draft resolution calling upon
the UN Security Council and ICC to give sitting heads of state and
senior government officials immunity.
The resolution was adopted to push for withdrawal of charges
against Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William
Ruto who have since been cleared by the court.
“No charges shall be commenced or continued before any
international court or tribunal against any serving head of state or
government or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity during
his/her term of office,” reads the AU resolution.
Since then, Uganda has been the “African voice” backing
countries agitating for withdrawal from the global court, but its
actions at home remains silent. The government has not in the past
discussed withdrawal question in Cabinet nor intimated its intention to
do so before parliament where it commands majority.
The talk against ICC has been at the presidential level, the
most recent being at the swearing in ceremony of President Museveni. In
his speech, he referred to the court as “a bunch of useless people,”
prompting some invited diplomats to walk away in protest.
It will be remembered that Sudan’s President Omar Al Bashir who
has a warrant of arrest hanging over his head was one of the invited
heads of state present at the ceremony. Uganda did not arrest him in
spite of a requirement under the Rome Statute for member countries to
help effect arrest of indicted persons.
“We are looking at ICC as a crooked institution. It is biased
and it is propagating interest of Western countries, so it is not worth
continuing being a party to it. The institution leaves a lot to be
desired. We want ICC to prosecute everybody who commits crime equally,”
Mr Oryem said.
“The way the state is designed, it confers impunity on sitting
president. It is only the ICC, which lifts the impunity and that possess
a threat to them. So ICC remains an important mechanism for us to
embrace. We must have very big campaigns against any move to withdraw,”
said Dr Sewanyana.
Voices of victims lost
ICC is the world’s first permanent international court to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Uganda’s argument may not hold water in view of ongoing
investigations by ICC Prosecutor Fatue Bensouda in Central African
Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo; Darfur, Sudan; Kenya; Libya;
Uganda; Côte d’Ivoire; Mali and Georgia. The court has publicly issued
33 arrest warrants and nine summonses to appear.
Four trials are ongoing. There have been two convictions and one
acquittal. Eight preliminary examinations currently ongoing, including
into situations in Afghanistan, Burundi, Colombia, Guinea, Palestine,
Iraq/UK, Nigeria and Ukraine.
“The voices of victims are often lost in the ‘ICC targeting
Africa’ rhetoric and in discussions calling for head of state immunity.
If states pull out from the ICC, a key avenue for justice for millions
of people will be lost,” said Stephen Lamony, head of advocacy and
policy at Coalition for the ICC
No comments :
Post a Comment