Although the LRA cited Juba Mediator as hostile and impartial and expressed unwillingness
to return to the peace talks by end of 2007, the talks were expected to
end on 10th April 2008 with the signing of an agreement following the protracted
peace negotiations presided over by Sudanese Vice President Riak Machar. Before
the signing of the Peace Agreement, the LRA team however sought to meet the
United Nations Secretary General and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor
to ask them to drop the warrants of arrest against LRA leader and his top commanders
as a pre condition. The indictment by the ICC remained a major obstacle
to the peace process and notwithstanding the heavy investments in the peace negotiations
the comprehensive peace agreement had not been signed by Kony by years’
end.
Several alternative judicial systems were proposed that included the traditional justice
systems (mato-put) but were doubted and perceived to be inadequate in view of
the serious crimes against humanity committed by the LRA. As an interim alternative
to the ICC, on 18th February 2008, the LRA signed a landmark deal that paves
way for the trial of the LRA leader and a few other individuals who committed serious
war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 22 -year conflict in a Ugandan
Court. Although this was a preferred option that circumvents the international
law to drop the ICC indictments, it was considered a major step towards peace and
justice for Northern Uganda.
According to the Ugandan Government, it could only push for the suspension of
the ICC indictments against LRA team only if they signed the Final Peace Agreement;
and the ICC indictments could only be lifted when the ICC judges determined
whether national trials are an adequate alternative to prosecution and the
accused parties had surrendered. The ICC Registrar and Prosecutor however reaffirmed
the ICC position that the LRA leader, Joseph Kony would be arrested at all
costs irrespective of the Uganda Governments’ position. The ICC registrar rejected
the argument that LRA’s reluctance to sign the final pact of the comprehensive
peace agreement in April 2008 was due to the pending ICC warrants of arrest.
Notwithstanding earlier non- hostility agreements signed by the LRA that called for
a ceasefire from either party and the relocation of the LRA to the assembly point of
Ri-Kwangba, on 12th February 2008 the LRA was alleged to have relocated to the
Central African Republic in violation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. The
LRA was also accused of resuming attacks that claimed lives of innocent civilians in
both the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Southern Sudan. Until 14th December
2008, the Uganda Government was still committed to the peace process; a
position that changed when a regional force comprising of Uganda, DRC and
Southern Sudan began a joint intelligence-led military offensive against Joseph
Kony rebel bases in Garamba. The military offensive was condemned by the LRA
spokesperson as a violation of the Ceasefire of Hostilities Agreement that was
signed with the Uganda Government and doubted if the military option would
bring peace to the region. The ICC was also criticized for focusing only on the
crimes committed by the LRA and ignoring those committed by the UPDF.
Northern Uganda was relatively calm with no major incidents reported although
the ordinary population was skeptical about prospects of achieving total peace. Internally
Displaced Persons (IDPs) gradually returned to
their villages and settled in newly created community
homesteads to enable them access their land for cultivation.
A few elderly and child-headed homes unsure of their
survival outside the camp life remained in the camps to
access relief supplies that reportedly were reduced due to
the improving security situation. Conflicts over land were
common and land grabbing threats were real; and there is
still an apparent fear of possible attacks from the LRA, a
fear that affects the resettlement process.
Human Rights groups called for a speedy end to the talks, a comprehensive program
of resettlement, a more effective presence of Law and Order Sector agencies
(police, prisons and judiciary), reparation to the victims of the 22- year conflict and
the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Amnesty Commission
granted Amnesty certificates to rebels that surrendered from both LRA and
Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an action considered a welcome development in
ending the 22 year-old civil war.
In pursuit of peace and justice in Northern Uganda, many lawyers are supportive
of the Acholi traditional justice system (mato oput.) A Special War Crimes Division
of the High Court was instituted with the appointment of three experienced judges
in post conflict situations. Parliament is expected to make laws to try the war suspects
while a working group of members from the Justice, Law and Order Sector
are to look into other pertinent issues of cut-off dates for the war crimes, a clear
definition of who is a victim, the location of the court, and matters of witness protection.
Post conflict healing is of utmost necessity and therefore restorative justice
and reconciliation is to be emphasized. Whereas the State Minister for Justice confirmed
that Uganda would use traditional justice systems alongside the International
Criminal Court (ICC) and the ordinary courts to address the war problems,
the Refugee Law Project argues that inclusion of international justice of the ICC
would be ineffectual in solving the conflict since it is tainted with accusations of racism.
The Uganda Law Society recommended to Parliament that the War Crimes
Court should have the discretion to deny bail to perpetrators of abuse and their decision
should be final, a proposal that was opposed by several MPs on grounds that
denying bail would tantamount to abuse of human rights. The proposal touched on
the age of criminal responsibility which the group sought to be brought down to 15
from 18 such that, child soldiers in the LRA ranks would be charged in the same
way as rebel leader Joseph Kony once the ICC Bill 2006 became law.
While opening the New Law Year on 18th January 2008, the Chief Justice of Uganda
urged the overzealous state operatives to respect the independence of the Judiciary;
reiterated the independence of the three arms of government. In an unprecedented
act in Uganda’s history, the Judiciary and other members of the legal profession
went on strike protesting the second court siege by armed security operatives on
Uganda’s High Court on 16th November 2005 and on 1st March 2007 that was
roundly condemned as an affront to the judiciary.
Responding to public outcry about the increasing case back log and congestion in
Uganda prisons the President of Uganda appointed 16 new judges to beef up the
judiciary. With a population of over 30 million people, a crime rate that had risen
from 50% in 2000 to 57% in 2007, and inadequate staffing of the Justice, Law and
Order sector, Parliament of Uganda approved a further increase of High Court
Judges to fifty in reaction to the recommendations of the Legal and Parliamentary
Affairs committee. It was also agreed that the retirement age of High Court judges
be raised from 65 to 70 and the performance of judges be assessed periodically and
an appraisal system be included in the Administration of Justice Bill. A senior judicial
officer however observed that some of the judicial nominees did not possess
impeccable integrity credentials required.
Apart from slight improvements registered in the administration of justice in 2008,
and in order to address the case backlog estimated at over 82,285, the Chief Justice
announced plans to set up informal courts that would expeditiously resolve small
claims and disputes to make access to justice timely as well as affordable to the
poor and marginalized on 31st October 2008. Civil claims against the State would
however not be eligible as well as those exceeding Uganda Shs. 10 million. Two
High Court Divisions to handle anti-corruption and war crimes; were firmly in
place at year’s end.
Corruption in the judiciary remained a big threat to the dispensation of justice in
the country. A number of judicial officers were interdicted and dismissed over
cases linked to corruption especially the lower cadre staff in the judiciary particularly
court clerks and lay magistrates. The parliamentary Public Accounts Committee
(PAC) meeting on 28th August 2008 further revealed that judicial officers cheat
Ugandans through non-refunded cash bailouts because bail claimants once freed
fear going back to claim their money and hardly are records kept up-to-date with
proper accountability.
Despite the amendments to the Magistrate’s Courts Act 2007 granting jurisdiction
to magistrates to try defilement cases, due to inadequate budgetary support no significant
reductions in the caseload were noted. Even the Anti Corruption Division
of the High Court scheduled to start business in July 2008, could not commence
work owing to legal and procedural issues that remained outstanding.
The right to bail is still a controversial matter. Following the Constitutional court
ruling in a petition filed by FHRI in 2006, bail was declared not an automatic right.
The court ruled that the constitution only empowers suspects to apply for bail and
that courts retain the discretion to grant it. The Constitutional Court ruling of 26th
March 2008 caused controversy within Uganda’s political opposition and human
rights groups who have always argued that bail is a fundamental human right.
While attending the 5th Annual Lawyers and Human Rights Awareness Day organized
by FHRI at the Kampala International University, the Principal Judge cited the
political events in Kenya and Zimbabwe and criticized African Leaders for clinging
onto power as a blatant negation and crude abrogation of the fundamental political
rights enshrined in the national constitutions. The upcoming legal professionals
were urged to protest bad laws, fight injustice and uphold the code of conduct in
the interest of justice for democracy to prevail.
With a ratio of one registered practicing lawyer to 15000 people, accessing justice is
almost impossible considering the high number of pre-trial detainees. The Poor Persons
Defense Act requires Government to provide legal services to those who cannot
afford legal representation in the courts. On the contrary a study conducted by
a network of free legal aid service providers in 2008, showed that 84% of Uganda’s
districts do not have access to justice as most of the legal service providers are
based in urban areas.
At the Annual Judicial Roundtable convened by FHRI in August 2008 a Constitutional
court judge expressed disappointment at the apparent government failure to
uphold court rulings and urged the Attorney General to prevail on the executive to
respect court findings. Illegal detention occasioned by the Uganda Police, UPDF
and other security agencies, he noted is still common. This arbitrary practice was
challenged by FHRI in a Constitutional Petition No. 20 (Foundation for Human Rights
Initiative Vs Attorney General) that sought to nullify several sections of the Police
Act, Magistrates Courts Act and Trial on Indictment Act, UPDF Act and to seek legal
interpretation of the right to bail.
In a landmark ruling on 26th March 2008 the Constitutional Court nullified the relevant
sections of these legislations and declared the practice of arbitrary detention
unlawful but retained the discretion of the judicial officer to grant bail.
On May 27th 2008, the Constitutional Court nullified a law that made it mandatory
for Ugandans to seek written permission from the Inspector General of Police before
holding an assembly or forming a procession in any public place. The landmark
ruling observed that the Police Act in its current form law represented a limitation
on the enjoyment of a fundamental right to freedom of assembly and association.
The Democratic Party’s (DP) had earlier lodged a petition challenging
Section 32 (2) of the Police Act that gave the Inspector
General of Police the power to permit rallies. Despite that positive
ruling Government response was harsh and disrespectful of the
court ruling when police violently dispersed a rally subsequently
called by the same party. In reaction to public protest the Attorney
General and the Uganda Police Force argued that the ruling did
not remove police powers given that the Police Force has a duty to maintain law
and order and detect crime (art.212 1995 Uganda Constitution).
The landmark Constitutional court ruling did in effect nullify the Police Declaration
(Gazetted Areas) Instrument No. 53 that proscribes any meeting outside the gazetted
areas however Government maintained that despite the court ruling,
Uganda Police had power under S.35 of the Police Act to regulate meetings. A rally
convened by the Democratic Party (DP) on Saturday 7th June 2008 was violently dispersed
when police fired teargas and brutally beat DP activists who had assembled
to celebrate the court ruling. The DP offices were seized by police and ransacked.
Following public protest the Attorney General announced that government would
appeal the ruling in the Supreme Court of Uganda.
Police conduct came under public scrutiny due to several incidences that led to loss
of lives. For example at Kalerwe; a Kampala suburb, two police constables and a 12
year-old boy were shot dead in a bloody scene that lasted about two hours. The
mob that attempted to lynch the policemen who were responding to the situation
and torched one of the police patrol vehicles resisted a security operation meant to
arrest a group of unidentified marijuana dealers.
The use of live ammunition by the police officers raised concerns whether the Special
Police Constables (SPCs) are well trained to handle firearms given that the Police
instructor had cautioned police against arming SPCs. Parliament also condemned
the increased acts of police brutality. Earlier, three opposition MPs had
been assaulted and arrested up by the Police Force allegedly for holding illegal assemblies.
Increasing cases of lawlessness characterized by incidents of “mob justice”
were common.
The Uganda Police was ranked the most corrupt institution for the 10th year running
followed by the judiciary in the 3rd National Integrity Survey Report 2008. The
report noted corruption trends to have taken a new twist by involving people who
are supposed to be fighting corruption who instead accept corrupt practices as a
way of life and demonize the poor as failures. The survey is carried out every five
years to determine corrupt trends and the reasons for it.
Prison conditions remain poor and life threatening. Although Shs.15bn was required
in the 2008/09 FY to maintain custody of 34,275 prisoners (food, clothing,
medicine and utilities), Government released only Shs.7bn. The Uganda Prisons
Service requested parliamentary approval for additional funding to cater for meals
but this was not provided in the appropriation bill as per the Budget Committee
report. Hundreds of infants below 18 months in prisons countrywide live in dire
conditions and at times lack the basic necessities like food, shelter and medical care.
The Uganda Prisons Service (UPS) joined the rest of the world in commemorating
the International Literacy Day that was celebrated on 25th September 2008. On this
day 88 prisoners both on remand and those serving their sentences got certificates
in Functional Adult Literacy. In another development, the Prisons Authority was
sworn in as provided for by the Prisons Act 2006. The Prisons Authority advises the
Government of Uganda on management, development and administration of the
Prisons Service.
The Land Amendment Bill 2007 was a subject of intense debate among different individuals
and groups during the year. Different sections of the public and government
held several debates to understand the varying opinions on the proposed
Land Amendment Bill. The proposed amendments introduced as a measure to end
the alleged rampant illegal land evictions would frustrate landlords since they can20
expressed its concern over the increasing volume of rampant illegal eviction of tenants
and the growing number of land cases being handled by the judiciary and
asked Parliament to expeditiously pass the Bill into Law. With a majority representation
in parliament the President reaffirmed his determination to have the proposed
Land Amendment Bill 2007 passed despite increasing opposition from
Buganda Kingdom and the Catholic Church.
The FHRI research report titled “Land Rights: The Ugandan Experience” for the period
Jan-June 2008 established that the Land Act 1998, the Penal Code and the 1995
Uganda Constitution contain enough checks against such illegal evictions and as
such should be relied on to stop the evictions. The Judiciary called for land reforms
while the Chief Government Valuer asked government to halt the Land Amendment
Bill until a comprehensive National Land policy was in place.
The UHRC recommended that more and independent consultations be made on
the controversial Land Amendment Bill 2007 so as to meaningfully resolve the land
issues with a comprehensive National Land policy in place rather than relying on a
piecemeal approach. The Bill received mixed reactions from the Acholi, Baganda,
Teso, Lango and Karamoja ethnic groups who insisted that it was intended to facilitate
land grabbing. an act considered inhuman and cruel.
Besides other allegations the proposed amendments to the Land Act 1998 further
restrained relations between Buganda Kingdom and the Central Government of
Uganda. Three Buganda kingdom officials were mysteriously arrested and illegally
detained for a week on charges of inciting violence, promoting sectarianism on 18th
July 2008. The kingdom however used peaceful means to secure the release of their
officials from police custody after several attempted visits by their lawyers. Parliament
was prompted to discuss the unwarranted and illegal
method of arrest that was used and the kind of political
pressure government used to address its challenges.
Meanwhile the 2008 Annual Report by Amnesty International
reported that there was widespread inhuman and
degrading treatment by law enforcers; restrictions to
freedom of assembly; inadequate access to justice, and
impunity for the perpetrators of torture.
Ignorance of the law, poverty at household levels, poor enforcement of the law, unstable
marriages and polygamy were cited as the main cause of human rights
abuses. In a campaign to advocate for the enactment of the widely contested Domestic
Relations Bill, the draft bill was divided into two sections to address the concerns
of the Muslim Community on matters of polygamy.
The UHRC and human rights groups recommended that Parliament enacts a law
prohibiting acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and provide
individual liability for perpetrators of torture.
On account of these pressing human rights challenges the Foundation for Human
Rights Initiative (FHRI) devised several interventions to respond as detailed below:
