|
The article / interview here below by DAVID KAIZA does not say much about the object ( does not reveal the identity of whom this DIRECTOR OF THE REFUGEE LAW PROJECT). Perhaps intentionally?! Still, it is object for scrutiny. The so called Director of the refugee law project started off on a wrong foot. Since his proceeding understanding is faulty, his arguments appears biased and librated from factors, to put it mildly. In effect, his perspective is part and parcel with the problem. Allow me �chop-chop� a few extracts: Firstly, the Refugee Law Project director starts with a misconception of the ICC: ��.the court is the accuser, the prosecutor and it is going to be the judge�. I think he has to revise. Does not seem to like the ICC is the accuser. but the people of Uganda are. . ��..Whether or not that court is the best mechanism for applying universal justice and accountability is a question that has not been answered in Uganda.� Is that not reason enough to let the prosecution have it�s gong? ��.The LRA are not the kind of people who will take threats lightly� This is liberated from intelligence and, makes me doubt the directors credentials. It is very African. He who is �expert� in Law should know better that in front of law, we are all equal!!!!. It like in the good old days of sand-box when kids say ��.you leave that giant alone even if he has beaten you. If you start now he will kill us all��. ��.There have been accusations that although atrocities have also been committed by the UPDF, the ICC is going to investigate only the LRA Here too the Director displays divergent understanding. Take as an example two separate gangs of thugs robbing the same bank. The one robs in the morning and the other in the afternoon. The one gets caught the other still roaming free. Should we say that the gang that is caught should not be tried as long as the other gang who also robbed the same bank are still free?!? Or, are we going to say their act first become criminal when the other gang too has been caught and convicted? Further more, the Director, who is expected to be a legal expert or solicitor should know better that the judiciary acts on tenable evidences. What is he waiting for? If he has evidences against the UPDF why does he, who is motive in the REFUGEE LAW PROJECT, not FILE A CASE AGAINST THE UPDF? ��.., the ICC is silent on what it would do with the UPDF. To make it worse, the ICC jurisdiction starts with July 2002, The above answers this as well. It is hard to know the Directors platform. My perception is that he has misinterpreted the roles of both the ICC, it�s mandate and unfortunately, his own role (to provide the ICC with evidences or file cases) as well. Judging from the fact that he / she not gutted enough in his capacity to disclose his real identity, I think it is easy to understand why he resort to blaming the ICC instead of standing up for his conviction and process a case there to. Rgds Noc�l The International Criminal Court has been criticised by civil society in Uganda. The director of the Refugee Law Project explains its position to DAVID KAIZA. Would you say the ICC is walking into a minefield in northern Uganda?
In principle, we are not against the ICC carrying out an investigation. The court was invited into a very complex conflict, deeply rooted in our politics, and the court needs to understand that. Operation Iron Fist, which was supposed to be the final blow against the LRA, failed - and what we saw was a devastating impact in terms of vengeance by the LRA against civilians. By the time Iron Fist was launched, there were 400,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs). By June 2003, the IDP population had shot to three times the original and in February 2004, the IDP population was around 1.6 million. There have been other war crimes trials - in Nuremburg, Tokyo, and so on. Why not northern Uganda? The distinction between the ICC and those other courts is that they had particular mandates with particular countries and they had particular failures, with activists calling for a universal human rights court to try criminals. Whether or not that court is the best mechanism for applying universal justice and accountability is a question that has not been answered in Uganda. In this case, there is a 'hot' conflict? Precisely and it is really theatrical for a court to try and begin to investigate it - here the court is the accuser, the prosecutor and it is going to be the judge. What then does that mean? The court has been over anxious for a test case to assert itself. But in so doing, it has lost that plot and the context in which it was going to operate: it was going to ride on the euphoria that the LRA was so demonised that it would be widely supported. It was therefore shocked at the cold response from NGOs and people living in the north. Now it's trying to isolate the leaders of the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative, trying to show them to be at fault. Does the ICC risk escalating the war? The LRA are not the kind of people who will take threats lightly. They invariably take revenge on civilians. The impact of the ICC has been to heighten the violence. The problem with the ICC is that it has arrogated itself the responsibility to judge the process of the peace talks. There have been accusations that although atrocities have also been committed by the UPDF, the ICC is going to investigate only the LRA. Based on the field work we have done, there are those who want Kony forgiven. There are those who say that justice is when all the people who are in the LRA are brought to justice irrespective of whether they are at the top or not. They make reservations for the children who were abducted into the group. And they also think that those UPDF officers who committed crimes should be tried. Sadly, the ICC is silent on what it would do with the UPDF. To make it worse, the ICC jurisdiction starts with July 2002, which means crimes committed before them cannot be investigated. People ask about the Mukura massacre. Who is going to try those NRA officers who committed that crime? [In 1989, NRA soldiers allegedly locked 69 people into a train wagon in Kumi district and set the wagon on fire]. This conflict has spanned two decades and a whole generation has been lost. I am not sure this is not the use of Africa as a guinea pig for the ICC. The ICC is pursuing retributive justice; what about the restorative justice advocated for by Archbishop Desmond Tutu? The one thing that the ICC statute has ignored is the context in which the court is going to operate. Uganda is different because the conflict is still ongoing. In this situation, a retributive form of justice provides further fuel for violence.
So is the ICC a continubation of the war by other means? One of my biggest objections to the court is that it's being used as a political tool. George Bush's arguments against the ICC was that it was it was going to be used for political purposes and Museveni has just confirmed it. That is going to bring down the court. __________________________________________________ --- On Wed 04/27, Matek Opoko < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: From: Matek Opoko [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet % UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
