Uganda looks to strike down LRA amnesty law
In the trial of former LRA commander Thomas Kwoyelo, the Ugandan government is arguing that the LRA amnesty law is unconstitutional. But guest blogger Ashley Benner warns that striking it down could prolong the LRA crisis.
The controversial trial of former Lord’s Resistance Army commander Thomas Kwoyelo has taken a discouraging turn. The first former LRA rebel to stand trial, Mr. Kwoyelo has applied for amnesty through Uganda’s Amnesty Act of 2000 but has not been granted it. Furthermore, the Ugandan government is now attempting to strike down the Amnesty Act – a vital tool for encouraging LRA commanders and rank-and-file fighters to leave the group – by contending that the law is unconstitutional.Skip to next paragraph
Latest leader to redefine term limits: Senegal's President Wade
US troops against the LRA? A war worth winning
Congo election aftermath: some possible scenarios to avert crisis
Africa Rising: Carbon credits save Sierra Leone's Gola Rainforest
Eastern Congo braces for election results
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Since its adoption in 2000, close to 13,000 LRA members have received amnesty under the act. If the country’s Constitutional Court rules that it is unconstitutional, the decision could have devastating impacts on efforts to bring the nearly 25-year-long LRA crisis to an end.
The Kwoyelo trial could mark a crossroads in Uganda’s approach to the LRA conflict – a possible shift to a largely retributive approach to justice. Under the Amnesty Act, current LRA rebels can receive amnesty if they renounce and abandon involvement in the war. Amnesty enables them to leave the group without fear of prosecution and return home where they frequently face many other challenges. Eliminating the possibility for current LRA to receive amnesty would discourage them from defecting and prolong the suffering and rebuilding of communities affected by its violence.
The LRA’s long history of forcibly abducting its fighters – both children and adults – makes the conflict different from many others and necessitates an approach that addresses those differences. Such an approach should include criminal justice for those who bear most responsibility, amnesty for others (including those who have been abducted and forced to fight), and traditional justice mechanisms.
However, Uganda’s Principal State Attorney Patricia Mutesi views the Amnesty Act as an instrument of impunity. “The Amnesty Act was supposed to be in place for only a few months, but has been extended all the time,” Mutesi said, according to Radio Netherlands. “Thomas Kwoyelo was caught in a battle with the Ugandan army. As long as all rebels can just get amnesty we have impunity in this country. That must stop.”
During Kwoyelo’s trial, Mutesi has asked the Constitutional Court to deliberate on the constitutionality of the Amnesty Act. She said that it violates Uganda’s international legal obligations and contravenes sections of the country’s constitution. Although it is true that the amnesty was originally supposed to remain in force for no more than six months, it is unclear why it was considered constitutional during those months and is now being contested.