International law warrants legal accountability in recognition of inalienable rights of missing persons – which includes the rights to liberty and security and of a fair trial including effective remedy, the right to know the truth regarding circumstances of their disappearance. Arbitrary arrests, kidnappings and detentions in un-gazetted places have become something of a tradition in Uganda; and so are the victims’ gory tales of torture that have escalated public attention. The astounding magnitude of missing victims warrants a legal and moral obligation on part of the Government of Uganda to address the needs of the missing persons and their families.
The plight of the missing and their families has been marginalized in the national agenda of Government of Uganda, and there has been neither a national initiative to oversee search efforts of the missing, nor considerations for providing formal support to their families. Given this backdrop, the anguish of families of missing persons continues to linger and gets compounded by myriad unaddressed psychological, legal, administrative, social and economic challenges. This underscores the urgent need for concerted efforts to address the unhealed wounds and unmet needs of the missing victims and their families, which is indispensable to fostering long-term structures of sustainable peace and stability in Uganda.
Considering the history of political violence and human rights abuses in Uganda, one would expect that a lesson is learnt. However, its possible to assert that governments do not learn but skillfully employs the most effective means to silence critical voices. This is not unique to Uganda. Many states use intelligence to collect information and uses that data to make judgements on their actions or in-actions. How can security actors define and classify security threats that are internal in nature? To what degree are citizens a threat to their own countries. Are internal security threats more pressing to address in contemporary settings than external security threats? These questions call for reflections on the human rights situations of nation states like Uganda
The practice of “disappearances” is absolutely prohibited under international law and violates basic human rights, including the right to life, the right to liberty and security of the person, the right to a fair and public trial, as well as the prohibition on/ from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. The crime of enforced disappearances violates numerous treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR (1966), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CAT (1985), the Convention on the Rights of Child CRC (1989), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Convention CEDAW (1979), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR(1948), the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR), and the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.
Historically, during President Amin’s violent military dictatorship, clandestine security forces of the state “disappeared” countless Ugandans. Because Amin came to power through the barrel of a gun and not through the ballot box, his regime was fundamentally tainted by illegitimacy. In order to maintain firm control over the government, he created a number of clandestine security organizations designed to eliminate potential threats to the regime. These included the State Research Centre, the Public Safety Unit, and the Military Police, all of which were notorious for their relentless use of violence and torture. Shortly after these units were established, many people began to disappear. Some vanished without a trace, while others were violently “disappeared” in broad daylight. It did not matter whether one was rich or poor, a northerner or a southerner. Anyone had the potential to become a target. Since no one seemed to know who was responsible for the disappearances or even why they were occurring, an “aura of mystery” enveloped the nation. Former US Ambassador to Uganda, Thomas Melady and his wife Margaret, suggest that such ambiguity “engendered fear, but at the same time, people did not know who they should fear – the government or the robbers”
Amin recognized that if he was to maintain power, he had to convince the world that he could uphold law and order. In a speech given in early December 1973, he pledged that new investigations would be undertaken to “unearthen the mysterious stealing and disappearance of people in Uganda”. Not surprisingly, this promise did not come to fruition until the International Commission of Jurists forced his hand by releasing a condemnatory report on violations of human rights in Uganda. On 4 June 1974, the same day that the report was released, Amin announced that he would establish his own judicial Commission of Inquiry to investigate all such allegations.
When president Amin inaugurated the Commission on 30 June 1974, he directed commissioners to “leave no stone unturned” in their search for evidence Doyle (1998). He appointed Justice Mohamed Saied, a British-Asian Muslim, to serve as chair. Other commissioners included Captain Haruna Salim, a military officer and agent for the notorious State Research Centre, and two police superintendents – Stephen M. Kyefulumya and A. Esau. In an official public statement, he warned that if anyone tried to interfere with the proceedings of the Commission or with any witness, such person should be reported to the Security Forces or to the President on telephone number 2241 Entebbe
In statecraft, there are both good and bad actors of security. Those that seek to make meaningful change to their country exist. There are those bent on crushing everything that are opposed or stand their way. These bad actors project bad image for the government. Even though research from various scholarship for instance, does not personally implicate Idi Amin for thousands of lives lost but just because it occurred under his watch continue to dominate the public as well as intellectual discourse.
Could there be potential to learn from past to improve their future? While democracy promises freedom for its citizens, there are limitations. But for citizens to die because of merely expressing a divergent political opinion is regrettable. How can actors of security be able to understand from the past to improve present circumstances?
While international law is quite normative in character and states hide behind sovereignty principles to detest any rebuke by other states on its human rights records, could there be a way in which the United Nations or more succinctly hegemonic powers hold governments accountable? This could be through withholding some financial contributions to governments with gross human rights violations or even other punitive actions outside the purview of international law. Perhaps, such sanctions could take bilateral paths especially by the powerful nations.
Tolerance in a politically charged atmosphere like Uganda today is critical. There is also need for constructive dialogue on the political administration of state in Uganda. Because man is a political animal, they will always be keen on the management or mismanagement of state affairs. The skillful management of state affairs that allows citizens to appreciate and love their country without fear of reprisals if they express an alternative view is very important.
Uganda professes multiparty democracy and that dispensation has seen Uganda undergo several periods of elections. However, beyond electoral competitions, the quality of the Ugandan democracy must be seen in its substantial forms. Uganda government should respect human rights and freedoms of individuals and abide by international law and rules. This is the essence and whole meaning of democratic gains.
Musana Jafali
Is a Graduate of International Relations and an Associate Researcher with the Centre for Multilateral Affairs
