Former Commander of Sinia Brigade of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) Dominic Savio Ongwen was sentenced by the International Criminal Court to 25 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The sentence, which Ongwen is likely to appeal has elicited mixed reactions among Ugandans, in particular the people of Northern Uganda, scholars, practitioners and policy makers alike. The basic debates are hinged on whether the sentence is a proportionate punishment and the argument that Dominic Ongwen himself is a victim and perpetrator at the same time and thus punishing him twice is another form of injustice.
It’s important to note that the history of insurgency in Northern Uganda did not just emerge out of nowhere; but that the LRA itself was an outcome of a long political process where harsh struggles for power and use of violence became institutionalized. Indeed, the history of the insurgent movements in Northern Uganda has structured roots.
The British colonial system of administration had placed Northern and Southern parts of Uganda in some sort of divide: The North was considered unproductive zone and the South productive Zone. This ensued that most of the economic activities were concentrated in the southern part of the country. The Northern Uganda people especially the Acholi tribe were consequently enlisted into military and colonial services administration because of their physical outlook – tall; dark skinned and resilient in character. In fact, Mazrui (1975) argues that the Northerners and the Acholi were transformed into a form of ‘military ethnocracy’.
This form of divide continued in post independent period and throughout the turbulent political history of Uganda seen in the ouster of Obote I and II governments by first; the Acholi military leaders led by Gen Tito Okello and later the Idi Amin (Kakwa) groups. The NRA rode on tribal dichotomy of the Ugandan politics during this time period and overthrew the military junta of Tito Okello in 1986. All these political outcomes are instructive of the deep rooted nature of conflict in Northern Uganda.
The LRA led by Joseph Kony were accused of murder, mutilation, torture, rape, recruiting child soldier, child labor to mention but a few of the general war crimes and crimes against humanity that was charged against them. The ICC document notes that the LRA used children as child soldiers, porters, laborer, sex slaves and forced them to commit inhumane acts including ritual killings as a form of recruit and indoctrination.
In 2002, the Uganda government ratified the Rome Statute and formally referred the LRA case to ICC in 2004 which led to arrest warrant issued by ICC for LRA top commanders including Dominic Ongwen.
Because of the mixed reaction of the sentencing of Dominic Ongwen, I would like to revisit retributive justice approach to matters of gross human rights violation and pose fundamental questions which inadvertently has been raised by several persons and groups. The retributive justice system is hinged on the following principles:
*That those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts-serious crimes morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment
*That its morally good if some legitimate punisher gives them punishment, they so deserve
*That its morally impermissible to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrong doers
The Dominic Ongwen case have raised fundamental concerns embedded in the principles of retributive approach to justice. The questions as to whether the 25 years sentence is proportionate to mass murder, killings and sufferings of the Northern Uganda people due to Ongwen’s actions is instructive! Furthermore, was this punishment/sentence too heavy and disproportionate to Ongwen – a former child soldier and victim?
Dominic Ongwen finds himself in the circumstances of the victim-perpetrator dilemma. He was once abducted at the age of 10 years on his way from school. He is now being charged for the same crime for which he was a victim and thus others have argued ‘punishing him twice is another form of injustice’. But even if Ongwen is a victim himself, what about his personal culpability in the atrocities committed? why would he be absolved?
Dominic Ongwen’s sentencing raises a number of opportunities and challenges. First the traditional Acholi justice mechanism was favored as a way of resolving the conflict if the leaders and fighters of the LRA – mostly Acholi people would undergo ‘mato oput’- a traditional justice mechanism where offenders are subjected to some form of community truth telling, reconciliation and payments of damages; coupled by the drinking of the bitter root [mato oput]. Kony’s insistence of the removal of the ICC warrant of arrest and Government of Uganda’s position that ICC warrant of arrest would only be withdrawn once the LRA undergoes ‘mato oput’ led to stalled peace agreements between 2006 and 2008.
The case further raises questions as to whether amnesty is still relevant in dispute resolution in contemporary settings other than bringing offenders to account for the wrongful acts they commit. Would ‘mato oput’ deter Kony and LRA fighters from committing serious crimes in the future if that was the route they agreed to undertake? What about the idea that the role of the criminal justice system is supposed to send a message to society – that those who do commit wrongful acts will be punished?
The Dominic Ongwen’s case illustrates, and even opens the debates as to whether its relevant to pursue a retributive justice approach supported by traditional restorative means such as ‘mato oput’ or proceed deeper and wider to underscore the larger context of transformative justice mechanism as an approach in solving historical injustices and marginalization that a particular society is subjected.
Moses Owiny [ mowiny@thecfma.org ]
