This week saw postponement of the trial of feared Ugandan rebel commander Dominic Ongwen at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague until January 2016. Ongwen is the first member of the LRA to appear before the court. 

ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda promised justice for LRA victims before she travelled to Gulu, Soroti and Lira to meet affected communities as preparation for the trial. 

Partners of UK-based peacebuilding NGO, Conciliation Resources from areas affected by the LRA across East and Central Africa give their verdict on whether they think justice will be served.

Farther Ernest Sugule from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Father Mark Kumbonyaki from South Sudan and Dixon Odur from Uganda share their views.

Q: Is trying Ongwen at the ICC the right decision?

Father Ernest: This question is difficult to answer, however, from my own point of view, taking Dominic Ongwen to the ICC was too early. Ongwen should have been given a chance to stand his trial in Uganda where he committed grievous crimes. This could have given the victims an opportunity to have a say in the trial.

Secondly, the trial in Uganda could have had some impact on the LRA group loyal to Dominic Ongwen and even to Kony – especially if the community could forgive him, and also he would have had the opportunity to ask for forgiveness.

Therefore, as it stands, Kony has good reason now to say to his captives, “You see what happened to Dominic Ongwen? If you try to get out the community will not forgive you and you might end up in jail or in the ICC.”

My conclusion on this is that Dominic Ongwen should have been given the opportunity first to be tried in his own town maybe for some years until the trial is finished in Uganda, before being transferred to the ICC if there was a need to do so.

Ongwen should have been given a change to stand his trial in Uganda where he committed grievous crimes.

Father Ernest

Father Mark: Kony with his senior commanders were already indicted by the ICC. Trying Ongwen at the ICC is what had already been agreed and passed. Those who cause crimes against humanity need to be tried at the ICC.

Dixon Odur: It depends on how one looks at it but naturally this is what we have to expect for a person who has serious allegations related to war crimes and crimes against humanity countered to him.

These are very serious allegations that not only affect the victims but humanity as a whole. So for that matter it’s only right that people who commit these crimes are held into account in some way and the ICC is the right platform for Ongwen to get justice not only for the victims but for himself. 

Q: Do you think justice will be served for the victims of the LRA?

Father Ernest: This depends on what definition one gives to justice. For victims to have true justice three dimensions need to be looked at.

First, Dominic Ongwen should have been given opportunity to explain what happened to him and then ask forgiveness publicly from the victims. Justice could be seen here as a process of healing the inner wounds or psychological wounds created by Ongwen’s actions.

The second dimension is trying to heal the physical wounds or losses, which one can call restoration justice, where efforts are made to restore what one lost. Sometimes compensations are paid here to victims. I don’t know how the trial in the ICC will render this to victims?

The last dimension is justice as a means of creating social cohesion. For instance, Dominic Ongwen’s family and the victims’ families would not tolerate each other. Some symbolic signs are for both families to sit together, eat and celebrate. Some of these images sent back to the bush could have been very powerful messages of forgiveness, healing and togetherness. I don’t think trying Ongwen in the ICC would offer this.

Father Mark: Yes, trying Ongwen at the ICC is serving justice for the LRA victims. This shows there is justice for people who are killed innocently in cold blood by the LRA for no proper reason. This shows that the world also is a watchdog for injustice committed to the innocent.

Trying Ongwen at the ICC is serving justice for the LRA victims (...) This shows that the world also is a watchdog for injustice committed to the innocent.

Father Mark

Dixon Odur: The trial of Ongwen at the ICC is mainly for victims who want to see alleged perpetrators brought to book. This was most evident during a recent visit of the ICC lead prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda to Lukodi, site of the 2004 LRA massacre.

The victims at Lukodi were calling for a speedy trial of Ongwen. This just goes to show you what they thought about the ICC and the trial. 

Q: Do you think Ongwen's arrest signals the demise of the LRA?

Father Ernest: I think this is something to be corrected. Ongwen was not arrested, he defected.  Meaning he came out willingly but does that one person mean the demise of the LRA? I will definitely say no, because Ongwen was just a commander and there are other commanders leading the group now.

His influence within the LRA started diminishing and Kony no longer trusted him. This could even be one of the reasons that pushed Ongwen out of the bush. To say that Ongwen’s defection signals the demise of the LRA, I disagree but this could have given us the opportunity to lure more to defect, which we have missed.

Father Mark: Ongwen’s arrest has reduced the manpower of the LRA, he was the mastermind in the planning and activities done to many innocent people. The havoc his presence in the bush caused to many people has now been stopped.

Dixon Odur: The fact that the LRA is still active and the manner in which Ongwen “escaped” points to a notion that the internal cohesion of the LRA is weakening, but they are still a group capable of serious violence. 

However, when high ranking defections like that of Ongwen begin to happen, it can be realistically perceived that it’s just a matter of time before the LRA’s reign of terror soon comes to an end.

Dixon Odur

Q: Should Ongwen have been tried in Uganda?

Father Ernest: I think all my arguments come to this, however, for me Ongwen should have been tried in Gulu. He should have first been given the opportunity to be tried in his own town maybe for some years until the trial is finished in Uganda before being transferred to the ICC if there was a need to do so.

Father Mark: No, Ongwen should have not been tried in Uganda. The LRA war is not anymore a Uganda issue, it is a regional war, an international problem, which needs to be addressed by the international community. Uganda is living in peace now without the presence of the LRA.

Dixon Odur: Uganda has the International Crimes Division that could be used to try Ongwen save for some practical legal challenges.  If Uganda was to try Ongwen, they would have to study the cases levied against him by the ICC very closely.

This is because Uganda passed and acceded into law the ICC act in 2010 but the crimes Ongwen is charged with occurred between 2002 and 2005. The ability for Uganda to try Ongwen on charges levied against him by the ICC becomes impossible. That’s why Uganda probably decided it is best that Ongwen’s case is handled by The Hague.

Q: Would traditional justice mechanisms have been more appropriate? 

Father Ernest: I think traditional justice mechanisms should have been the ones to start with before going to the ICC.

Father Mark: Traditional justice mechanisms cannot be applied here, because these processes are always between conflicting community leaders.

The LRA war has been in four countries, so which community leaders are the LRA going to sit and discuss with? Those in Uganda, South Sudan, DRC or CAR? The international court is the only appropriate court for judging Ongwen.

Dixon Odur: If Ongwen was not indicted by the ICC and if he had voluntarily come back and sought amnesty, maybe he could have tried the traditional justice mechanisms. But given his record of serious massacres, if he had come back, some communities would have been up in arms against him.

The most probable traditional justice mechanism in his case would have been a local mediation process to facilitate reconciliation. This mediation should be based on the principles of a truth telling process; where there are no denials, no lies and no deceptions. This could be likened, in a small degree, to the “Gacaca” courts in Rwanda.

The traditional justice system of “Mato Oput” doesn’t really apply in this case because Mato Oput deals with specific victim to perpetrator scenarios and given in Ongwen’s case where there could be hundreds or even thousands of victims, the practicality of using Mato Oput becomes difficult.

Therefore, mediation based on the principals of truth telling, facilitated by elders or chiefs could have provided Ongwen with an opportunity to reveal the truth about what he did and to seek forgiveness so that a process of reconciliation could begin.