Intl Criminal Court to announce verdict on notorious Lord’s Resistance Army leader

29 January 2021 · Carmel Rickard

It will be a crucial moment for international justice as well as for justice in Uganda when the International Criminal Court gives its verdict on 4 February 2021 in the case of Dominic Ongwen, a much-feared commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). It's so important that Human Rights Watch has prepared a special briefing explaining the background and significance of the case.

Read the briefing

Dominic Ongwen was abducted on his way to school when he was about 10 years old, and made to join the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). He underwent military training and became a commander in his own right. Among the other crimes that carry his name was a massacre by troops under his command that killed at least 345 civilians and abducted another 250 in the northern part of Congo.

Now, on 4 February 2021, the International Criminal Court is to announce its verdict on the charges faced by Ongwen: three counts of crimes against humanity and four counts of war crimes. In addition he is charged with murder, torture and enslavement as well as sexual and gender-based crimes.

Ongwen is believed to be the first former child soldier to be charged at the International Criminal Court, but researchers put the number of children abducted by the LRA and made to join the military at more than 30 000. His background – being a former child soldier and forced into a life of violence – could be a mitigating factor if he is found guilty.

Infamous

Ongwen’s trial at the ICC came about after Uganda referred the problem of the LRA to that legal forum in December 2003. Five top LRA leaders were named in special arrest warrants issued by the ICC, but three of those have since died. Now just Ongwen and the just as infamous Joseph Kony, remain.

While Ongwen has been held in custody during his trial, Kony is a free man. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), his fighters remain a threat to civilians in the border region between the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Sudan and northeastern Congo.

HRW has prepared a quick and easy to read briefing on the background to the case and on the awaited verdict that will allow readers to understand the significance what happens at the ICC on 4 February.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.