|
Resident Expert - Uganda
A Historical Timeline 1961- Uganda gains independence from Britain. In March of 1961 elections are held and Benedicto Kuwaniko becomes the first chief minister 1961 to 1966 - There is a struggle between supporters of strong centralized government and those in favor of a loosely based federation, in which tribal kingdoms had more power. February 1966 - Milton Obote, the current prime minister, in response to the growing conflict between these two groups suspended the constitution, assumed all government powers, and removed the president and vice president. September 1967 - Obote established a new constitution, which proclaimed Uganda a republic and gave the president greater powers by abolishing the traditional kingdoms. January 25, 1971 - A military coup led by General Idi Amin Dada ousted Obote. Amin declared himself president, dissolved parliament, and amended the constitution to give himself full authority over the government. 1972 - Amin gives all Asians within Uganda 90 days notice to leave the country. Their possessions are seized and numerous detentions, disappearances, and deaths occur. 1972-1978 - Amin’s rule in Uganda is marked by more than 100,000 deaths, according to the International Commission of Jurists, especially within the Acholi and Langi tribes to which many of Obote’s supporters belonged. July 1978 - The U.S institutes a trade boycott against Amin, as a response to the international condemnation regarding the assassination of Archbishop Janan Luwum of the Church of Uganda. This action does not make a difference. October 1978 - Amin has begun to rapidly lose influence within the military. To detract attention from this, he launches an offensive against Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, who he claims has been the root of his troubles. November 1, 1978 - Amin formally annexed a part of Tanzania across the Kagera River boundary. November 1978 to April 1979 - President Julius Nyerere launched a counterattack against Amin with the aid of Ugandan rebels who formed the Ugandan National Liberation Army (UNLA). A defeated Amin flees into exile, ultimately ending up in Saudi Arabia where he continues to reside. UNLA took Kampala in a storm of violence and looting. December 1980 to July 1985 - Elections returned Obote to power, where he remained for the next five years. These years were marked by severe human rights abuses conducted by the security forces in an attempt to suppress the insurgency movement of Yoweri Museveni’s National Resistance Army. Fall 1985 - Another military coup took place, which sent Obote to Zambia and ravaged Kampala, once again. Kenyan President Daniel Moi sought a cease fire agreement between General Tit Okello of the army and Museveni and the NRA. January 1986 - Violating their ceasefire agreement, NRA forces took Kampala and forced Okello to flee to safe harbor in Sudan. 1986 to the Present - Museveni’s government has sought to put an end to human rights abuses, attempted to compensate victims, and has drafted a new constitution that pays greater to heed to human rights. A Summary of Human Rights Abuses The estimates of the casualties of human rights abuses in Uganda range widely from 100,000 to 500,000 people during a fourteen year time span. The human rights abuses in Uganda can be categorized according to regime and ethnic or racial group. In this summary, I intend to give a brief history of what each group targeted under either Amin’s or Obote’s regimes suffered, and I will also identify the principle agents who carried out these acts. Ugandan Asians: Asians in Uganda mostly hailed from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, immigrating to Uganda while it was still a British protectorate. Asians held 90% of the wealth in Uganda, and this fact allowed Idi Amin to target them and invoke cries of joy rather than indignation within the Ugandan populace after he decreed his expulsion order. 50,000 Asians were forced to leave the country within a period of 90 days. While detentions, murders, and looting and harassment of Asians exiting the country was universal during this time, the group that suffered most were Asians who held Ugandan citizenship, rather than those who held from Britain, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, since they were unable to gain residence in these countries. "Despite the efforts of the government to reject the proof of citizenship of as many Asians as possible, a number of them still managed to pass the qualifying test. On November 2, President Amin ordered these Ugandan citizens to abandon their lives in the cities and to ‘go to the villages and mix up with the other Ugandans.’" this announcement was tantamount to an expulsion order of these Ugandan citizens of Asian origin, who had no knowledge or experience to enable them to earn their living on the land, let alone in [the] arid unfertile areas" to which Amin had designated them. In approximately four months, Amin had managed to rid Uganda of its largest group of non-indigenous people, while the country plummeted towards economic ruin. Acholi and Langi Ethnic Groups: Amin had risen to power through a military coup that unseated the President Milton Obote. Following the coup, in an attempt to keep Obote’s followers or sympathizers quiescent, Amin began mass executions of soldiers and officers within the military who were of Acholi or Langi ethnic origin. According to the report by the International Commission of Jurists, one major factor that contributed to Amin’s ability to target these groups were "the expansion and tolerated abuses of the government’s detention laws "detentions were carried out without any legal basis or justification" Two months after the coup the government issued the Detention Decree No. 7, which authorized up to six months detention for those arrested during the coup. In May, the government issued an amended detention decree No. 15 which "was applied retroactively to cover the period between March and May" Ironically, at the time of the coup there were only about 50 detainees in Ugandan prisons. Yet, within several months, 700-800 people had been detained without trial by the new government. At a later stage, little or no use was made of the powers of detention. People on whom suspicion fell simply disappeared." While Amin, at first, solely targeted those in the military who belonged to either the Acholi or Langi tribes, the detention and killing of individuals soon spread to every part of society from doctors to judges to academics. Displaced Persons: The mass killings incited wide spread fear and panic throughout Uganda, and during the first few months of 1971, many people attempted to flee into neighboring countries. "A large number were apprehended and killed while trying to flee from Uganda into the Sudan, though the number is impossible to determine." However, the International Commission of Jurists did estimate that throughout the period of Amin’s rule that at least 2,000 Ugandans were allowed residence in Kenya, and it is estimated that many others fled to Tanzania, Zambia and other neighboring countries. Subsequent Coups: Two subsequent coups, which removed Amin from power and unseated Obote once again, were characterized by looting and gross human rights violations in the capital city of Kampala. In 1979, when the UNLA wrested control from Amin, Muslims citizens, who were seen as Amin supporters, were harassed and killed. Between the years of 1980 to 1985, Obote fought a fierce civil war in “one small but significant part of the country popularly known as ‘the Luwero Triangle’ against the National Resistance Movement and its armed wing, the National Resistance Army (NRA)." In 1982, thousands of residents of Rwandese origin then living in Uganda were forced out of their homes and supposedly sent back to Rwanda. This second expulsion in Uganda resulted in another large scale abuse of human rights. "The sudden expulsion left massive violations of human rights in its wake including actual deaths, torture, damage and destruction to property and great human suffering." This final looting of Kampala in the July 1985 coup was also marked by human rights violations.
Establilshment of the Commission of Inquiry
Yoweri Museveni, when he came to power in 1986, promised to investigate past human rights abuses and to put an end to all current ones. His success in the pursuit of achieving these promises on the other hand, does not reflect his ardent promises to mete out justice. It’s ability [the commission’s] ability to function as an independent constitutional body;Human Rights Watch remains strongly supportive of the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, and their attempts to draw attention to the many human rights abuses taking place in Uganda. The Commission is admirable in its readiness to engage in self-criticism and strive to use the wide powers of its mandate to bring justice to human rights in Uganda. In addition, another interesting highlight of the Human Rights Watch report was the freedom provided to the media by the Commission. "The UHRC’s voice on a human rights issue give license to the media to cover even a politically controversial human rights issue. Margaret Sekaggya noted the importance of the UHRC in empowering the media, noting: ‘the media usually knows about an issue, but may be scared to report on it. If we make a statement, we can play a ital role in helping to get the message out." Thus the commission, while still under funded and criticized for its lack of intervention into current human rights violations in rebel controlled territories in the North and Northwestern areas of Uganda, has strived to make the most of its constitutional mandate to prevent future human rights abuses to the best of its ability. Its activities over the next few years will better determine its efficacy. All of Uganda’s ideas and actions for redressing human rights violations ignore the perpetrators of those crimes. This notion is reflected in a paper on restitution for Ugandans who suffered from the violent regimes of the 1970s and 1980s, Edward Khiddu-Makubuya explains the state structures that have been established in order to right past wrongs. He also provides a detailed examination of why they are or are not successful. I intend to summarize and discuss his conclusions in this section. "The NRM [National Resistance Movement] has a political blueprint which they call the Ten-Point Program in which they commit themselves to democracy, security of the person and his property, national unity and the elimination of sectarianism, defense and consolidation of national independence, restoration of social services and the rehabilitation of war ravaged areas, elimination of corruption and misuse of power, redressing of errors that dislocated many people in Uganda, cooperation with African countries and, following the economic strategy of mixed economy: Y.K. Museveni Uganda (1986). . . Other aspects of NRM government policy since 1986 have included a pro-people Code of Conduct for the Uganda Army, government attempt to stop state-inspired murder and terror, the setting up of Resistance Councils and committees at all levels through which ordinary people determine their priorities, the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry into Violations of Human Rights with a view to investigate and make recommendations on gross violations of human rights in Uganda by pre-1986 regimes, setting up the office of Inspector General of Government (IGG) which is charged with the duty to promote and protect Rule of Law as well as eliminate corruption from public offices, the passage of a specific law to control government intelligence agents, and, the writing of a new Constitution for Uganda, the early three constitutions having failed to satisfy national aspirations and to secure optimum enjoyment of human rights."Though the NRM has made an admirable effort at trying to correct the past grievances of Ugandan citizens, according to Khiddu-Makubuya the success of these measures has been questionable. Khiddu-Makubuya cites the example of Ugandan Asians as the most successful of restitution cases. In 1982, under Obote, the Ugandan government passed the Expropriated Properties Act "under which the expelled Asians were authorized to return to Uganda and reclaim their former properties." While Khiddu-Makubuya claims that many Asians have taken the opportunity to do so, I would argue that even more Asians have not. The population of non-indigenous people in Uganda today is less than 1%. While this includes a relatively large Arab population of about 3,000 people, it does not reflect the numbers of Asians who left Uganda in 1971. Should all these Asians return would property restitution really take place? Khiddu-Makubuya lists the numerous measures, cabinet positions and other institutions created to compensate victims of violence; however, he then delves into the myriad limitations that are instituted upon individuals who would file suit against the government. Not only do severe time restrictions on the eligibility period for a complainant to file suit exist, but the NRM has absolved itself of any real responsibility towards crimes committed by previous governments. The author explains that: "What is even more disturbing is the institutionalization of statutory immunity from liability in respect of violation of human rights. Article 123 of the Constitution of Uganda (1967) provides that whatever the bill of rights in Articles 8 to 20 says and whatever any other law might say, courts had no power to grant relief to any person whose rights may have been violated by its agents/servants/employees during the 1966 disturbances accompanying the forceful take over of state power and subsequent pacification exercises.If this is the case, then the system of redress for victims of Uganda’s political upheavals remain frustrated in their efforts to gain either compensation or even a true accounting of events. The latter remains especially troublesome when one considers the large numbers of Ugandans killed, with so many bereaved families never knowing the truth of what happened to their loved ones. While Uganda has set up an admirable system to deal with the potential for current and future human rights abuses, through organizations such as the Ugandan Human Rights Council, its past history with human rights violations goes unaccounted for because of the unwillingness of the present government to take responsibility for the violations of past political regimes. Of course this raises the ethical question of whether a new political regime is responsible for the violations of past ones. The difference between Uganda and countries such as Argentina or Greece for example, is that there was never an effort made to identify the perpetrators of these crimes. Rather the Ugandan government took a different approach, which focused on redress for the victims. Since the current government was not in power during the time that these violations occurred, they could divorce themselves from the responsibility of compensating the victims. It appears that the way in which the current administration approaches the issue of human rights retributions is rather duplicitous, while in fact it simply reflects an ideological stance, which focuses on the damages to the victim rather than the purposes of the perpetrator. The former, in my personal opinion, is an easier road to take. A government may easily cast away any responsibility they may have for past crimes, after all they were not in power. Simultaneously it evades the potential negative consequences, such as political instability, that may result from going after prominent members of the military or any other group, which carried out these attacks on innocent citizens. What is left for those of us who study these cases is the necessity to answer a vital question. What is more important justice or peace?
Click here to see this document in a WordPad format from its original source |