Symposium on Dominic Ongwen Case: Reparations in Dominic Ongwen – A Timely Intervention That Must Be Carefully Managed

[Pamela Angwech is the Executive Director of Gulu Women Economic Justice and Globalisation in Gulu, Northern Uganda. She has received numerous awards for her work on human rights and gender justice for victims of the affected communities including the 2017 European Union Human Rights Defender Award.]

As a grassroots activist and human rights defender in Northern Uganda, who has worked for more than a decade on transitional justice and with women survivors of the LRA war through my organization, Gulu Women Economic Development and Globalisation (GWED-G), I have seen first-hand the devastating impact of the war on the lives of individuals and communities.  For several years, my organisation served as one of the implementing partners for the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV)’s rehabilitation programme under its assistance mandate. Through this work,  persons who lost limbs, for example, found hope and a way to move beyond their pain through the rehabilitation services which were provided.

The recent reparation decision in the Dominic Ongwen case is both timely and uplifting for war victims who have suffered for decades without redress. The decision serves as an acknowledgment of the immense suffering experienced by victims, warranting reparative support for the losses they have incurred. At the same time, it is crucial to recognize that the cost of the atrocities committed by one individual and the pain inflicted on innocent people can never  be fully compensated. As one female war victim aptly stated, “Money alone cannot repay everything that we have lost, especially us women.” 

In this post, I will share my thoughts and preliminary reactions to the Ongwen reparations decision, and my perspectives on some key priorities for community-based reparations and the role of the TFV. Finally, I will share my perspective on the importance of a gender and intersectional approach to reparations and on the government’s obligation to repair the harm suffered by victims.

General Thoughts on the Decision

Many victims in Northern Uganda welcome this decision as an acknowledgement of the suffering that they have experienced. The focus on the victimisation of women and their children born from rape and forced marriage and enslavement in particular, brings significant national and international attention to the deep wounds that our region has battled since the start of the war.

The Chamber’s findings that Ongwen was liable for multiple types of harm including physical, mental and psychological harm is an important step in the process of healing for many victims. At GWED-G we continue to see the compounded impact of the harm suffered by the victims. Many of those who have suffered mental and physical harm have also suffered material harm including loss of property, land deprivation, inability to work and loss of earnings and reduced standard of living. The majority of the victims live in abject poverty because they are unable to fend for themselves. This has an impact on the family and the community, another fact which was recognised by the Chamber. 

Given the phenomenon of children born of war, and the uniqueness of their suffering, the Chamber’s recognition of transgenerational harm is particularly important. The Chamber describes this as a “phenomenon in which traumatised parents set in motion an intergenerational cycle of dysfunction, handing-down trauma to their children, who themselves did not directly experience the atrocities their parents endured, affecting their children’s emotional behaviour, attachment, and well-being as a result.”(para. 168) As we continue to work with both the mothers and their children born of war, we see clear evidence of the direct impact of the circumstances of their birth on the children. Transgenerational trauma seems to manifest in increased levels of depression and suicidal tendencies among CBOWs and clear evidence of increased vulnerability.

Community-based Reparations

The judges ruled that the only way to address the multiple layers of harms suffered by victims in a concrete, effective, and timely manner is through collective community-based reparations focused on rehabilitation and symbolic/satisfaction measures (para. 613). Rehabilitation measures should be directed at facilitating victims’ reintegration into society, taking into account the different impacts crimes have on victims of different genders (616).

The war had the greatest impact on women. Therefore, any community-based reparations process must take into account the perspectives and gendered experiences of women, as these have a significant impact on shaping reintegration processes. Women should have the opportunity to express their opinions freely and without fear for their safety. They should also be afforded opportunities to inform, influence, and participate in decision-making confidently, ensuring that their diverse needs are effectively represented. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the capacities of women war victims groups and children born of rape, empowering them to actively participate in documentation, information sharing, agenda setting, and coalition building. This includes influencing debates to reflect their perspectives and lived experiences.

In the reintegration process, women should be viewed as rights holders rather than solely as victims. Therefore, promoting their meaningful participation, full involvement, representation, and inclusion in decision-making processes is paramount. Women’s involvement in reintegration efforts should extend beyond mere presence; their lived experiences, expertise, and voices must be actively solicited and valued. 

In addition, the involvement of traditional and cultural institutions in the reintegration of women and their children into clans and communities is both crucial and urgent. This is particularly important given that Uganda’s current Transitional Justice (TJ) policy highlights the pivotal role of cultural institutions and religious leaders in addressing stigmatization, discrimination, and fostering reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. These institutions should establish platforms for dispute resolution specifically tailored to address issues related to reintegration. This includes granting women opportunities to reconcile with their children born from instances of war and rape.

Traditional mechanisms, such as alternative dispute resolution involving clan leaders, should be utilized during the reintegration process to facilitate access to justice for women and children who were born in captivity. However, it is essential to recognize that not all clan leaders possess the necessary skills to effectively manage disputes at the local level.

Reintegration challenges within communities necessitate comprehensive support, encompassing access to land, livelihood opportunities, seeds, and farm tools. These provisions are essential to ensure the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the current reparations order.

The implementation of reparations for SGBV victims in Northern Uganda must take into account the intersecting and compounded harms that they have suffered. As the Chamber noted, “a gender-inclusive and sensitive perspective should integrate intersectionality as a core component in the approach to reparations.” (para. 63 (iv))

What does this mean in practical terms? Women are facing intersecting discrimination because of the medical, physical and psychosocial injuries that they are suffering and the high levels of poverty because of the difficulty in supporting themselves financially. This has created greater levels of stigma for them and their children as they are homeless. Elderly women and those with disabilities are affected even more significantly. In addition, the children born of war continue to face stigmatization, rejection and exclusion from access to education, health, community re-integration and socio-economic activities. 

These gaps clearly demonstrate the importance of government-designed complimentary programmes that directly focuses on addressing the socio-economic needs of women war victims and their children beyond the reparation order of both symbolic and collective support. Additionally, children who are to receive reparations separately may require supplementary technical assistance on how to effectively utilize this support. 

The Role of the Trust Fund for Victims in Implementing Community-Based Reparations

The TFV has been mandated to implement reparations in the case, and to begin consultations with victims for preparation of its draft implementation plan which is to be submitted within 6 months. That is not a significant amount of time. Grassroots organisations such as GWED-G and networks of women such as the Women Survivor Leaders Network should be involved in the mobilisation process to ensure broad and effective representation of those most affected. A significant amount of advocacy and sensitisation of the victim community is needed concerning who will benefit from reparations and what the process will be like.

However, even before commencing its reparations assignment, the TFV needs to clarify the status of its assistance mandate in order to avoid confusion. For several years, the TFV, operating under its assistance mandate, has facilitated the provision of support to victims and their families including through physical, psychological, and material assistance. This assistance has been accessible for decades in northern Uganda, though in recent years, there has been a shift towards a greater emphasis on mental health support. 

It is not clear whether the TFV will concurrently engage with victims in relation to the Dominic Ongwen’s reparation order and the programmes which commenced under their assistance mandate, which were directed at a broader group of victims. This is confusing for victims, many of whom still bear bullet fragments in their bodies and have been waiting for assistance under the assistance mandate. The TFV assistance mandate has had a significant impact on victims and for many has been the only form of assistance that they have received. Both victims and communities believe that these efforts should continue, as there are numerous registered war victims awaiting surgery and physical rehabilitation support.

Government’s Responsibility to Repair

The Government of Uganda does not have a reparations programme for victims in Northern Uganda but has implemented several development programmes. The challenge has been that war victims have not been the primary beneficiaries of these programmes. Now that the reparation order for Dominic Ongwen is out, the government needs to supplement the Ongwen reparations order to cover all victims who suffered harm because of the LRA conflict. 

Initially, the issuance of the reparation order may lead to conflict and  conflict, create isolation, and sow discord within the war torn communities, especially considering the substantial number of victims who may be excluded. These early indications of frustration and discontentment could pave the way for disunity and a lack of peace to take root. It is imperative that the government prioritizes several measures to address these concerns.

Firstly, the government must ensure access to education and medical assistance for all victims affected by the conflict. This includes providing professional medical care and psychosocial or trauma counselling to address the lingering effects of trauma. Additionally, truth-seeking initiatives should be implemented to resolve questions surrounding the disappeared and missing persons.

Economic empowerment programs for victim groups and foundations are also essential. These initiatives can help rebuild livelihoods and foster resilience within affected communities. Moreover, there have been calls from several civil society organisations including here, here and here for the government to establish a national reparations program with a dedicated annual budget to address the legacies of conflict, particularly in Northern Uganda.

It is envisioned that the government’s reparations efforts will benefit both direct and indirect victims, providing both short-term and long-term services to address their needs. Finally, the government of Uganda should develop a comprehensive reparations policy that aligns with and complements the existing Transitional Justice Policy, ensuring a cohesive and effective approach to addressing the aftermath of conflict.

Conclusion

The Ongwen reparations decision is the first glimmer of hope that the long wait for justice and reparations for many victims in Northern Uganda is coming to an end. The award is however a ‘drop in the proverbial bucket’ when compared to the scale and gravity of the harm and the number of victims. However, the entire process- from consultation to implementation- needs to be carefully managed, to avoid creating tensions between existing victim groups and communities. Sensitisation, outreach and continuous communication with victim groups and affected communities will be key, particularly through established intermediaries who are already working with these groups, to manage expectation and limit the spread of misinformation. At the same time, the government of Uganda has to move with speed to enact the Transitional Justice Law, together with a reparations policy framework, to ensure that all victims of the conflict are able to receive reparations in a timely manner.