Rethinking the Application of Formal and Informal Justice Responses to Conflict Related Sexual Violence in Uganda

Nearly sixteen (16) years since the "Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities Between the Government of the Republic of Uganda and Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement" (Juba Peace Agreement), accountability mechanisms envisaged therein have hardly provided meaningful redress, if at all, to victims of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV). The peace negotiations took place shortly after the ICC issued arrest warrants for top commanders of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) who insisted on being tried at home. In a bid to balance the demands of peace and justice, a local accountability mechanism was agreed. The mechanism would work parallel to traditional justice mechanisms in the conflict areas, that is, parts of Northern and Eastern Uganda. The peace talks collapsed shortly before both parties signed the Juba Peace Agreement, but the government embarked on an implementation process nonetheless, which included, establishing a specialized unit in the High Court—the International Crimes Division (ICDHC), in 2008. The ICDHC was initially without rules of procedure, and some have argued, substantive law on international crimes, even though Uganda had domesticated the Geneva Conventions in 1964. The procedural and regulatory gaps, coupled with structural challenges crippled the ICDHC, which did not hear its first and only case on international crimes— Uganda vs Thomas Kwoyelo , until 2011. Despite a reported 25,000 victims of CRSV, the initial charge sheet did not include a single count on sexual related offenses, until it was amended in 2016. The trial is still ongoing. In tandem, local communities applied traditional justice to all atrocities, including, CRSV. Some empirical studies suggest that victims did not (do not) perceive the processes as effective and remedial. This article considers why formal and informal responses to CRSV have delivered little for victims in terms of justice and redress and proposes a socio-legal approach, informed by victims’ experiences and their construction of abstract legal concepts of justice, dignity and redress.