Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...

Prosecuting international crimes by the LRA in Uganda 217
In keeping with the principle of universal jurisdiction, the Act is
explicit in respect of persons who may be prosecuted for the offences
prescribed. Courts in Uganda can only exercise universal jurisdiction over
the following persons responsible for crimes recognised both under the
Rome Statute and the ICC Act: (a) a person who is a citizen or permanent
resident of Uganda; (b) a person who is employed by the Uganda
government in a civilian or military capacity; (c) a person who has
committed the offence against a citizen or permanent resident of Uganda;
and (d) a person who after the commission of the offence is present in
Uganda. 117
Other sections of the Act effect provisions of the Rome Statute that
impose obligations on states to co-operate with the ICC on such matters as
accessing evidence; arresting and surrendering persons to the ICC; the
enforcement of penalties including orders for reparation of victims; and
facilitating searches and seizures. Going by the provisions of the ICC Act,
leaders of the LRA could be prosecuted in Uganda, thereby completing the
processes initiated in the ICC regarding rebels. This can easily be achieved
because the ICC Act has retrospective effect over the events in Uganda,
which could be extended to the crimes committed by the LRA. It would be
equally relevant to argue that the ICC Act should apply to both the
responsible members of the armed forces and the rebel forces who are
responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in
Northern Uganda. Since section 25(1) of the ICC Act removes immunity
for crimes under the Act, it means that the law can equally apply to
government officials who may bear responsibility for the crimes
committed in Northern Uganda.
4.2.1 Pending constitutional challenges
The Constitution of Uganda is the supreme law and any other law
inconsistent with it is void to the extent of its inconsistency. 118 Article
137(3) of the Constitution allows any person who alleges that an Act of
Parliament or any other law is inconsistent with the Constitution to
petition the Constitutional Court for a declaration to that effect, and
redress where appropriate.
Even before the ICC Act had been gazetted, someone filed a legal
challenge in the Constitutional Court seeking declarations to the effect that
several provisions of the ICC Act are inconsistent with the constitution. 119
In the petition, Jowad Kezaala (the petitioner), alleged that the ICC Act is
inconsistent with the Constitution in a number of respects. First, the
petitioner alleged that at times the ICC acts at the insistance of the Security
117 Sec 18 ICC Act.
118 Art 2.
119 Jowad Kezaala v Attorney General Constitutional Petition 24 of 2010.