UGANDA

TJ MECHANISMS
The Agreement provides that “formal courts
provided for
under the Constitution shall
exercise jurisdiction over individuals who are alleged to bear
particular responsibility for the most serious crimes, especially crimes amounting
to international crimes, during the course of the conflict.” 663 Such statements raise
important questions about the place traditional institutions have in facilitating justice in
post-conflict contexts.
Participants in the NRTJ Audit generally favoured the use of traditional justice
mechanisms over formal institutions. The reasons for their preference for traditional
justice, and how they envision its contribution to transitional justice are outlined in the
following sections.
State of Traditional Justice Institutions
As participants commented on the historical and current roles of traditional justice
institutions, it was clear that these varied according to district. Some of these institutions
were active at the time of the NRTJ Audit, such as mato oput in Acholi sub-region 664 and
traditional courts in the Buganda Kingdom, which were reinstituted after a period of
inactivity, 665 as well as others like ekyaghanda in Kasese that exist without any legal
663 Juba Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation (2007), Clause 3.1
664 Juba Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation (2007), Clause 5.3
665 Juba Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation (2007), Clause 6.1
253