An Examination of the Effectiveness of the Procedures of Accessing Amnesty in Uganda

Abstract

The development of any country largely depends on the peace, tranquillity and security pertaining in that country and the neighbouring countries. It is therefore incumbent on national governments to ensure that there is stable peace to ensure stable and equitable development. Therefore, in the event that a conflict has occurred, every effort must be put in place to ensure that peaceful means of resolving conflicts including amnesty are employed to end conflicts and ensure sustainable peace and development.

This paper aimed at examining the effectiveness of the procedures of accessing amnesty in Uganda. Uganda as well as in other countries where amnesty has been used to amicably end conflicts and ensure sustainable peace, the whole amnesty process has always been inhibited by the procedures that an amnesty applicant passes through to access amnesty. Therefore, an examination of the effectiveness of the procedures of accessing amnesty in Uganda was a timely publication. The paper is an excerpt from a larger PhD study by the author entitled Amnesty as a panacea to conflict: An assessment of the Contribution of Amnesty to conflict resolution and sustainable peace in Uganda. The study was guided by the desire to end conflicts and wars through the use peaceful conflict resolution mechanisms like amnesty. The study adopted mixed research methods as both quantitative and qualitative study designs were used. A questionnaire was used to collect data from one thousand respondents spread throughout the five districts in Uganda that were studied and each district representing one region out of Uganda’s five regions. In addition, one-on-one interviews were held with several key informants like reporters, Resident District Commissioners of the sampled districts, staff of NGos that were involved in the receiving of reporters, some sections of the security apparatus, lawyers and religious leaders.

The results of the study showed that knowledge of the procedures of accessing amnesty by an amnesty applicant is paramount in the effectiveness of the entire amnesty process. The findings of the study are beneficial to the academia, public policy makers, the NGO world, peace negotiators and politicians because they depict how the procedures of accessing amnesty are a cornerstone in the entire amnesty process and what should always be done to ensure that such procedures are well disseminated to all the would-be amnesty beneficiaries as well as the general public for the benefit of all stakeholders in the amnesty process. This rationale behind tis study was to highlight the challenges amnesty seekers face as a result of the stringent procedures in their pursuit of freedom after conflict.

KEYWORDS: Amnesty, Sustainable Development, Sustainable peace, Good governance, Conflict Management, Conflict resolution

Introduction

It is a widely held view that when amnesty is granted at the end of a conflict, peace must return to the war-torn community (Amnesty Act 2000)1. However, owing to the several stringent procedures that amnesty seekers have to pass through to access amnesty; this is not usually the case as the much needed peace does not easily return to the community so easily. And; some of the hindrances to this anomaly are the strict procedures that an amnesty applicant has to pass through to access amnesty. Some of those hindrances include ignorance of the amnesty law, applying for amnesty in person and in writing at designated amnesty centres, declaration of abandonment of rebellion and swearing This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.12.03.2022.p12304

 

www.ijsrp.org

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 12, Issue 3, March 2022

 

 

 

 

 

11

ISSN 2250-3153

 

never to return to such subversive activities and many others. It is such stringent procedures that are partly to blame for the delay of the return of peace to communities torn by conflict as well as ineffectual amnesty processes.

The traditional held view that war mongers should account for their criminality is slowly being watered down by the ubiquitous the desire to peaceful end conflicts by use of peaceful means. However, this peaceful process is thwarted by several limitations as a result of the demands of the strict procedures that limit the effectiveness of amnesty.

Findings

Below is a discussion of the findings on the examination of the effectiveness of the procedures of accessing Amnesty in Uganda.

Knowledge of the procedure of applying for amnesty in Uganda

When the respondents were asked of their knowledge of the procedure for applying for amnesty, their responses were as shown in the table below.

Table 1: Knowledge of the procedure of applying for amnesty in Uganda Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

 

No

279

76.2

76.2

76.2

Yes

82

22.4

23.1

100

Total

361

98.6

100.0

 

Missing

System

 

 

5

1.36

Total

366

100.0

 

 

The information obtained from the respondents as shown in the table above shows that 76.2% of the respondents didn’t know of the procedure for applying for amnesty. This meant that this big section of the respondents represented a majority of the Ugandan population who don’t know the procedure for applying for amnesty. It can be argued that if a population does not know of the law they are supposed to benefit from, the chances of such a law achieving its objective are usually minimal. It was only 22.4% of the respondents that said they knew the procedure for applying for amnesty. This means that some members of the population may have not applied for amnesty because of their ignorance of the procedures for applying for amnesty (Fay 19932; Remenyi, Swan & Van Den Assem 20113).

In an interview with a reporter in Bundibugyo district, he said that “I know the procedure for applying for amnesty because I applied for it” (RP 1, Name withheld, Interview held with the respondent on January 06, 2015).

However, in another interview with a returnee in Katakwi district, he said that “I don’t know the procedure for applying for amnesty because I heard that it’s very long so I didn’t apply for amnesty” (RP 2, Name withheld, Interview held with the respondent on January 14, 2015). From the two responses above, it can be deduced that if many returnees as well as their relatives knew of the procedure for applying for amnesty, many returnees would have applied for amnesty.

In any of the above arguments, it is of paramount importance that reporters and the general public know of the procedures for applying for amnesty because on the side of reporters, it’s important to know the procedure for applying for amnesty because they need to apply for it and let their colleagues still in the bush know of it and apply for it too. Similarly, the general public need to know of the procedure for applying for amnesty so that they could encourage their returnee-relatives to apply for it for the rebuilding of their communities using peaceful and sustainable means after a conflict. This therefore calls for massive and sustained ways to sensitise the masses and the reporters to ensure that they are knowledgeable of the procedures of applying for amnesty.

Knowledge of the procedure for applying for amnesty in Uganda necessarily means that a person knows the amnesty Act (2000) because it is therein that the procedure for applying for amnesty is written. And since many Ugandans don’t know or have never read of the amnesty Act (2000), then not knowing the procedure for applying for amnesty cannot surprise many. Just as (Wilson & Kenny (20074) state, knowledge of a law is key to its success, therefore, knowledge of the amnesty Act and consequently the procedure for applying for amnesty was key to its success or lack of it. It is believed that if people supposed to benefit form a law know that law, its chances of success This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.12.03.2022.p12304

 

www.ijsrp.org

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 12, Issue 3, March 2022

 

 

 

 

 

12

ISSN 2250-3153

 

increase by a great margin (Marson 20135). If the amnesty Act (2000) was well known by many Ugandan citizens, it would have greatly achieved its intended objective.

As Combe (18036) states, the ignorant resistance to any law greatly hinders its success. Many people naturally hate law and order. Therefore, any law is usually met with stiff resistance from many citizens and this situation worsens when those opposing such a law are ignorant of that law. Ignorant resistance to a law is the biggest hindrance to the success of any law as a lot of hate is pushed over it even when the law is to the benefit of those ignorantly resisting it. In such an environment, even the best law cannot achieve its intended objective. In the Ugandan case, many people did not know of the amnesty Act (2000) and therefore, the law was ignorantly resisted which made it lack the legitimacy to be well understood, implemented and appreciated. As Husak (20167) contends, even though a person ignorant of a law is as culpable as a person who knows the law when both of them break that law, this is not the case when it comes to the implementation of that law. This is because the one who knows the law will knowingly implement it or refuse to implement it while the one who is ignorant of it will ignorantly resist its implementation.

Procedure of Applying for Amnesty in Uganda

When the respondents were further asked if they knew the procedure for applying for amnesty in Uganda and the following were their responses as shown in the table below.

 

Table 2: Procedure for applying for Amnesty in Uganda

 

Procedure for applying for Amnesty in Uganda

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent