How Oulanyah shaped the debate on amnesty

The Amnesty Act had been ratified at the beginning of the millennium as a tool to end rebellions in Uganda by reassuring rebels to lay down their arms without the fear of prosecution for crimes. But, a year later—with Joseph Kony’s Lord Resistance Army (LRA) showing no signs laying down guns—the government moved to plug holes it thought existed in the law.

The spirit of the amendment was laid out in Parliament by then junior Internal Affairs minister, Sarah Kiyingi Namusoke. She contended that the move to amend the Act was intended to provide for the prosecution of persons who, after being granted an amnesty under the Act, continued to engage in acts of war or armed rebellion against the NRM government.

READ: No, Oulanyah was not poisoned

“The amendment before you, honourable members focus mainly on those people who, after benefiting from the amnesty, go back and engage in rebel activities, which they had already denounced and on which basis they had been granted amnesty,” Kiyingi said.

She added: “We, therefore, seek that this House approves the amendment, which will empower the government in such a way that, when such people are re-arrested, they do not benefit from the amnesty.”

The amendment—Kiyingi told Parliament presided over by then Speaker Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi—had been sought early during the first months of implementation of the Act after realising “that there was that loophole that they needed to fix.”

Kiyingi, then Rakai Woman Member of Parliament (MP), said the gap was significant since it was President Museveni who had brought it to their attention.

“He, therefore, specifically requested that this loophole in the law be sealed immediately so that we separate those who are seriously desiring to benefit from the amnesty and those who just take it, especially after they have been arrested, they ask to have the amnesty so that they are released, only to go back into their acts of lawlessness,” Kiyingi told the house.

Sejusa weighs in

The minister had support from Gen David Tinyefuza (now Sejusa), the chair of Parliament’s Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs at the time.

“Speaker, the situation we have noted in the actual implementation of the Amnesty Act is that very many people who surrender and renounce these actions of banditry or rebellion are re-arrested for the same acts of banditry. And they again ask for the same amnesty as happened in the first case. It has become a vicious circle,” Gen Sejusa said.

Mr Ssekandi, who has since retired from active politics having lost the Bukoto Central seat he held for 25 years, however, seemed unconvinced.

“…… does it really require enacting an amendment of this nature? he asked. “If I was pardoned for treason I committed yesterday or two months ago, does it mean that if I commit treason in two months’ time, I assume that I had already got amnesty? Is that what they thought? Does amnesty cover you for life? Well, I just wanted clarification and I have got it.”

What was being handled under this Amendment, Gen Sejusa explained, was a technical problem.

“Although the Amnesty Commission handles the actual integration of these people, there are many other agencies of state which actually handle some of these activities to such an extent that at times there is even lack of coordination,” he said, adding, “You find that a person who has surrendered in Mbale [army] third division is committing the same acts of terrorism in Mbarara and he claims to be forgiven under the Amnesty Act. The issue is, shouldn’t we have a law in place to determine such cases when they come to be known? Right now, there is that hazy area of how to coordinate our activities, and it is undermining the implementation of the Amnesty Act.”

Enter Oulanyah

The debate was going round in circles until Jacob Oulanyah, the Omoro County MP, took the floor. Oulanyah, who chaired the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, observed that MPs were discussing the proposed amendment as if all the amnesties granted were governed by the Amnesty Act, which he insisted was the case.  “What does this Bill seek to do?” he asked rhetorically.

He answered thus: “What this Bill seeks to do emanates from the President’s statement, and I am sure he made it in the State of the Nation Address. He raised the issue that there are re-offenders. There are people who, after the grant of amnesty, go back and re-offend…Unfortunately, the Bill, as it is now, does not address that category of people squarely. The evidence laid before the Committee—evidence which I am privy to from the Amnesty Commission—is to the effect that all those people who have been referred to by the President, the minister and everybody in this country were never objects of the Amnesty Act. Not one of them had been granted amnesty under the Amnesty Act.”

Oulanyah opined that the amendment had been hurried for nothing because the entire Amnesty Act actually needed review.

“It is due for review. It is an Act that has existed only for six months and has to be reviewed. In that sense, all the amendments, all the revisions that are necessary for the proper functioning of the Amnesty Commission, should have been brought now. But now they have just been singled out because the President cried out about this matter.  So, it is brought out even ignoring the very problems the President was seeking to prevent,” he said.

ALSO READ: Oulanyah’s family to review post-mortem report

He added: “We are reflecting on old methods that will be desirable in curbing what has been a problem to this country. And it is my hope, Mr Speaker, that the rain that has fallen this afternoon will wash away the desires of terrorism, all acts of aggression or any acts of vengeance that we use to solve our problems. It is my prayer, Mr Speaker, that this rain that has fallen this afternoon will be a precursor that this August House will always focus on consensus on matters that affect the peace and security of the individuals and their property in this country. It is an issue which would never be mixed.”

Sense of clarity

With many MPs supporting Oulanyah’s ideas, Umar Lule Mawiya asked that the amendment be taken to the committee stage so that they can be looked into. At the committee level, Oulanyah suggested special circumstances under which amnesty should be given either by the Amnesty Commission or the courts of law.

Special circumstances included one joining rebel activity as a child and he also suggested that in determining if one warrants amnesty, courts or the Amnesty Commission would put into account all relevant factors (nature of the act, circumstance in which the act was committed, and the age of the person).

Current Gender and Labour minister, Betty Amongi concurred with Oulanyah, but sought clarification on a section of the amendment that talked about not granting amnesty to second-time offenders.

“I come from the northern part of this country where the people have been abducted and my concern is that what about if someone was abducted, and has benefited from the amnesty, then when that person goes back home and is re-abducted and goes back to the bush and wants to seek the amnesty again.  What will this law have in place for this particular person?” she asked.

In response, Gen Sejusa, who was later appointed coordinator of intelligence agencies, rejected Oulanyah’s proposal. He argued that if just taken at face value, the proposal would seem innocent.

“I will begin with his latest proposed amendment, 6 A (1), where he says, “A person granted an amnesty under this Act or any other law in force…” How?” Gen Sejusa asked, adding, “That is very dangerous! Here we are targeting people who are given amnesty for rebel activities as specified under this law. Immediately you open it up to include other laws in force, you are going to give a blanket absolution to criminals, and…that is not the intention of this Bill.

The intention of this Bill, the General offered, “is limited in application and in intention. Therefore, to give it that elasticity would be tantamount to abuse of this very law. Therefore, I would not support that amendment as proposed.”

Final tweaks

On December 12, 2001, the committee sat again to discuss Oulanyah’s proposed amendments having adjourned the previous day on grounds that MPs had no copies of what the then Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) stalwart was vouching for.

On taking the floor, Oulanyah revealed he had tweaked his proposals. Amnesty Commission, he started, should give amnesty to individuals who can demonstrate they had been abducted since the last grant of amnesty; that the act, of joining rebel activity, was committed under duress, coercion or undue influence. The state was unconvinced, but Oulanyah stood his ground.

“…. the amendment as I proposed it, shows two situations, which don’t seem to be reflected in the Minister’s Statement. The amendment proposed in (4) takes care of those who have been arrested and are facing prosecution. Two, it takes care of those who voluntarily come to the Commission again, they are not facing any prosecution, they are just there, they have escaped, maybe from their second abduction, they have dashed back to the Commission and say, ‘Here I am, I was abducted again but I am here, I want to denounce whatever I have done, I want amnesty’,” he said.

DON'T MISS: Faces behind Oulanyah’s burial

After some panel beating by a number of MPs, the state agreed to Oulanyah’s ideas. Then Attorney General, Francis Ayume—who tragically passed away in 2004—wanted just one alteration: “Mr chairman (Ssekandi), I am worried about the word ‘demonstrates’, why don’t we use the words ‘satisfies the Commission.”

[email protected]