Comment: Amnesty May Not Quell Violence
Truth and reconciliation commission capable of revealing crimes committed in the east needs to be set up first.
Comment: Amnesty May Not Quell Violence
Truth and reconciliation commission capable of revealing crimes committed in the east needs to be set up first.
There have been mixed reactions to the Congolese parliament’s passage last month of a law offering amnesty for acts of war and insurrection in the Kivu provinces,
The amnesty, which the assembly says heralds a new era of peace for the country, covers crimes from June 2003 was promised in the Goma peace agreement that was supposed to end fighting in the east.
Mai Mai rebels from the Mongol and Rwenzori groups have applauded the government for sticking to the January 29 deal. But others, like International Criminal Court, ICC, indictee Thomas Lubanga’s Union of Congolese Patriots, UPC, say the law is selective and discriminatory as it doesn’t cover crimes committed by armed groups in the province of Ituri.
An amnesty law was one of the main conditions imposed by rebels, including those from Laurent Nkunda’s CNDP group, for signing the Goma accord. In all 22 armed groups promised to lay down their weapons and end the violence that has displaced more than one million people in the region.
Despite the promises made in Goma, however, that fighting has continued. The Congo Advocacy Coalition – a group of 64 aid agencies and human rights groups – said last month that in the six months since the deal was signed “horrendous violence” has continued in the east. At least 150,000 people have been forced from their homes and more than 2,200 rapes were recorded in one month in North Kivu alone. More than 200 civilians have died and 200 ceasefire violations reported.
It is doubtful that this amnesty law – a lifebelt used by criminals against prosecution – will end the violence by Nkunda and the other armed groups. The amnesty – which must now be approved by Congo’s senate then given to President Joseph Kabila for signing – will not change the situation on the ground.
Rather it could encourage the feeling of impunity for militia groups and encourage them to commit other crimes. The solution to the problems in the eastern DRC lies elsewhere, not in the adoption of an amnesty law.
Congolese people do not understand how impunity for perpetrators of heinous crimes can be promoted under the pretext of peace.
Despite what has been said, an amnesty is not an essential step to achieving peace. Congolese experience shows that amnesties adopted before have not worked. A previous amnesty for acts of war and political offences between 1996 and 2003 did not stop the fighting.
It should be noted that neither amnesty includes acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those indicted by the ICC like fugitive Bosco Ntaganda are also not eligible.
The latest amnesty was adopted July 12 in the absence of several opposition members who have boycotted parliament since the murder of MP Daniel Boteti on July 6. A member of Jean-Pierre Bemba’s Movement for the Liberation of Congo, MLC, party, he was shot in the capital Kinshasa. Bemba is in The Hague awaiting trial on charges relating to crimes committed in the Central African Republic.
Although taken in the name of national reconciliation, the amnesty unfortunately does not help the thousands of victims of war. Their interests were not taken into account. It scorns victims’ rights to justice and undermines the very principle of justice. Victims lose the right to be acknowledged as victims on the national level. For them, it means impunity. This law is an insult to victims.
It is also unlikely that this amnesty law will promote national reconciliation – a long process but an indispensable one for peace.
For this to happen, an independent truth and reconciliation commission capable of revealing the crimes committed needs to be set up.
This should be done before any amnesty is granted. Before a page can be turned, it first has to be read.
The South African example can illustrate this. In this country, the truth and reconciliation commission granted an individual a conditional amnesty in exchange for confessions. This is not the case in the DRC with this new law. In South Africa, the amnesty was the price to pay for security forces signing up to the transition process, so avoiding a bloodbath and ending the vicious cycle of revenge.
It is possible to achieve forgiveness but only after the truth has been established, and once symbolic compensation has been granted according to a truth and reconciliation commission. The new amnesty law accepted by the Congolese parliament will not enable that truth to be established.
Eugène Bakama Bope is president of Friends of the Law in Congo.
The amnesty, which the assembly says heralds a new era of peace for the country, covers crimes from June 2003 was promised in the Goma peace agreement that was supposed to end fighting in the east.
Mai Mai rebels from the Mongol and Rwenzori groups have applauded the government for sticking to the January 29 deal. But others, like International Criminal Court, ICC, indictee Thomas Lubanga’s Union of Congolese Patriots, UPC, say the law is selective and discriminatory as it doesn’t cover crimes committed by armed groups in the province of Ituri.
An amnesty law was one of the main conditions imposed by rebels, including those from Laurent Nkunda’s CNDP group, for signing the Goma accord. In all 22 armed groups promised to lay down their weapons and end the violence that has displaced more than one million people in the region.
Despite the promises made in Goma, however, that fighting has continued. The Congo Advocacy Coalition – a group of 64 aid agencies and human rights groups – said last month that in the six months since the deal was signed “horrendous violence” has continued in the east. At least 150,000 people have been forced from their homes and more than 2,200 rapes were recorded in one month in North Kivu alone. More than 200 civilians have died and 200 ceasefire violations reported.
It is doubtful that this amnesty law – a lifebelt used by criminals against prosecution – will end the violence by Nkunda and the other armed groups. The amnesty – which must now be approved by Congo’s senate then given to President Joseph Kabila for signing – will not change the situation on the ground.
Rather it could encourage the feeling of impunity for militia groups and encourage them to commit other crimes. The solution to the problems in the eastern DRC lies elsewhere, not in the adoption of an amnesty law.
Congolese people do not understand how impunity for perpetrators of heinous crimes can be promoted under the pretext of peace.
Despite what has been said, an amnesty is not an essential step to achieving peace. Congolese experience shows that amnesties adopted before have not worked. A previous amnesty for acts of war and political offences between 1996 and 2003 did not stop the fighting.
It should be noted that neither amnesty includes acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those indicted by the ICC like fugitive Bosco Ntaganda are also not eligible.
The latest amnesty was adopted July 12 in the absence of several opposition members who have boycotted parliament since the murder of MP Daniel Boteti on July 6. A member of Jean-Pierre Bemba’s Movement for the Liberation of Congo, MLC, party, he was shot in the capital Kinshasa. Bemba is in The Hague awaiting trial on charges relating to crimes committed in the Central African Republic.
Although taken in the name of national reconciliation, the amnesty unfortunately does not help the thousands of victims of war. Their interests were not taken into account. It scorns victims’ rights to justice and undermines the very principle of justice. Victims lose the right to be acknowledged as victims on the national level. For them, it means impunity. This law is an insult to victims.
It is also unlikely that this amnesty law will promote national reconciliation – a long process but an indispensable one for peace.
For this to happen, an independent truth and reconciliation commission capable of revealing the crimes committed needs to be set up.
This should be done before any amnesty is granted. Before a page can be turned, it first has to be read.
The South African example can illustrate this. In this country, the truth and reconciliation commission granted an individual a conditional amnesty in exchange for confessions. This is not the case in the DRC with this new law. In South Africa, the amnesty was the price to pay for security forces signing up to the transition process, so avoiding a bloodbath and ending the vicious cycle of revenge.
It is possible to achieve forgiveness but only after the truth has been established, and once symbolic compensation has been granted according to a truth and reconciliation commission. The new amnesty law accepted by the Congolese parliament will not enable that truth to be established.
Eugène Bakama Bope is president of Friends of the Law in Congo.
