VIII. Release or Transfer from JATT

Charged with Terrorism or Treason

Some former detainees held by JATT were eventually brought to police stations and charged with terrorism or treason.

At police stations, detainees often found that the statements they had been forced to sign were already in their files. One detainee told Human Rights Watch, "I told [the police] that I wanted to make my statement and that I had been forced to sign that paper. He said no, took our pictures and fingerprints and sent us to the [magistrate]." It was the first time the man had been in front of a magistrate since his arrest by JATT five months before. [186]

Those who are charged and transferred to the prison have spent prolonged time on remand. In one instance, two women who were charged with terrorism for involvement with the ADF spent seven years in prison awaiting trial. They were arrested in 1999, charged with terrorism before the magistrates' court in August 2000, and the case was committed to the High Court. They were eventually released on September 15, 2006 by a judge who noted that the state had violated their constitutional rights by keeping them on remand for that long. [187]

The long remand times for defendants are not particular to former-Kololo detainees. Prison officials have complained that the Ugandan courts are inefficient at disposing of cases. [188] However, because their alleged crimes are usually eligible for amnesty, the long remand times tend to discourage defendants from having their day in court, and cause them to apply for amnesty, even if they have not been involved in acts of rebellion.

Release by JATT without Charge

Some detainees reported that they were released without any charges ever brought against them after months in detention. JATT never gave them any documents to indicate how much time they had spent in JATT custody or to clear them of further arrest or interrogation. One former detainee told Human Rights Watch that he,

(…) was in the garage in JATT and they called us up … and said, 'Do you have people you could call who could come and collect you?' We were taken to the Criminal Investigations Department in Kibuli. They took our fingerprints and our photos . . . They didn't give us any documents to show that we had been released formally without charge. They told us that we shouldn't join bad people. But they didn't give us any money for transport and no release papers.[189]

Police Bond

In other instances, detainees who had been held by JATT for long periods were brought to police headquarters and then released on police bond, despite being accused of very serious crimes. Under the terms of the bond, they were required to report to the Criminal Investigations Department to answer further questions. For example, Dr. Ismail Kalule was arrested on November 14, 2008 by two men known as Lt. Sendi Yahaya and Kamada, who Kalule knew to be JATT agents. He was held in Kololo and then was released on December 18 on a police bond for terrorism. [190] He is required to report to the police every two weeks.

It is unclear if police are in fact pursuing investigations in all of the cases in which people are free on bond. One criminal lawyer pointed out to Human Rights Watch that bond allows the police to keep track of certain individuals, even when they are not under active investigation and to keep them under surveillance. [191]

The Amnesty Process

Some detainees, during their prolonged illegal detention or while on remand, apply for amnesty. Former detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported that they believed this was their only way out to return to their families. Those who professed innocence said that awaiting a trial would take too long and the financial toll on their families would be too great without the breadwinner. [192] Others reported that JATT agents took them to the amnesty commission and forced them to seek amnesty against their will. [193]

The Amnesty Law

In 2000, parliament passed the Amnesty Act, which established the Amnesty Commission and procedures for the granting amnesty to "Ugandans involved in acts of a war-like nature in various parts of the country" who complied with specified requirements stipulated in the Act. [194]  The Act provides that, "An Amnesty is declared in respect of any Ugandan who has at any time since the 26th day of January, 1986 engaged in or is engaging in war or armed rebellion against the government of the Republic of Uganda by actual participation in combat; collaborating with the perpetrators of the war or armed rebellion; committing any other crime in the furtherance of the war or armed rebellion; or assisting or aiding the conduct or prosecution of the war or armed rebellion." [195]

Requirements of those seeking amnesty include reporting to a local government or religious leader, renouncing and abandoning involvement in the war or armed rebellion and surrendering all weapons. At that point, the individual seeking amnesty is issued a "Certificate of Amnesty" and given a reinsertion package. [196] The amnesty depends on individual application to the authorities for the "certificate."

If the individual is in "lawful detention" for one of the eligible crimes, he or she can report to a prison officer, or a judge or magistrate to declare intention to apply for amnesty. However, for these individuals, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must also certify that the applicant meets the requirements of the Act, but the state has no choice, according to current DPP Richard Buteera, but to grant the amnesty. [197] If an individual in or out of custody meets the requirements of the Act, he or she can not be prosecuted or punished for their alleged crimes in any way. [198] Amnesty petitions are generally available in the prisons and prisoners-including those charged with treason or terrorism-may fill them out and send them to the authorities without a lawyer.

The Amnesty Commission, chaired by a judge, has responsibility only for overseeing the demobilization and reintegration of those applying for amnesty, and for ensuring the criteria for amnesty have been met. However, the Commission has no discretion to deny amnesty to any applicant who meets the basic criteria. So far, 22,995 people have been granted amnesty under this law, more than half of whom are combatants of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). [199]

Varied Paths to Amnesty

In practice, routes to amnesty for those in custody are confusing and varied. Some are granted amnesty fairly quickly and released, while others are released on bail and wait months for the final grant of amnesty. In the meantime, they are not brought to trial.

For example, one woman interviewed by Human Rights Watch had been abducted by ADF rebels as a girl in 2000. She was wounded during an exchange of fire between the Ugandan army and the rebels and was captured by the army. After her wounds healed, she was brought to Kololo and detained for 10 days. Eventually she was transferred to the Central Police Station in Kampala where she spent another month in custody before being charged with treason and misprision of treason. In August 2007 she was transferred to Luzira prison. She applied for amnesty in September 2007, but was released on bail in May 2008. She was required to report to the magistrate every month as a condition of her bail and she has never been officially granted amnesty. [200] She has also never had a trial. While awaiting amnesty, the prosecutors dropped the charges in her case after further perusal of the file. [201] This case shows that there are instances in which the case against the individual is very weak and yet the person applies for amnesty in an attempt to extricate themselves from lengthy legal proceedings.

Some detainees told Human Rights Watch that they had been forced to apply for amnesty by JATT personnel or that they were aware of other former detainees who had been forced to apply for amnesty. For example, one man said that after many months in illegal detention in Kololo, he was brought up from the garage detention area to an office in October 2008. There, a member of JATT told him to write out an apology:

I . . . wrote that if the government has no case against me, I request to be released and go back home. When I gave it to [the JATT member] he read through it and looked at me and he told me to go back downstairs. I was called again back to his office the following day . . . and he gave me another statement he had already typed saying that I was an ADF rebel and I have repented and would never join the rebels again and I am seeking for amnesty. He told me 'What you wrote was rejected." He told me to rewrite the statement he had typed in my handwriting and sign both the typed copy and the hand written one, which I did."[202]

Another former detainee told Human Rights Watch that JATT personnel told him he had two choices-admit his offense and take amnesty or hang. Later during his detention, a police officer at the Criminal Investigations Department told him that if he tried to pursue his case through the courts, he might be acquitted but JATT would re-arrest him anyway. Amnesty was the only choice. [203]

One former detainee told Human Rights Watch, "One day, [JATT agent] John Mwesigwa came and told us, 'we are taking you to the Amnesty Commission. We have released you.' He then took me aside and said you are going to meet the press but you must tell them that we have treated you very well and you have not been beaten." [204]

No safeguards exist in Ugandan law to prevent security agencies from forcing individuals to apply for amnesty despite the state having no or little evidence of their alleged illegal activity. According to one criminal lawyer in Uganda, abuses of the amnesty process exist, because it allows the state to claim the high moral ground of forgiveness, while potentially covering up for poor criminal investigations and lack of evidence against certain individuals. [205] In this way, the security agencies also achieve the objective of intimidating people from coming forward about their mistreatment while in custody and stigmatizing them as rebels in their community. Brig. Mugira demurred when asked by Human Rights Watch that anyone is forced or compelled to apply for amnesty by his officers. [206]

The Amnesty Commission has no formal relationship with JATT or other security agencies.[207] According to commission chairman Justice Peter Onega, if someone has been in custody and mistreated or held for long periods of time, that could very well compel them to apply for amnesty, but the commission has never investigated what prompts applicants to a seek amnesty and it does not share statistics on how or from which location individuals apply.[208] Justice Onega told Human Rights Watch that he cannot rule out some individuals may have been coerced to seek amnesty by members of the security organizations, but said that the commission was not a party to that activity in any way.[209]According to the International Organization of Migration (IOM), the Amnesty Commission has referred 14 amnestied individuals who were previously in JATT custody to IOM for reception and reinsertion assistance.[210] It is unclear how many of them were brought to the Commission against their will.

Unresolved Amnesty Applicants: Military Disregard of Judicial Processes

Still other applicants for amnesty remain in prison for long periods of time, despite applications for amnesty pending and no conviction for their alleged crimes. According to the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, nine individuals who had been charged with treason in relation to participation in various armed groups on October 3, 2003 are currently held in Luzira Upper Prison. [211] The media reported in December 2006 that "Luzira Prisons Spokesman, Baker Asinja, confirmed the group has been on remand for the last three years, despite the constant reminders to the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) to withdraw the charges against the suspects." [212] On April 4, 2006, the General Courts Martial (GCM) dropped charges and discontinued proceedings against the nine, but General Elly Tumwine, president of the GCM, ruled that their release was contingent on clearance from CMI. [213]

On October 12, 2006, a CMI legal officer responded to a letter from a Uganda Human Rights Commission officer who had asked CMI why the nine had not been granted amnesty. In that letter, CMI accepts that the GCM referred the amnesty application of the nine to CMI, but stated that "the 9 applicants have to date not been cleared for amnesty by the superior authority of the UPDF." [214] There is no mention in law of the role of CMI in the amnesty process, so it remains unclear why the armed forces would be involved in their release at all.

The nine have now been in custody for more than five years. They have never had a trial or been convicted of any crimes. When asked about this case, Brig. Mugira professed no knowledge of the nine, but agreed that CMI has no role to play in the amnesty process. [215]

The case of the nine casts a long shadow over prisoners in Luzira. Human Rights Watch interviewed five of the nine men in Luzira prison. [216] Some were considering submitting habeus corpus petitions but were struggling to afford the necessary legal assistance. As one, who had formerly been detained by JATT in Kololo said, "The government created all of the information against us. But, we don't want to stay here for years so we sign for amnesty, but then sometimes you don't even get out once you do have amnesty. You can just be forgotten here." [217]