The Hague – Peter Haynes KC, Counsel assigned to represent the interests of Joseph Kony, urged the ICC Judges to halt the proceedings after this week’s confirmation hearing, arguing that continuing to try Joseph Kony is impermissible under the ICC Statute.
Defence team members Geoffrey Boris Anyuru and Lilian Beatrice Atim, themselves from the Acholi and Teso regions, explained that many Ugandans view the ICC hearing against Joseph Kony as “self-interested.”
They further explained that it is also divisive, discriminating between victims who fall within the ICC’s narrow 2002–2005 charges and the majority who fall outside.
They informed the Judges that the Ongwen ICC case has generated bitterness and disappointment among those who did not qualify as victims in that case, and very high expectations and increasing impatience among those still waiting for ICC reparations.
They asked why the ICC Prosecution has never explained why it decided to re-open proceedings against Joseph Kony and to take these small procedural step 20 years later—particularly given the progress Uganda has made toward reconciliation, healing, and providing justice for Ugandans within Uganda.
They referred to statements collected by the Defence from religious leaders, political leaders, traditional leaders, victims’ groups, NGOs, and many ordinary Ugandans who believe that the ICC hearing will jeopardize ongoing repatriation and reconciliation efforts in northern Uganda, and that its divisiveness will undermine the peace they have worked so hard to achieve.
Mr. Haynes noted the Defence team’s surprise and disappointment that the ICC Legal Representatives of Victims had objected to Counsel Anyuru—who lived through the war in northern Uganda—addressing the Court in Acholi but thanked the Judges for allowing him to do so and speak directly to the affected community.
Mr. Haynes confirmed that he has had no contact with Joseph Kony, nor received any instructions from him. On that basis, he stated he had no ability to know how Joseph Kony would respond to the charges—whether he would choose to plead guilty or provide information and evidence to challenge the Prosecution’s framing of the case and his responsibility.
Mr. Haynes explained that in other cases where the suspect has been present, ICC Judges have placed great importance on the suspect’s ability to challenge the charges and evidence brought against him.
As written by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan in 2014, the most important factor at confirmation, for Counsel, is “the goals and wishes of the client.”
This is because the confirmation hearing is designed to be a process where the suspect can bring evidence and arguments to influence the way in which the charges are confirmed for trial. Here, this vital part of the confirmation process is missing—meaning the procedure risks transforming into an uncontested rubber-stamping of the charges.
Mr. Haynes responded to the Deputy Prosecutor’s submission that if the charges are confirmed, “it will allow the proceedings to move rapidly to the next stage as soon as Joseph Kony is arrested and surrendered to the Court.”
Mr. Haynes noted that the Ugandan authorities—if Joseph Kony is ever surrendered or arrested—intend to deal with him in Uganda.
Meaning, the Prosecution’s stated purpose for this experiment will likely never materialize. Having now lived through the process of representing an absent suspect, Mr. Haynes urged the Court not to attempt this again, noting that the absence of the suspect undermines the entire purpose of the confirmation procedure.
