Ugandans detained in Ituri, DRC
Due to the involvement of the UPDF in the armed conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (1998-2003), on Ugandaâs western border, 145 Congolese have appeared in Ugandan detention as mentioned in the case of Isaac Kambesa above. Ugandans captured in DRC allegedly involved in armed opposition to the UPDF have been transferred to Ugandan soil as well. There is no way to know how many are held in Uganda in connection with activities in DRC. They are held by the military unless and until it chooses to turn them over to the courts for trial.Twenty-two Ugandan citizens (including two medical doctors) were detained on March 8, 2003 in Ituri, DRC. They were alleged to be supporters of Kizza Besigyeâs supposed rebel group, the PRA.146The circumstances of their capture are murky, but there is no dispute that they were Ugandans captured inside DRC who ended up in UPDF custody inside Uganda.147 The Ugandan government says that they were captured by the Lendu militia which handed them over to the UPDF inside Uganda, at Arua near the DRC border.148The twenty-two Ugandans were not the only Ugandans captured that day who ended up in the hands of the UPDF. There were in addition six Ugandan civilians including an attorney. All twenty-eight of the Ugandans were removed from DRC to Uganda.Later the Ugandan government claimed that the Ugandans had been captured on March 8, 2003, and subjected by their captors, the Lendu militia, to âharsh conditions, bullet wounds, beatings and lack of food etc.â They needed âurgent medical treatmentâ and this condition justified the Ugandan governmentâs failure to bring them to court before April 16.149Their bad condition did not stop the UPDF from parading the twenty-two captives before the press in Arua, Uganda, on March 20, however. The UPDF disclosed their names and claimed that they were members of the Ugandan rebel group PRA.150On April 11, 2003, the families of those twenty-two whose names had been disclosed in the press sought an order of habeas corpus from the High Court, which ordered the UPDF to produce the twenty-two in the High Court on April 17.This habeas corpus petition did its work. On April 16, 2003, the day before they were to be produced in High Court, twenty-five of the twenty-eight (twenty-two captured plus the six others151) were charged with treason in a court martial. The allegation was that on March 8, 2003 they plotted and assembled at Aboro Hills, Ituri, DRC, to overthrow the Ugandan government by force of arms, and on March 10 in the same place levied war against the Republic of Uganda (âto wit took up arms to fightâ the Ugandan government and were âcaptured in a gun battleâ).152 Three of the original twenty-two were not charged with a crime nor produced in the High Court. They had decided to cooperate with the prosecution.In the High Court on April 17, the date on which the habeas corpus was due, the attorney for the UPDF produced the day-old charge sheet to account for the nineteen, and reported that the three not charged were not in detention, and had been âfreed.â The families of the accused then sought other relief and compensation. They calculated that before the men were charged, they were in illegal custody for twenty-two days (March 20-April 16).The army refused the families, doctors, and attorneys access to the twenty-five defendants in Makindye barracks on two occasions, using as an excuse the second time that a letter from CMI director Col. Noble Mayombo was required for anyone to visit prisoners in Makindye. After more protests, Col. Mayombo notified the attorneys that the general court martial would issue an order for remand of the accused civilians to civil prison when it reconvened on May 6, 2003. The request for a letter of permission to visit them in Makindye barracks detention was not granted.153According to the government, the civilians in the group were awarded damages by the court for their wrongful and long confinement in UPDF custodyâor âby the army court,â as the CMI stated.154 The criminal charges are pending.
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the state."
- Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels - Hitler's propaganda minister
