Trust, Government, and Corruption

On Friday, the parent network that sponsors the Uganda Coalition for the International Criminal Court held its Annual General Meeting. HURINET (Uganda) is a HUman RIghts NETwork of about 270 NGOs throughout the country -- although I am under the impression that most of these NGOs are regional divisions of the same body. Once a year they come together to review accomplishments, reinforce goals, discuss strategy and elect new officers. It was great for me, because I met folks from different human rights organizations all over Uganda. The oldest (and hence most respected) member of the network works in Gulu. He's a very nice man named Otto I hope to visit next month. I also met a lady from an organization called Hope After Rape, and others from an organization that rehabilitates torture victims. They all seemed willing to share information and tour me around their organizations. One woman even told me she was going to be my other mother in Uganda. (It was a sweet gesture, but she left before I could give her my e-mail address or phone number.)

I was assigned to take minutes. And I did, too -- 25 pages worth of notes. I guess schools here don't teach kids to type without looking, because people kept approaching me about how fast I could move my fingers. I'm not a fast typist by U.S. standards, but I had a small audience when I described the learning method: practicing the home row, branching off from that, covering your hands with paper so you can't see the keyboard ...

The meeting itself began normally enough. A professor gave a very fine speech on the differences between networks and networking, and the reasons why so many networks fail. The chairman of the organization followed with a welcome, and then the secretary of the organization reviewed the previous year's minutes. During the review, a very heated debate came up about a civil suit brought against the state by HURINET. I've since discussed the conversation with UCICC members, and here is what I pieced together about the facts:

Certain individuals were accused by the national government of being members of a rebel organization called the PRA. According to one HURINET staff member, this PRA doesn't actually exist -- it's a figment of the government's imagination, a mechanism used to condemn political threats like President Museveni's primary campaign opponent, Besigye. The government line is that the PRA is planning a coup. The staff member I spoke with said this isn't true, it's only government paranoia.

But forget, for a moment, whether or not the PRA exists. A number of men were put in prison. At a pre-trial hearing, a judge set bail for these individuals. The accused paid the set amount and were free to leave prison. Only the state refused to give the men up; Some of the men remained in prison for much longer, and at least one is still incarcerated.

HURINET brought a complaint seeking the release of two accused parties. The lawyers were concerned that the government had circumvented the rule of law to keep a number of individuals detained. One staff counselor was sent to represent their case. The state was represented by eight attorneys.

Now here's the kicker, here's why the folks at the Annual General Meeting were upset: One of the government attorneys happened to be the vice chair of HURINET. Nathan Twinomugisha is a founding member of HURINET on the staff of an amnesty organization run by the government. He accepted payment to attend this trial in Swaziland and act on the government's behalf against his own organization. His actions at trial may not have been so bad; apparently, all he did was explain to the Court what amnesty was; according to the HURINET counselor, he didn't say a word at the trial. Explaining amnesty would actually work in favor of the accused, who would be given a temporary reprieve from arrest. So the problem was not what Twinomugisha said, if he in fact said what he claimed. The problem is that he concealed his participation in the trial from the board and body of HURINET. That hiding was enough to call his entire behavior into question. HURINET staff members wanted to know -- had he revealed any secrets about the organization? Had he revealed their counselor's strategy? How far would the man go, for government money?

Here in Uganda, as in many East African nations, human rights workers see the government as the enemy. The government is the perpetrator of the most greivous human rights violations; the government is the threat to civilization. This presents two interesting conundrums:

1. If the government, the force that regulates civilization, is also a corrupting influence, how can that civilization possibly be sustained?

2. If human rights workers refuse to work within the government, how will that government ever come to believe in human rights?

I posed the latter question to various members of HURINET, and they bristled somewhat. The line is clear enough to them: human rights good, government bad. For me, the two have to be reconciled or both will face extinction. I believe Twinomugisha made a mistake, going off to this trial without alerting the HURINET board first. It's as if Dick Cheney accepted a large sum of money to secretly attend an Al Qaeda training camp -- even if his mission were to dissuade terrorists from attacking, U.S. citizens would still question his actions. All the same, though, I found the conversation distressing. The underlying insinuation was that no government employee should ever be involved with HURINET, and no human rights worker should ever get involved with the government.

If human rights workers never become legislators, how will human rights ever be incorporated into the law?

If the government keeps flaunting human rights, how will people ever trust their elected officials enough to allow for a stable government?

And if you can't trust the human rights workers to be free of corruption, who the hell can you trust?

I'm including my notes on the discussion, below. I know it's odd to include meeting minutes in a blog, but I found the argument very interesting.


Speaker 1: The rumor is with my ears that a member of HURINET represented the state. Would someone give us the real truth?

Prior Attorney: My response would be that the state was represented by eight lawyers. These eight were seated on one side, and I was seated on the other side. The lead counselor for the state was the solicitor general. The other eight lawyers were together and did not speak. Now, maybe (name redacted), it would be good to mention the name so that I can confirm whether the person was there or not.

[Goes through the list of counselors he can remember.]

Speaker 1: The vice chair participated. The vice chair has an interest. I don’t know whether that is not tantamount to what you lawyers would call a “conflict of interest.” If I were in Nathan’s position, I would decline. To me, that poses a problem. It is like shooting yourself in the foot. That is all I can say for now.

Speaker 2: There are many of us who are members of human rights organizations but also act in other capacities in our professions. From what we know of Nathan Twinomugisha, he has demanded to explain to whoever needs to know the process of amnesty. I wonder if explaining the process of amnesty conflicts. I know, because I am a lawyer, that this is not a problem. He does not prosecute because he is not a part of the ministry of justice.

National Coordinator: The issue here is that the board of HURINET received a communication from a person who was in Swaziland attending a session, who had accosted the vice chair there and actually thanked him for coming to represent HURINET. The vice chair actually corrected him and said “I am on the other side; I have not come to represent HURINET.” The matter was brought before the board, and a communication was made to the vice to explain what his situation was, but also the lawyer who participated and represented HURINET was asked to make a submission. What was at issue was not talking to PRA suspects and advising them. What was at issue was that the advice was at a closed session in Swaziland and was part of the group of eight that acted against HURINET. We received communication, but it is not for me to declare what the board decided or resolved.

Speaker 3: Are these two suspects out on bail, now? I ask because there is no information, but I happened to meet one of the suspects at a funeral. He is out on bail, and he has to report three times a month in Ajumani, Arua and Kampala.

Secretary: Yes, the PRA suspects were released, but on very stringent terms. Let me call the meeting to order.

Prior Attorney: One person is still in detention and has not been let out.

Secretary: Should we consider this right now, or should we give it another moment and discuss it in detail? I would like to get a consensus from the members.

Speaker 4: I believe in a fair hearing. We are all human rights activists who believe in a fair hearing. We have the person accused here, in our midst. Let’s hear from him, and hear what exactly happened. It seems like we are condemning him without hearing what has happened.

Secretary: It seems like, from the speaker, it seems like we are in consensus about discussing this now. I suggest that I hand over the microphone to the chairperson to lead us in this discussion and start with his view on this matter.

Chairperson: Thank you very much, Secretary. Definitely, we will give an opportunity to Nathan to illustrate his view, but we welcome any person to give it. But I would remind you that our lunch there is getting cold. A communication was received from “a friend of HURINET.” He wrote an e-mail to me as chairperson saying that he was disturbed that our vice chairperson was attending a session in Swaziland. Our communication to the African Commission was being heard, but he was on the other side. He was saying that this was not acceptable. How could we have somebody on our board speaking against us? He thought that the board should consider this issue as a conflict of interest, and he was saying that we should actually, if possible, take disciplinary action against the vice. But we said, before we do that, we should give him an option to explain himself. We wrote to the vice asking if it was true, if he was there, and also why he acted that way and compromise his position on the board? At the same time, we also wrote to our lawyer in Swaziland to tell us what the position of Nathan was. As the lawyers explained, Mr. Nathan was on the other side, the side of the state, defending the action of the state. Nathan explained his position in writing that yes, he was there, but that he did not talk during the session. Later on, we invited him and other members of the board to a special board meeting, and this was one of the issues we wanted to talk about. At the end of it all, Nathan admitted that it was an error on his part, and if there was any other African Commission session, he wouldn’t sit there. He admitted that he was on the other side and made an error to have done that. We would like to hear as much from you as possible, but the board’s view is that at all times, we should be united. We should be seen to be acting together. We should not act in any way that would indicate that we are not together. The board took this as a very, very serious issue. I am glad that, at the end of it, Nathan admitted that it was wrong for him to have done that. That is where it is at the moment. Is there anything else I have left behind? Okay, then I would like to give Nathan a chance to respond.

Nathan: It is true that I wear another heart. In an organization, you will find many members. When this opportunity came, the Amnesty Commission said to go and explain what amnesty is. I asked them to put in writing what I was supposed to say, and I have the letter here. You see, many countries don’t know what amnesty is. They wanted me to explain to the African Commission what amnesty was. When I arrived there, someone explained to me that HURINET had filed a case against the state. Actually, I played a very, very little role. This communication was not going to be heard if I were not in Swaziland. The lawyer from HURINET had not arrived, and the case had already been postponed. I told them the lawyer from HURINET is coming, please be patient. I told them “please don’t go.” If they had left, this case was not going to be heard. They said, “do you know this lawyer?” I said “yes,” because I was staying almost in the same room. They agreed with me, and they waited. So you should be thanking me that this case was heard. I never uttered any word. My interest was, I just sat. I never uttered one sentence. And so I never prejudiced the case. I have been with them, I have given their human rights, I have given them amnesty.

Chairperson: Any reaction? Let’s have ten minutes.

Speaker 5: What Nathan has said really doesn’t convince me, because you fly all the way from Uganda and you do nothing, and you try to convince me. Mr. Chairman, this is very, very serious. When he came back, he should have been suspended immediately from his vice chairmanship. That is how things are done. And he is sitting there comfortably right next to you. Are we becoming part of propaganda machinery for the government? How will we know what you are telling the lawyers that were representing the government? The court has awarded billions of shillings, and no one has paid. The victims are there. This is a very serious matter. Thank you very much.

Speaker 6: Chairman, thank you, and members, thank you. I think, to me, if we are fighting for human rights, we need every available avenue to do it. If Nathan happened to be on the other side and convinced the other members to see it the way HURINET sees it, then he is the mole. He was there on the path of the Amnesty Commission. Are we going to say, anyone who does anything for the government should not be one of us? It is not an issue, it is good, we should have more members on the other side.

Speaker 7: Thank you, chair. I was one of the ones who went with HURINET. We were disappointed by the rumor, but we can confirm it. I don’t condemn Nathan to have gone there and do what he did. Just as we heard here from the secretariat that HURINET is a mirror, and it reflects good, and it reflects also bad. So, what went on in Botswana is exactly what is before us. Nathan already explained, but in the back of my mind as a lawyer, I would have said “I am involved with HURINET. Please send another lawyer if one is available?”

Speaker 8: Where are our professional ethics? You, as a lawyer, you have professional ethics. Two, as vice chairperson of HURINET, you should have absconded from going there. Three, how do you go to do nothing and just keep quiet? The board should have noted that this was a conflict of interest. We have standing, governing policies.

Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My standing here is not to convince, but let us try to reason. Let us ask ourselves what was our vice’s motive, doing this? We’ve heard a presentation in the morning about networking. We brought our vice chairman on board because of how we think he could have been of help to us. I know he is very useful. Let us refer to what went wrong. If we knew HURINET had interest in that case, HURINET should have known that he was going to speak against HURINET. He should have consulted us and seen how we reacted. If he had a spirit of putting HURINET down, we should have seen that motive. If he had motives other than that, maybe we can make use of him in these issues. Let us push HURINET as a network. If he feels that he cannot uphold the values of HURINET, then the (inaudible).

Speaker 10: We can only condemn Nathan if the constitution prohibits what he did. If the constitution does not prohibit what he did, then condemnation would be improper. You must disclose that you have an interest here, to declare. He disclosed and participated, so the decision is for the members to make.

Speaker 11: We have been given these papers considering the activities here. He went there escorting the other team. In this paper, in number five, they list the lawyers. In number six, they say “the abovementioned government lawyers consulted together to defeat …” (etc.) With all these documents, it becomes very hard to convince me otherwise of the role of Nathan.

Speaker 12: At least I’ve heard from the other side. What I’d like to tell everyone here is that we should look at our constitution. We need to resolve this matter. We asked Nathan what he did, and the other lawyer can bring out something. If what Nathan did, because the issue at hand is now what Nathan did, is it a conflict of interest? We may have to make a decision. If it is not in conflict, then we will have to see what to do.

Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a question. Mr. Twinomugisha was sent by the government to explain what the amnesty act was all about. (Inaudible.)

Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having heard all this about Nathan, I would say that if Nathan is abrogating HURINET’s constitution, then he should be liable for that. (Inaudible.) He should cease to be the chair.

Chairman: The position of the board, you have heard it. We met, we heard from both sides, and Nathan said he had made an error. But if the AGM has got something else they would like to do, then that is it. You are the supreme body of HURINET. You either accept the judgment on his side, that he would not do it again, and that was enough. Or if that is not enough, it is up to you to take some other action. Therefore, what I am proposing is that we have some people from the floor proposing a way forward on this: Whether you want to leave it on the level that the board had left it, or you want to go forward. I would like to hear from one or two people to suggest a way forward on this, and then we close. Before that, I would like the National Coordinator to read out some relevant sections which the board actually considered when we heard this news of apparent conflict of interest, and which we thought we would use.

National Coordinator: Concerning the matter, inasfar as the constitution is concerned, this is what it provides:

The general meeting may remove from office on any of the grounds:
1. Using the funds of the network
2. Acting contrary to the interest of the network
3. Vote of no confidence, when 2/3 of the members of the committee are in attendance

Speaker 1: Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite an incident which happened in 2001, when I was on the board as vice-chair. Our secretary, without consulting, joined a campaign team for the president. We communicated to her that it would be in her best interest that she resign, and she did. If I were Nathan, I would bow out like a gentleman. But he is unremorseful.

Nathan: He is quoting an affidavit that is not dated. Should we take this paper as anything? When was it made? Read it!

[Proposed and seconded that there be a vote of no confidence.]

Chairman: Before we take a vote, let’s hear from one more person.

Speaker 15: Are we doing enough to self-regulate and make sure we admit credible institutions with our best interests at heart. We get our mandate from the Constitution of Uganda, Article 38. We become an entity that can be sued or to sue. (Etc. Too rapid to transcribe.)

Chairman: In the meantime, Mr. Nathan be suspended from the Board.

Speaker 16: Inaudible.

[Argument ensues about whether 2/3 of the members are present]

[Break for lunch]

[Welcome back]

Chairperson: There was discussion with legal officers of HURINET to advise us on the way forward, and the advice is that the board should go back and make a definite resolution on this and then report back to the body. This is because the provisions in the constitution do not actually support the motion of suspension. If you members agree that this motion is withdrawn, and you can agree with the suggestion of the legal officers that the board goes back and takes a definite stand on this, which then, when they do that, they will advise the members of the network – is that acceptable? I would like to spend maybe five more minutes on this.

Speaker 1: I want clarification, because Nathan is on the board of the Human Rights Commission, and I have heard that he is no longer on the board.

Chairperson: That Nathan is not the vice chairperson.

Speaker 2: The members are the ultimate owners of the organization.

Speaker 3: This is timely advice. We were acting on rumors. We should leave it to the board.

Speaker 4: The constitution is very silent to such scenarios. We might need to get back to that chapter.

Speaker 5: Who is superior? The board, or the AGM?

Speaker 6: We have a competent board, and we are going to have elections. Let’s leave it to the new board to come up with something, and if they fail, they can come back to the AGM.

Board Member: Thank you, chair. The board looked at this situation, and you have heard our position. Let’s resolve it, because it has ongoing implications, some financial. We may have to call another general meeting.

Nathan: I agree with what the legal minds have said. It would be sad for a human rights organization to ignore a constitution.

Speaker 7: This is a very contentious issue, and I am not convinced because you did not address it at all. Did you have a hidden agenda? Let us finish it today and afresh.

Speaker 8: We have a constitution. Let’s stand by it. The people we are dealing with are people who have dealt with legal issues. Maybe the vice chair will leave the seat. You can’t tell.

Speaker 9: I believe that an extraordinary meeting of the board was called, it should have been put on the AGM to consider. But since it was raised as a rumor by one of our members, we should throw it back to the board to consider, and then take their minds.

Legal Advisor: I know this is a contentious issue, and we would like to dispense with it today, but where there is a constitution, our hands are tied. There are three relevant positions that we have looked at. One of the most appropriate things to do would be for the Board to meet and vote on the matter. They would inform you at the next AGM. That is article 10. The other provision is to come from the board, and not from you as the AGM. It is a 2/3 majority of the board that must make a vote of no confidence. The board has the power to vote and then make a recommendation to the AGM. The constitution does not tell us what the AGM can do. We cannot say that you can vote on it, because the constitution does not say anything. Then, the other provision is for the members of the AGM to move a vote of no confidence by 2/3 of the board. But there must be notice at least one month in advance, and there was none.

Chairperson: It seems like there is consensus that the Board is being given the responsibility to go back and reconsider this issue. Number two, it also gives homework. My advice here is to think about this issue. This gives time for Nathan to resign or whatever. Sometimes, in the interest of an organization you say “let me do this” rather than going all the way to the supreme court. Is there anyone with a serious objection to our going back as a board to resolve this as Nathan thinks about this issue?

Speaker 10: As the legal advisor said, our hands are tied.

Chairperson: Thank you very much. We move on.