Ne bis in idem in the context of the ICC cases arising from the situations in Africa.

 

Ne bis in idem in the context of the ICC cases arising from the situations in Africa.

 

By D. R. Ruhweza

Gaiane Nuridzhanian’s The Principle of ne bis in idem in International Criminal Law examines the common law principle of double jeopardy as established in the Rome statute under Article 20 as a legal principle. This Statute establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) and in its Article 20 prohibits it from persecuting a person for conduct previously persecuted by another court, where the earlier proceedings were conducted independently or impartially and were not intended to shield the accused from criminal responsibility for crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction. In explaining this principle, Gaiane makes use of ICC cases arising from Africa and explains how the existing law on ne bis in idem as well as the phrasing of Article 20 have played a role in the understanding and application of the principle.

Gaiane, in her introduction, establishes that the main purpose of the principle is to protect the individual as it serves to “spare the accused the burden of a repeat trial”, protect them from “unnecessary harassment and uncertainty” and “safeguard their liberty” once they have already faced trial for the matter. Additionally it serves to restrict the state's power over an individual, ensure the finality of judicial decisions, and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

An idealistic picture is painted by the purpose of the principle but this has only been partially fulfilled in regards to cases arising from the situations in Africa. The wording of Article 20 is to the effect that the protection promised by the principle is not absolute but rather balanced against other interests which are often affected by the exact circumstances of the prior proceedings as well as the specific rule under which the article is being applied. Gaiane relays that the court considers, in relation to the prior proceedings; the finality of the prior judicial decision, the type of court and the genuineness of the proceedings. In regards to the specific rule, she highlights the jurisdiction in question, that is to say intra-jurisdictional vs. inter-jurisdictional, as well as same crime vs. same conduct.

The ne bis in idem is addressed in this book within the context of the ICC cases arising from the situations in Africa following the specifications in Article 20 and I shall review these below.

Article 20(1) embodies the intra-jurisdictional aspect of the ne bis in idem principle, as it applies within the ICC itself, barring retrial of persons already tried by the ICC. The author lays down the conditions necessary to apply this section to include a trial of a person before the ICC, a prior conviction or acquittal by the ICC, the finality of the prior conviction or acquittal and the same conduct forming the basis of the crimes. The triggering of the principle relies on these conditions and the termination of the case before without a conviction or acquittal would have the opposite effect. In consideration of this provision, the author makes reference to the cases of Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang as well as The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta where the charges were vacated midtrial and withdrawn pre-trial respectively, hence preventing the ne bis in idem principle from applying. Finality after the determination of merits was not met in these cases since there is no conviction or acquittal, therefore the accused persons in these cases are liable for retrial before the ICC. Indeed, the protections afforded by the principle to persons are in such circumstances unavailable, specifically, politically charged cases with external interference may block judicial closure and leave the affected persons available for retrial at a later date. Whereas this may be applied to ensure justice of affected persons, one must consider the effect of stretching the ne bis in idem principle’s boundaries through retrials which undermine its spirit as elucidated by Jean Paul Pierini. Notably the cases handled in the ICC arising from African situations are usually politically charged and may be difficult to handle in the domestic courts due to aspects like limited evidence and witness intimidation. The principle ensures that the accused is dealt with accordingly even if the first trial is dismissed.

Article 20(2) brings forth the inter-jurisdictional rule, applying between the ICC and a national criminal court of a state party. This rule prohibits a person from being tried by another court for a crime referred to in Article 5 of the Rome Statute for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the ICC. Gaiane lays down the conditions necessary for this provision to apply, with the more contentious one being, “the use of the term ‘crime’ in Article 20(2), in contrast with the term ‘conduct’ in Article 20(1) and (3), suggests that the ne bis in idem rule in Article 20(2) bars trial for the same offence rather than for the same conduct” (Nuridzhanian, p. 93). Conduct refers to the acts or events underpinning the charges while the crime refers the specific legal offence such as those highlighted in Article 5. The difference in the wording of the provisions raises concerns on how it undermines the principle’s goal of protecting persons from double jeopardy since they could stand to be retried in domestic courts for the same conduct amounting to different crimes recognized by the ICC and the domestic courts. The author demonstrates this using the case of Prosecutor v. Katanga, where following his conviction by the ICC for crimes committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the accused faced charges in DRC for crimes allegedly committed before his trial at the ICC. While reviewing DRC’s prosecution under Article 108 it was established that the ne bis in idem principle was not violated, owing to the legally distinct nature of the charges being brought against him in the domestic court. Notably the narrowing of the principle’s scope was as a result of the use of the term “crime” even though the acts targeted by the domestic prosecution were closely related to the matters handled in the ICC case. 

As explained by the author, the approach taken in Article 20(2) seems to indicate a level of respect towards state’s discretion in legally characterising criminal conduct over which it has jurisdiction. The view herein is that the provision limits the individual's interest in not being tried twice in favor of the state's interest in exercising its sovereign criminal jurisdiction. Given the existing political climate in various African states however, this position puts to question the validity and availability of the principle’s protections to persons especially in regards to human rights concerns. Currently the statute presents a tricky balance between state and individual interests, with the promised individuals’ protections being secondary concern. There’s therefore a need to harmonize the terminology used in the statute or enhance the ICC oversight to control and mitigate successive prosecutions.

Article 20(3) is similarly concerned with the inter-jurisdictional rule which bars the ICC from trying a person, with respect to the same conduct, who has already been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under Articles 6, 7, 8, or 8 bis of the Rome Statute. This provision also provides the exceptions to the ne bis in idem rule which permit an ICC trial if the prior domestic proceedings were for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility or were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with due process norms and were inconsistent with an intent to bring the person to justice. Much like the previously discussed provisions, the ne bis in idem principle enshrined herein requires the prior judicial proceedings to have resulted in a final decision on the person's criminal responsibility and the author demonstrates this using the case of Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. The author argues that this provision uses “conduct” to bar ICC trials for acts previously tried domestically and allowed the ICC to assess the genuineness of Libya’s domestic trial of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. The ICC’s evaluation focused on whether Libya’s judicial proceedings had resulted in a final decision to the merits, thus acquiring the res judicata effect, and that they were not intended to shield Gaddafi from accountability for crimes against humanity. A pivotal point in this assessment was the lack of finality in regards to the judicial proceedings in the domestic courts, removing the accused from the protection of the ne bis in idem principle. In her assessment Gaiane emphasizes that Article 20(3) supports the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction by allowing intervention when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute genuinely. She notes that the Gaddafi case in specific illustrates how Article 20(3) balances state sovereignty with international accountability, particularly in African post-conflict settings.

It should be noted however that the strict requirement of a final decision in the domestic proceedings so as to trigger the ne ibis in idem principle provides the ICC with a wide berth to override domestic decisions which ultimately undermines state sovereignty as seen in the Gaddafi case. It could be argued that by applying this provision the ICC unfairly penalizes post-conflict states with limited judicial capacity by undermining their judicial processes. Persons that haven’t received final judgements are open to retrial at the ICC even when they’ve undergone domestic trials on the same conduct. Notably however the reference to conduct instead of crime in this provision creates a broader ambit against ICC retrials of domestically tried matters contrary to the narrow barring put in place in subsection 2.

Conclusively, while analyzing the ne bis in idem principle as a whole as discussed by Gaiane, one can appreciate the author’s distinct and clear analysis of the guiding law and its application to ICC cases arising from situations in Africa. There’s a clear show of African contextual awareness with the author clearly acknowledging the various situations giving rise to the cases arising from the situations in Africa such as in Libya, Kenya and DRC. There is a need to consider various concerns made by scholars and the African Union in regards to fairness and selective justice on the part on the ICC as well as highlight reform proposals relating directly to the shortcomings relating to ICC cases arising from situations in Africa.

 

 

 

Ides of March

_*Ides of March*_

 

Julius Caeser

Gaddafi

Mussolini

Hitler

Stalin

Shaka Zulu

 

 

Or

Jesus Christ

Desmond Tutu

Nelson Mandela

Pastor Noemoller

Mother Teresa

Florence Nightingale

 

Idi Amin

Bokassa

Samuel Doe

Pol Pot

Mengistu

Herold

 

Or Billy Graham

Aung San Suu Kyi

Martin Luther King Jr.

Mahatma Gandhi

Thomas Sankara

Samora Machel

Julius Nyerere

Patrice Lumumba

 

Genghis Khan

Napoleon Bonarparte

Mao Zehong?

NEVER AGAIN

NEVER AGAIN

Silent voices

Dirtied clothes

Mutilated bodies

Orphaned children

 

Displaced families

Widowed Mothers

Butchered face

Landless children

 

Burnt granaries

Blackened huts

Destroyed harvest

Hungered stomachs

 

Sleepless nights

Tired feet

Frightened humans

Raped Men

 

 

Never again!

MR. SIMON BYABAKAMA MUGENYI very GOOD FOR THE JUDICIARY (An old post from 2008)

MR. SIMON BYABAKAMA MUGENYI very GOOD FOR THE JUDICIARY!

(Old Post from 2008)

D.R.Ruhweza

In his article entitled ‘‘Will His ‘Lordship’ Mugenyi convict Dr. Besigye?” SM  2^nd March 2008, Dr. Akaki starts off very well by noting that some of the individuals nominated as High Court Judges, may defy the President out of loyalty to their professional ethics and independently interpret the law the way Justice Kanyehiamba and Justice Ogoola, together with some Namagunga girls have done. This is indeed encouraging and I do support all those who have been nominated to do exactly that. The judicial oath requires that they certainly adhere to their professional calling, and respect the rules of natural justice, and good conscience which I believe they are all competent to do.

Dr. Akaki notes that ‘‘many of the nominations read like an A-Z hit list of a movement legal hit-squad’’. Whereas that might be true, I would like to ask the simple question, what would Akaki do if he was in President Museveni’s shoes? Would he not revert to people in whom he had faith and confidence to promote the cause of justice regardless of whether they are Movementists or not? Would he not revert to people he believed were capable of doing the job just like Justice Kanyeihamba, (a former NRM Minister) has done? This is a phenomenon that also happens in the USA with the president choosing those who he believes will uphold the core values of justice and equity as he thinks fit. It therefore seems to me that as long as the constitution gives the President this mandate, he will choose from those who he believes are competent regardless of their political inclination.

Do not get me wrong, just like Dr. Akaki, I was also quick to observe that many of the nominees are reportedly of the movement ideology, but I have since realized that the likes of Justice Kanyeihamba, Justice Mwondha, Justice Margaret Sekajja and others who were of the same ideology have since vindicated Museveni’s choice by being independent thinkers and adhering to their professional calling. This might be regardless of the fact that the President might not agree with their views. It was once reported that the President criticized Justice Kanyeihamba’s views on the peasantry but at the same time recommended him to become Chancellor to Basajabalaba’s Kampala International University).

Please get me right, this does not necessarily mean that I do agree with all the choices made by the President, but my understanding of the Constitution is that once someone takes the judicial oath, it should no longer be necessary which ideology one belongs. Such judicial officer should be guided by Article 126(2) of the Constitution which requires the courts to met out justice regardless of social and economic status of the litigants, not to delay justice, to provide adequate compensation, to promote reconciliation and to ensure that substantive justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities. As such, any judicial officer who fails in this role should be advised to surrender his office as has been the case for some. My only problem is with the choice of the interim Supreme Court judges (See MUSEVENI PICKS ACTING SUPREME COURT JUDGES by Michael Mubangizi, WEEKLY OBSERVER February 28, 2008), especially those from the Court of Appeal who have already passed judgment in the cases they are now required to adjudicate upon in the Supreme Court. Won’t the principles of natural justice require that these same Judges step down because that would certainly be a conflict of interest? Would they really be able to give Tumukunde’s case for completely new appraisal? That remains to be seen.

Now, to the main theme of Dr. Akaki’s article, I certainly disagree with the assertions of Akaki that ‘’the appointment of (Mr. Simon Byabakama) Mugenyi to the High Court will instantly erase any semblance of independence that is still left in the judiciary’’.  Without delving into the true meaning oor interpretation of independence of the judiciary, I think we ought to understand who Mr. Byabakama is before we right him off as Akaki seems to suggests. Whereas no one can ever know the intents of man’s heart (not even the devil does), I can safely say that I know enough about Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi to assert that he deserves to be a member of the prestigious Ugandan bench. The Judicial Service Commission, whose mandate is to identify and recommend suitable candidates also knows Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi well enough as to recommend him. I have personally interacted with Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi right from my days as an impressionable student at Makerere, and I have found him to be a man of integrity, character, godliness, and independent thought. He is a dedicated and hardworking husband and father whose moral standing in society is to the best of my knowledge unquestionable. Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi was one of those who inspired and mentored us to be god fearing, independent thinking lawyers while we were still at Makerere. Together the likes of Michael Chibita, the late Kabyesiza, Hon. Justice Lugayizi, Hon. Justice Sebutinde, Mr. Sekabanjja, the late Charles Owor and many others, we were challenged and continue to be inspired to practice the law with honesty and diligence in Uganda. Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi indeed continues to take off time to speak to students at the law development centre and faculty of law Christian union events and to even give guest lectures in my criminal procedure classes when I was a lecturer at the Uganda Christian University. We are indeed in need of men of such character on the Ugandan Bench. Going by the Nation television interview of my former student, Mr. Odongo Otto, Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi has qualities which I am sure, Mr. Odonga Otto, would have no problem with if he (Odonga) was still part of the vetting committee.

It should also be remembered that this is not the first time that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is being nominated and approved for this position. Indeed, some unconfirmed reports were to the effect that his appointment was delayed because some concerned citizens wondered where a worthy replacement would be found for him at the Directorate. I believe this is because of the excellent job he has been doing at the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. Many of my learned friends will agree that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is a very likeable and hardworking character, always ready to serve with a smile, and that accounts for why there are so many people waiting up to see him every day even as early as 6.30 am and he is always in office. This is a quality many of us in practice would like to see of our judicial officers. Often times we wait for hours for some members of the bench to commence court and this normally disorganizes our schedules.

So, Dr. Akaki, far from what you might think, many a lawyer and judge do respect Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi. Infact I know of some people who have threatened to hire private lawyers to prosecute their cases, if Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi did not do so and in some cases appellate court judges have insisted that he argues cases before them instead of other prosecutors. So for Dr. Akaki to say that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi has failed as a prosecutor is very far from the truth. Thus, whereas Dr. Akaki faults him in this regard, I shall not be surprised to learn in the near future, that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi has been chosen to head the special division of the high court that will try the LRA rebels.

Dr. Akaki did quote my learned friend Dr. Mpanga’s submission, but I suspect he (Akaki) did not appreciate the meaning of Mpanga’s words when he said. I will quote….the case was born in the deluded mind of Ms. Joanita Kyakuwa, nurtured and developed in State House, cooked to imperfection in the Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Uganda Police, and presented in full inadequacy by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions’’. This statement alone should clearly show you the number of players in the rape case against Besigye, and also explain the role of the DPP. Like many Ugandans, I did not agree with the way Dr. Besigye was arrested during the 2006 elections. Neither did I appreciate the role played by the then CID Boss Kuteesa and the rubble rouser Kyakuwa wose testimony was also astounding to me. The role of these various players, should not be pushed under the carpet.

For Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, I believe it was a case of a Doctor asked to stitch back the head of a decapitated on to the body and expect that man to live! It was way too late and many of us in the legal fraternity knew that the case was a non-starter. That is why Dr. Besigye’s lawyers thought it unnecessary to put him (Besigye) to his defense, inspite of the fact that the court had found that a prima facie case had been established against him. So unlike the assertion of Dr. Akaki, Besigye was in fact required to speak in his defense (not self defense-that means something else completely) but his lawyers opted not to put Besigye on the stand, a prerogative they have as per section 128 of the Magistrates Courts Act ap. 16 and similar sections in the Trial on Indictments Act. It is thus clear to me that this case was never cooked up by Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi. No! The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is laid out in Article 120 of the Constitution. I wish to emphasize that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is the Deputy DPP not the substantive DPP. As DPP, it was up to Mr. Richard Buteera to either institute criminal proceedings against Dr. Besigye (Article 120(b) or to discontinue the same (Article 120(d). Mr. Richard Buteera chose the former, and I would like to believe, that like any good soldier called to action, Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi had no alternative but to carry out the orders of his boss. We might falter Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi for deciding to go ahead with this trial, or ask the questions; if he is such a man of character, why did he not resign or refuse these instructions? That we can argue another day but for now, we need to appreciate that the calling of a state prosecutor (who is a civil servant) is to carry out government duty. Whereas I do agree that it was a bad case and possibly commenced in bad faith as noted by Justice Katutsi, I would like to believe, that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi must have expressed his opinion on this matter. Whether his boss agreed with him or not is another question, but we should recall that as a body of lawyers, the Uganda Law Society expressed its dissatisfaction with the position taken by Mr. Richard Buteera and other law officers for this and related cases by suspending him from the society for 6 months. No such action was taken against Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi and the reasons sem obvious to me.

Therefore, for a man with arguably the longest list ( so I am meant to believe) of high profile and other convictions in the recent history of the Directorate (Katuramu, Sharma Kooky, Wavamunno, Mureeba to mention but a few), I am sure Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi’s reputation does tell us what quality of lawyer he is.  It is probable that his prowess and seniority made it imperative for Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi to take on the prosecution of Dr. Besigye.

It is further unfortunate to say that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi abandoned the treason trial to become a judge leaving the accused persons in limbo because that would mean that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is the one who initiated the trials in the General Court Martial an High Court, at the same time that he is the one who is in charge of the prisons where the accused persons are/were being kept or that without Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, the treason trial cannot go on or that it is Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi who has lodged the appeals in court that called for the stay of the trial(s) which is indeed very far from the truth.

It is therefore clear to me and I believe to many in the legal fraternity and the general Ugandan community, that there is no legal, moral or legitimate hindrance to bar Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi’s candidature for the position of High Court judge. In fact, in my own view, due to his seniority and vast experience, he would even be a far better choice for the appellate courts.

To our mentor Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, I would like to congratulate you for a job well done and  a promotion well deserved. For Do not give up this the fight justice and carry out your duties without fear and favour.

However, do remember, that the jury is out now. Watching your every move!! Remember the scripture which says ….And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy
 and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6: 8 NIV. Remember too that the opportunities for corruption and influence peddling are now greater than before. Play your part well and stand for righteousness!! Recall the words of Mordecai to Queen Esther "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews (Read Ugandans) from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty ( read the judiciary)  for such a time as this?" Esther 4:14. Remember the Scriptures that call you to "Preserve justice and do righteousness (Isaiah 56:1); also Jeremiah 22:3 which says "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place. The same advice goes to all the newly appointed members of the Ugandan Bench….

PLEASE, DO US PROUD!!

Daniel R. Ruhweza Esq.

Attorney and Lecturer-at-Law, Makerere University

Member, Uganda Christian Lawyers’ Fraternity.

ARE YOU THE ONE OR SHOULD WE WAIT FOR ANOTHER?

 

ARE YOU THE ONE or SHOULD WE WAIT FOR ANOTHER?

 

By D.R. Ruhweza

 

The Gospel of Matthew narrates a scene in its eleventh chapter, where the disciples of the jailed John the Baptist inquire about the true identity of Jesus. John had not only leaped in his mother’s womb when Jesus was still in Mary’s womb, (Luke 1:41) but he had also declared who Jesus was and then had the honour of baptising Jesus. (John 1:27) In that same breath, John has probably watched in knowing awe when the Holy Spirit descended like dove upon Jesus. (Luke 3:22) It was therefore surprising that, whilst in custody, John would ask his disciples to inquire about the mission or identity of Jesus. The Scripture says in verse 2 –

 

And when John had heard in prison about the works of Christ, he [a]sent two of his disciples 3 and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:2 NKJV)

 

Was he experiencing a moment of doubt? Was he thinking twice about that which he knew? Did John, like many before him, assume that the Messiah would take on a militaristic engagement against the Roman Empire? The response of our Lord Jesus Christ seems to suggest that he gave the answer that John was looking for. He told the disciples to tell John what they saw –

 

“Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: 5 The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. 6 And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.” (Matthew 11:4 NKJV)

 

In essence, Jesus responded by saying res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves). He was basically telling John that I am indeed the one. In other Scriptures, Jesus states that ‘^…. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. (John 10:10 NKJV)

 

When I answered the call to lead the Uganda Christian Lawyers Fraternity (UCLF), I had just completed a course at the Institute for National Transformation (INT). (We had been warned by the conveners of the course that many of their students, receive the call to lead when or during their time at the Institute). We were therefore asked to be ready since some didn’t even finish the course before opportunities to lead – often at the top of powerful institutions – would come up. When the call comes, it is often very easy to answer in the affirmative whilst seated in the classroom. However, reality is different when you answer that call asking you to step up and lead.

 

Often times, when the call comes, it is difficult to say yes. This is what happened with Moses the Prophet or Israel’s first King Saul. However, there are also situations like John the Baptist where it is very easy for one to easily say yes but develop self-doubt about what one has been called to do. At some point in my journey, I felt this self-doubt about the mammoth task of leading the UCLF –a Christian, membership based organisation comprising of stellar and senior legal practitioners and judges and justices on the one hand, and students, newly recruited advocates on the other.  Yet I am reminded of these powerful words to Queen Esther from her elder cousin Mordecai

 

Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14 NKJV)

 

In essence, there is always a divine plan that is beyond our convenience, pay grade, comprehension, ability and scale. It is a plan that is from the Lord. It is an enormous plan to build arks, conquer cities and cross rivers and even declare war or death over sons of Pharaohs. It is often quite scary.

 

Nonetheless, by the grace of God, the team and I discovered that pure reliance on the Lord, the pursuit of wisdom, and having values, tenacity and grit is key in leading people. It would later down on me along the way, that leading God’s people requires a lot more divine intervention. Prayer therefore became a powerful key for us. Looking up to mentors and Jethro’s (Exodus 18), and the pursuit of wise counsel was very critical. Indeed, King Solomon says ‘Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore, get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding. (Proverbs 4:7 NKJV).

 

Like the bulldog or the stinging bee, we also realised that tenacity and grit are key in leading a team. Attending the Harvest Institute (now called the School of Leadership), and being exposed to reading from John Maxwell, Richard Foster, General Stanley McChrystal, Patrick Lencioni, amongst others had a huge impact on our time at the leadership of UCLF.

 

Our time was indeed a learning experience –learning how to pray and to maintain a prayer altar, learning how to get fellow Christian lawyers involved in a worthy cause, learning how to lead vertically and horizontally, learning to respond to needs, learning how to face the brutal facts about a situation and then taking the tough decision, learning, unlearning, re-learning. On behalf of the team, we are immensely humbled by the support we received and the prayers we received but most of all, we are grateful for the opportunity to “do”.

 

As I reflect back to the story of John the Baptist, there were indeed times of doubt but we know that everything happens for a reason. Jesus’ response to John’s disciples indicates that Jesus was fulfilling His purpose even when some misunderstood or criticised him. Can it be said of us, that when the call is made, we not only respond but also keep relevant. Are we the one’s for the season? Or should those who need help, support and mentorship wait another?

 

What is your answer?

 

Daniel R. Ruhweza PhD

Chair Emeritus of the Board of Directors & President of UCLF 2016-2020

TAKING THE BULL BY THE HORNS: Dealing with the Fear of Conflict: A Reflecting Journal

TAKING THE BULL BY THE HORNS:  Dealing with the Fear of Conflict: A Reflecting Journal

 

Introduction

In the book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable by Patrick Lencioni, reveals that for a team to be cohesive, members had to trust each other be able to engage rather than fear conflict, be able to commit to decisions and plans of action, be able to hold one another to account on those plans, and finally, should focus on achieving collective results. In this Journal, I highlight a story of a leader who made the efforts to correct one of those dysfunctions – avoiding conflict- in the team she was leading.

…….

I agree with the author when says that the team ought to build on trust first before it engages other dysfunctions. We had therefore held outings as a team, attended regular prayer altar meetings, and shared openly about our strengths and weaknesses. We had split up the organization’s mission statement and allowed each team mate to create and lead teams based on the said leader’s strengths, passions and personality types. We had also sought to encourage constructive criticism. This is by ensuring that every team mate is heard, but also ensuring that they take it in good stride.

Lesson for reflection: Building trust remains an ongoing process. This has to be done both jointly and severally, so that there is a well-groomed team and trusted team. We need to continue to build the trust muscle in the team.  

 

I had noticed that I tend to avoid conflict as much as possible. Nonetheless, marriage has taught me how to engage in open and constructive conflict as opposed to the ‘silent treatment’ or creating artificial harmony.

Earlier this year, the team agreed to have an event and one of the members (hereinafter referred to as Omureffu – not his real name ) accepted to be in charge of organising the event. Omureffu procrastinated in picking a team, opting rather to discuss the team issues in the Team meeting. I consistently advised that Omureffu should set up a team to which we may/could belong.  Meetings would often stall for a few minutes as we tried to convince him to do so. His modus operandi was to work, principally with me.  Unfortunately, this wasn’t made any easier by his tendency to refuse to listen to other view points. However, the team members remained resolute that we ought to confront the brutal fact that pulling off a event of this magnitude would be impossible without a full team of differently gifted people. Lesson for reflection: Leading volunteers is uniquely different from having paid workers. Since a volunteer can easily walk away, the leader often seeks to avoid conflict so as to ensure the volunteer remains intact. However, this just prolongs the issues. While we viewed things differently, team members saw the need for having a bigger team and their honest opinions helped in overcoming this challenge.

The Team finally agreed that the event would be at the beginning of a specific date. However, Omureffu  insisted on getting approvals for the main guest before proceeding with advertising for the event.  This delayed our plans further.  After our prayer meeting, I expressed the fear that if we are to have a successful event, we should consider postponement for at least 60 days so as to give us time to mobilise effectively.  Omureffu  threatened to resign if we did. I asked him to hear me out just to express my fear. He instead immediately called the Overall Overseer in my presence to overrule me. I was honestly very cross with him. Angry to be exact! Upon the end of his conversation with the Overall Overseer, I told Omureffu  with visibly steeled breath that what he had done was disrespectful and wrong.  I told him that he needed not have escalated the matter when we were still debating it. At one point he tried to make ad hominem arguments trying to undermine the legitimacy of my disapproval of his approach.  It took a lot of restraint on my behalf to not only refuse to get ugly but also to walk away from the conflict. At the end of the day, I reminded him once again to ensure that he takes time to listen, (not for the sake of responding,) but so as to understand the adverse party. At the end of the discussion, we made peace and he later sent me messages re-iterating how sorry he was.

Lesson for reflection: It is important not to remain instead of walk away from the conflict simply because one wants to avoid the emotional and other strain such conflict might cause.  

Realizing that event was near, Omureffu  finally called a team meeting but still had struggles working without my constant presence. In spite of informing him that he had my full trust and he should know I would support in all ways possible, he seemed unable to allow the team he had constituted to work. In fact, at one time, during our weekly planning meetings, Omureffu , who was chairing the session, burst out in front of the new team, berating my lack of assistance and support.  As he spoke, I noticed that I was getting very angry with him. This is because not only was he making it difficult for others to respond to what he was saying, but also forgetting to guard his tongue and speak.  

Since the team was new and we had not yet built any synergies, I chose not to respond directly to him so as to avoid conflict.  With hinssight, it is probably because I didn’t want open conflict over the issue.  I also had an evening class to teach, so I excused myself.

Interestingly, one of the members (hereinafter called Mbabazi) took on the role of the miner for conflict.  In that tense time, I did try my best to respond to his questions. I would later appreciate his role after reading the book under review. I recognition the above with hindsight, that he sought to ensure –in a humorous way- that we were all on the same page. (Mbabazi is also the involuntary but helpful miner of conflict in the Team meetings).  Indeed, when I left the meeting, he continued to ensure that focus was not lost on how to move forward. This is because, by the time my class ended, I received a message from Omureffu  via WhatsApp apologising for his outburst.  I asked for time to respond because I was still angry. Lesson for reflection: I tried to keep the communication lines open even when I didn’t want to. I knew that as a leader, it was upon me to keep the ship on course regardless of what was happening. I however knew that in dealing with the dysfunctions, they are correlated and one need not forget emotional intelligence in the process. They all work together as seen below

The next day, Omureffu  calls asking to step down from the position of Chair. I knew that he was avoiding conflict because of his outburst. After a long conversation, we finally agreed that we should meet with other stakeholders of the group so that we do not lose focus on the task ahead. We had a frank and candid conversation. We allowed each other to talk freely and air out what we thought was the issue. In my view, Omureffu  is always rush to act or speak.  In his view, he didn’t feel like I gave him the support he needed, when he needed it. The Overall Overseer advised that he needs to realize that having delegated the matter to him, I need not be the only team he should refer to. We then agreed on how to run the matter henceforth.

Lesson for reflection: Do not jump ship at the slightest sign of conflict, rather, handle the conflict face on and allow yourself to be vulnerable. By having these uncomfortable conversations, we were able to ensure that instead of a ‘false peace’ honest concerns and opinions were being shared and as a result, Omureffu  was committed to the cause. A  few weeks down the road, we had an amazingly successful event.

 

ENDS

Aluta Continua: Future plans

It is advisable for teams to use the Thomas- Kilman conflict mode Instrument so as to understand our natural inclinations towards conflict and then make conscious decisions on how to react in future. It is clear that the if we do not handle conflict properly, it builds residues and the embers left would easily burn at the slightest provocation.  There is no easier way out. We must all confront our fears and take the bull by the horns. Conflict is around us, we therefore ought to confront it positively.   

 

ENDS