The Kampala bombings also highlight the complex and worrisome developments directed at United States allies in East Africa. It is not surprising that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were almost immediately at the scene conducting investigations with the local police soon after the incident, in which 76 people were killed.
International, national and regional meetings on terrorism almost always concentrate entirely on the process of combating the crime. For instance the July 2010 African Union (AU) Summit in Uganda soon after the bombing concentrated on boosting the strength of African Union Mission in Somalia. Similarly at the meeting of security experts from G8-nations held in Mali in October 2010 on the growing threat of al-Qaeda in North Africa, the focus was on how to step up the fight with less concentration on how to do it within the provisions of the human rights regime.
Mr. Mike Smith, Head of the United Nations anti-terrorism committee, said that ‘terrorism does not respect borders anymore than it respects international legal norms, national sovereignty or indeed the lives of innocent people.’ But then should this be justification for governments to likewise conduct their affairs in a similar fashion?
Ugandan Police with the help from the FBI and Kenyan Police arrested 36 suspects from seven countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan) in the wake of the blast that rocked Uganda’s capital. Edward Ochom, the Director of Criminal Investigations in Uganda, declared, ‘Police have sufficient evidence that all those charged in courts of law with terrorism were somehow involved in the planting of the bomb.’ Mr. Ladislaus Rwakafuzi, the lawyer representing eight Kenyans charged with the attacks, noted that there was no evidence against some of his clients and those Ugandan authorities ‘are only interested in interrogating the bombers.’
The underlying motivation for the war against terror is that in a climate of fear, people are prepared to accept and put up with a wide range of measures, which they would otherwise in the name of freedom abandon. The important strides made in the development of a human rights regime globally seem threatened by steps directed at fighting global terror. It appears a convenience to governments that what was unacceptable yesterday has become acceptable today.
One area where human rights are threatened is in the realm of renditions. The surrender of a person to a requesting state was originally guided by principles of comity and reciprocity. Beginning in the late 18th century, the surrender of persons to a requesting state to answer charges increasingly became governed by formal extradition treaties between States. Thus persons suspected of criminal or terrorist activity may be transferred from one state to another for arrest, detention and/or interrogation. Commonly, this is done through extradition by which one state surrenders a person within its jurisdiction to a requesting state via a formal legal process, typically established by treaty. At other times such transfers have been conducted through a process known as ‘extraordinary rendition’ or ‘irregular rendition.’
It is not clear whether the FBI’s assistance in the investigation of the Kampala bombings will further the human rights cause. Following the September 11 2001 attacks in US, President George Bush issued a classified directive that broadened the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) authority to render terrorist suspects to other States.
The Bush administration was widely criticized for its practice of extraordinary rendition whereby the CIA would transfer suspects overseas to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques. Human rights advocates said that renditions were the agency’s way to outsource torture of suspects to countries where it was permitted practice. In January 2009 President Barack Obama issued an executive order creating a special Task Force to review the practice of rendition and ensure compliance with legal requirements.
In spite of all these efforts, the Obama administration has not done any better. In August 2009 US officials said that his administration would continue the Bush practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for interrogation and detention but pledged to closely monitor their treatment to ensure they are not tortured. Human rights advocates condemned the decision saying that continued practice would still allow the transfer of suspects to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment called ‘diplomatic assurances’ were no protection against abuse.
Kenya’s compliance with the security needs of Uganda was cushioned on its past experience where in 1998 the US embassy in Nairobi was bombed and its investigation required the cooperation of all its neigbours. However, human rights bodies in Kenya would like the terror suspects’ rendition to Uganda to be reversed because appropriate extradition procedures were not complied with.
Kenyan Justice Aggrey Muchelule ruled that the arrest and detention were illegal and a transgression of their fundamental rights and freedoms. Justice Mohammed Warsame in another case reprimanded the State for allowing the police to render Kenyans to another country (Uganda) without following proper procedure in law.
The Inspector General of Police for Uganda, Major General Kale Kayihura said that similar renditions have been done in East Africa for a long time. The Partner States have a common agreement on mutual extradition of nationals who are suspected or accused of organized crime. The practice has been in existence since 1967. In agreement, Kenya Police spokesperson Mr. Eric Kiraithe, said extradition procedures were long and tedious and justice might never be achieved. The Police emphasized that ‘time is lost when criminals cooperated better than countries.’
While governments are obliged to protect their nationals against terrorist attacks and bring perpetrators of such acts to justice, the manner in which counter terrorism efforts are conducted could have far reaching effects on overall respect for human rights. The police in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania intimate that the common agreement has proved effective in combating cross-border crime within the region. It might help to formalize this practice into legally binding regimes.
Indeed, the laws on extradition are outdated and procedures quite lengthy. It takes about two years for an extradition process to be completed. There is further need to amend the extradition laws to include among others, terrorism as an extraditable offence. This legal review will also look into fast tracking the extradition of wanted fugitives. In the final analysis, it holds true that respect for human rights is not an obstacle to ensuring security but an essential ingredient for its achievement.
