Amnesty Month: the gap between rhetoric and reality
The PSC’s Amnesty Month initiative does not appear to have gained much traction among member states.
The African Union (AU) launched Amnesty Month for the surrender and collection of illicit arms and light weapons in 2017, as part of the Master Roadmap of Practical Steps to Silence the Guns in Africa by the year 2020. Amnesty Month, celebrated by the Peace and Security Council (PSC) every September, is envisaged to provide a chance for individuals to voluntarily hand over illicit arms, with a guarantee of anonymity and immunity from prosecution. In practice, member states define the level and scope of the immunity provided under amnesty programmes.
Amnesty Month has been a visible advocacy platform for the AU’s Silencing the Guns campaign and at a policy level its aims are laudable. However, actual implementation of amnesty programmes across the continent remains highly controversial and continues to face considerable challenges.
Actual implementation of amnesty programmes across the continent remains highly controversial and continues to face considerable challenges
Though amnesty programmes may make modest contributions to the resolution of conflicts, they ultimately do not represent durable solutions to the proliferation of arms, nor to protracted conflicts across the continent. Thus the AU should ensure greater visibility for governance interventions that address the root causes of conflicts.
Nonetheless, if Amnesty Month is to make a modest contribution to ‘Silencing the Guns’, it should be better anchored in concrete policy frameworks, provide tailored guidelines to member states, and be cognisant of the political boundaries set by other AU legal frameworks, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Amnesty Month initiative should also take into consideration the realities of implementing amnesty programmes on the ground.
Amnesty programmes in Africa
Several African states have introduced amnesty laws and programmes, all of which vary in their scope, duration and function. Some provide ‘blanket’ or unconditional immunity for combatants, while others limit the scope of offences that are protected under amnesty provisions.
Most amnesty laws and programmes, such as the one promoted by the AU, are also conditional, requiring holders of illegal firearms to surrender their weapons and cease their involvement in insurgent or criminal activities. Amnesties have been used by member states as conflict resolution mechanisms, or as part of post-conflict, justice and reconciliation processes. Amnesty programmes may run for a few months or several years.
The PSC expects AU member states to evaluate and report on the effectiveness of their amnesty programmes at various stages of implementation
The PSC expects AU member states to evaluate and report on the effectiveness of their amnesty programmes at various stages of implementation. The PSC in turn reports to the AU Assembly on the achievements and challenges recorded during the month.
The activities of member states in Amnesty Month campaigns range from media campaigns, sensitisation workshops and training to the review of national policies, legal frameworks, structures and institutions that are relevant for the success of national amnesty programmes and the voluntary collection and destruction of firearms.
At the level of regional economic communities, different regions report on practical disarmament projects, regional weapon collection programmes, and sensitisation campaigns undertaken among member states. The AU Commission (AUC) supports Amnesty Month by providing financial assistance and supporting experience-sharing workshops for member states.
The AU Commission supports Amnesty Month by providing financial assistance and supporting experience-sharing workshops.
The AUC has also developed a preliminary guidance document on the technical and operational observance of Amnesty Month. In addition, it is expected to develop a compendium of African experiences and good practices in implementing disarmament programmes, but it is not clear when this is due.
Challenges facing amnesty programmes
The AU’s Amnesty Month initiative does not appear to have gained much traction among member states. The PSC Report was not able to confirm any request for the AUC to support member states in implementing amnesty programmes thus far in 2019. It appears the PSC has also had difficulty accessing information from member states that might be implementing such programmes but are not reporting on them.
The major challenge facing the Amnesty Month initiative is its lack of congruence with amnesty programmes implemented by member states. This is owing to a number of issues.
The major challenge facing the Amnesty Month initiative is its lack of congruence with amnesty programmes implemented by member states
Firstly, the provisions for Amnesty Month are only loosely related to the AU’s Policy Framework on Security Sector Reform, its Strategy on the Control of Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons, its disarmament, demobilisation and re-integration programmes, and its initiatives against transnational organised crime.
Though the PSC provided a preliminary guideline document on the observance of Amnesty Month in 2018, it is not comprehensive enough to equip member states to undertake and overcome challenges they might face in implementing such programmes. The planned compendium of African experiences and good practices in amnesty programmes has also not been developed owing to financial constraints.
Secondly, it appears from the experiences of many member states that the one-month timeframe provided by the AU for Amnesty Month is insufficient. According to the 2017 Assembly decision, individuals who continue to hold illegal arms beyond Amnesty Month are to be prosecuted according to national legislation. However, this process is often linked to DDR processes and thus difficult to implement in such a short time. For example, Nigeria refers to the country’s DDR programme as the ‘Amnesty Programme’ without any clear link to the AU guidelines.
Individuals who continue to hold illegal arms beyond Amnesty Month are to be prosecuted according to national legislation
Thirdly, the AU’s Amnesty Month initiative aspires for amnesty programmes to be implemented in a manner that does not trigger further violence and division. However, ‘blanket’ amnesty programmes implemented in some member states have enabled combatants with a history of extrajudicial killings and other crimes against civilians to walk free.
Elite-driven, top-down processes, where victims of violence are not adequately consulted and legitimate processes for accountability and justice are bypassed, undermine civilian trust in the justice system and rule of law. This further complicates the successful reintegration of combatants in society, and incentivises or justifies crime and violence as a legitimate means to negotiate and resolve disputes with governments.
Currently some activists are opposing the latest amnesty law in Mozambique, approved by Parliament in July 2019. They claim it could foster further violence as it protects both government forces and forces of the opposition party Renamo who allegedly committed human rights abuses between 2014 and 2016.
Fearing similar ramifications, the Ethiopian government also excluded those under investigation for allegedly committing genocide, extrajudicial killings, forced abduction, torture and physical violence when it declared an amnesty for insurgent groups in July 2018.
Fourthly, the Amnesty Month initiative proposes that member states offer incentives to encourage the voluntary surrender of weapons, without offering concrete guidelines on how this should be done. If implemented incorrectly, incentives have the potential to backfire and do more harm than good.
The Amnesty Month initiative proposes that member states offer incentives to encourage the voluntary surrender of weapons
For example, the Nigerian government offered a monthly stipend and training to Niger Delta combatants in exchange for their handing over arms. However, in the long term this neither provided an alternative livelihood nor led to durable solutions to the underlying socio-economic and political issues that led individuals to take up arms in the first place.
Instead, it has resulted in ex-combatants re-joining armed groups and attracted new recruits to armed groups in the hope of qualifying for amnesty benefits. A major consequence has also been the escalation of arms trafficking on the black market.
In addition, the Amnesty Month initiative does not specify under which conditions the provision may be implemented successfully. For example, inculcating confidence in the integrity of amnesty programmes in countries that have not established functional legal systems may be difficult.
Finally, contrary to the AU’s call for the involvement of civil society in amnesty initiatives, there is no publicly available document that informs or guides civil society participation in amnesty programmes implemented at the national level.
Amnesty programmes are not a panacea for underlying governance and development issues that drive conflicts across the continent
Durable solutions to silencing the guns
Amnesty programmes are not a panacea for underlying governance and development issues that drive conflicts across the continent. In most instances they are short-term and unpredictable interventions that should not be implemented in isolation. Thus, amnesty initiatives, in addition to trying to address difficult security challenges, should be complemented by other governance, development and peacebuilding initiatives that have long-term impact on the stability and peace of a country.
Any new amnesty initiative under a reworked framework for silencing the guns in Africa beyond 2020 should also be anchored in clear policy frameworks that help member states plan effective interventions and mitigate major challenges they may face in implementing amnesty programmes. The compendium of African experiences and good practices in implementing DDR programmes, expected to be produced by the AUC, is a critical first step in this regard.
