The Dominic Ongwen Case: A Critical Examination of International Law’s Shortcomings
Gloria Kabongo is a History, Law, and Society major, graduating in Spring 2025. She has lived in many countries throughout her life, but she spent significant time in Cape Town, South Africa.
The trial of Dominic Ongwen, a former commander in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), encapsulates the complexities of prosecuting individuals who are both perpetrators and victims of atrocity. The genesis of the unrest in northern Uganda, began when Museveni’s army went after former-government soldiers in the North and began committing violations that included: abduction, detaining, beating, raping, and killing civilians as well as stealing and destroying the property of the Acholi population (Atkinson 7). The LRA was responsible for significant violence in Uganda, particularly targeting the Acholi people. Ongwen was one of five leaders who were indicted by the International Criminal Court. Ongwen’s conviction by the ICC in 2021 for war crimes and crimes against humanity was a significant moment in international justice. However, the case highlights two major issues within the ICC and the broader international legal framework: (1) its inability to adequately address the complexities of individuals with dual identities—both victim and perpetrator—and (2) its disproportionate focus on Africa, raising concerns about the court’s universality and impartiality.
The Complexity of Ongwen’s Dual Identity
Dominic Ongwen was born in Coorom, Northern Uganda. His life story is one of profound contradiction: while condemned for his actions as an LRA commander, it is crucial to acknowledge that he was abducted as a child and forcibly indoctrinated into the armed group (‘The Prosecutor’, para. 28). At approximately eight or nine years old, Ongwen was taken by the LRA, subjected to brutal training, and transformed into a ruthless leader. Over time, he rose through the ranks, eventually becoming a commander in the rebel group.
The ICC convicted Ongwen on 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 2002, specifically focusing on offenses he committed between the ages of 24 and 27 (‘The Prosecutor’, para.31). The prosecution centered on four major attacks:
Attack on Pajule Camp of Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) – October 10, 2003
Attack on Odek IDP Camp – April 29, 2004
Attack on Lukodi IDP Camp – May 19, 2004
Attack on Abok IDP Camp – June 8, 2004
Additionally, Ongwen was convicted of sexual and gender-based violence crimes, including:
Torture
Enslavement
Outrages upon personal dignity
Forced pregnancy
Sexual slavery
Rape
Forced marriage
Ongwen’s actions reflect the brutal tactics employed by the LRA. However, what is important to note is that, unlike the other leaders in the LRA, Ongwen was once a victim, and this raises questions about culpability and justice. His life embodies the brutal cycles of violence that largely defined northern Uganda during that period which forces us to confront difficult questions:
Can justice be served without having consideration for the full trajectory of a perpetrator’s life
How do we hold accountable those who were once victims of the very crimes that they had committed?
According to Eric Baines, when Ongwen was first abducted, he was so small that he had to be carried for the first few days (Baines). He was placed in the home of Vincent Otti, a senior commander in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) who later became Joseph Kony’s second-in-command. Otti was responsible for training Ongwen and other boys, ensuring that they abandoned memories of their past lives. To achieve this, commanders subjected abducted children to immense intimidation, including hard labor, beatings, and ritualistic practices (Baines). According to Human Rights Watch during a two-week period in July 1996, the lives of 40 soldiers and 36 rebels were taken (Ehrenreich). Furthermore, this conflict resulted in the displacement of 60,000 schoolchildren (Ehrenreich).
While Ongwen’s actions warranted accountability, the prosecution failed to fully acknowledge the psychological and developmental impact of his forced abduction and indoctrination. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict emphasizes that children require special protection and that their recruitment into armed groups is a grave violation of international law (U.N.G.A. 236). However, this principle was not applied to Ongwen. Instead, the prosecution presented him solely as a perpetrator, disregarding the long-term consequences of his violent upbringing. This narrow approach creates an incomplete narrative, ignoring how early exposure to violence shaped his actions.
The ICC’s Selective Focus on Africa
Beyond Ongwen’s individual case, the trial reflects a broader issue: the ICC’s disproportionate focus on Africa. Legal scholar Adam Branch argues that the court has become a “de facto regional transitional justice body,” failing to fulfill its intended global mandate (Branch 1). Despite being established to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide on a universal scale, the ICC has overwhelmingly targeted African leaders while avoiding powerful states.
The ICC is said to be a key part of international justice for combating impunity in Africa (African Union 47). However, its focus on the African continent has been called out for some form of neo-colonialism. The Court’s jurisdictional powers include investigation, prosecution, and the adjudication of human rights violations under the Rome Statute (Ssekandi 79). It has initiated numerous high-profile cases against individuals from Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and other African nations. This trend fuels criticism that the court operates with a regional bias, undermining its credibility as a truly international institution. The ICC is intended to be a global institution, yet most of its focus has been on the African continent. The African states make up 30 of 110 states that are party to the ICC (African Union 47).
Ongwen’s Capture and the Power Dynamics of International Justice
Ongwen’s surrender further exposes the ICC’s selective approach. He reportedly surrendered to Seleka rebels in the Central African Republic (CAR), who then handed him over to U.S. Special Forces assisting the African Union (AU) regional task force fighting the LRA. While Seleka itself is under investigation for crimes similar to those committed by the LRA, its role in Ongwen’s capture was largely omitted from ICC proceedings (Branch 3).
Furthermore, the United States played a significant role in facilitating Ongwen’s capture, yet it remains outside the ICC’s jurisdiction due to its historical resistance to international oversight. The ICC’s unwillingness to scrutinize the actions of powerful non-member states like the U.S., while aggressively prosecuting African leaders, reinforces concerns of selective justice. This raises critical questions about power dynamics: why does the ICC focus disproportionately on weaker states while avoiding confrontation with global powers?
Conclusion: The Need for Reform in International Law
The trial of Dominic Ongwen highlights two fundamental flaws within the ICC: (1) its failure to address the complexities of individuals with dual identities as both victims and perpetrators, and (2) its disproportionate focus on Africa, which undermines its claims to universality.
Ongwen’s case demonstrates the ICC’s reluctance to consider how childhood indoctrination into armed groups affects later criminal behavior. By focusing solely on his actions as an adult, the court fails to present a nuanced understanding of his trajectory from victim to perpetrator. This oversight reflects a broader deficiency in the ICC’s ability to engage with the complexities of justice in cases involving individuals who have been coerced into violence.
Furthermore, the ICC’s concentrated prosecution of African cases, while avoiding accountability for major global powers, perpetuates the perception of bias and selective justice. The court’s avoidance of implicating the United States in Ongwen’s capture underscores the imbalance in its operations.
For the ICC to maintain legitimacy as an impartial arbiter of international justice, urgent reforms are necessary. These should include:
Expanding its focus beyond Africa to ensure global accountability.
Recognizing and incorporating the psychological and developmental effects of childhood abduction in legal proceedings.
Addressing power dynamics that allow influential states to evade scrutiny.
Without these changes, the ICC risks undermining its credibility as a global institution. The Ongwen case serves as a critical moment for reflection and reform in international law, challenging the court to move beyond its selective prosecutions and to adopt a more comprehensive approach to justice.
Bibliography
African Union Panel of the Wise. 2013. The International Criminal Court and Africa. In Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges in the Fight Against Impunity, 47–60. International Peace Institute.
Atkinson, R. R. 2009. The Northern Uganda War, 1986-2008. In From Uganda to the Congo and Beyond: Pursuing the Lord’s Resistance Army, 6–13. International Peace Institute.
Baines, E. K. 2009. Complex Political Perpetrators: Reflections on Dominic Ongwen. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 47(2), 163–191.
Branch, A. 2017. Dominic Ongwen on Trial: The ICC’s African Dilemmas, International Journal of Transitional Justice, Volume 11, Issue 1, 30–49.
Ehrenreich, Rosa and Human Rights Watch Children’s Rights Project, eds. The Scars of Death: Children Abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. New York/N.Y: Human Rights Watch, 1997.
The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15, Trial Judgment, International Criminal Court, February 4, 2021.
UN General Assembly, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 25 May 2000.
Image Credits:
https://www.icc-cpi.int/
