Ahead of the confirmation hearing scheduled for September 9, 2025, the defence team for Joseph Kony, led by Peter Haynes, KC, has asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber to reconsider its decision to proceed with the hearing in Kony’s absence.
In a detailed filing, the defence submitted statements and reports from political, cultural, and religious leaders in northern Uganda, along with civil society representatives, all expressing deep concern over the potential impact of an in-absentia hearing on ongoing reconciliation and repatriation efforts.
Among the submissions are voices from those directly involved in the repatriation of former Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) members.
They argue that the ICC’s approach may discourage remaining combatants from coming out of hiding.
“The confirmation process could seal the fate of Joseph Kony and others to ‘die in the bush’ rather than engage in accountability efforts,” one report warns.
Religious leaders from multiple faiths have also called on the ICC to withdraw from the process and instead allow traditional and domestic mechanisms to foster meaningful peace.
They argue that with the chances of Kony ever being transferred to The Hague remaining slim, continuing the expensive legal proceedings serves little practical purpose.
Civil society voices further warn that the narrow scope of charges against Kony could fracture communities that have made significant strides toward unity.
They point out that victims of other former LRA commanders such as Dominic Ongwen and Thomas Kwoyelo had the opportunity to confront their perpetrators in court and now qualify for reparations.
In contrast, victims of Kony may be left behind if he is tried in absentia.
The defence argues that this new material, previously unavailable to the Pre-Trial Chamber, challenges its earlier conclusion that a confirmation hearing would serve the interests of justice by helping to bring Kony to court and allowing victims’ voices to be heard.
The defence has therefore requested the Pre-Trial Chamber to reconsider holding the hearing or, alternatively, to initiate broad-based consultations.
They propose an order inviting public observations from Ugandan stakeholders on how the confirmation process may affect affected communities.
Meanwhile, the ICC Appeals Chamber is yet to rule on a related defence appeal concerning the legal permissibility of conducting a hearing without the accused being present.