The International Criminal Court and Africa : a fractious relationship assessed

For many African states, the latest iteration of Western colonialism is the International Criminal Court. All the Court’s prosecutions have involved African conflicts, and the continent’s initially strong support for its creation has in recent years notably weakened. Leaders from Museveni to Kenyatta and Zuma to Bashir have excoriated the Court for its partiality, and only a change of government in The Gambia reversed a serious threat to quit its jurisdiction. Under pressure from Burundi and South Africa, the African Union has made increasingly militant noises about a mass withdrawal of member states. How should blame be apportioned for the turbulence of this relationship between the Court and the current generation of African leaders? Where does it leave a continent blighted by conflict, egregious human rights abuses and perceptions of the impunity of the ‘big man’ at the top? A research project, funded by the British Academy, has examined attitudes in civil society in Uganda and Kenya towards the ICC and asked whether human rights abuses could be effectively addressed by any other means. Researchers from three universities in Kenya, Uganda and the UK have interviewed judges, lawyers, NGOs, journalists and others about the ICC, domestic or regional forms of 'justice' (such as the putative African Court of Justice & Human Rights) and other transitional post-conflict mechanisms. The findings suggest that there is a high level of frustration with the performance of the ICC and, specifically, the Office of the Prosecutor. The article argues that although there is no one common denominator in the failed prosecutions, the ICC’s strategy has too often yielded the initiative to long-serving leaders adept at retaining power and that, while state parties see little hope of reforming the ICC and favour an ‘Africanist solution to African problems’, there is little agreement on what form that should take

Human rights dimensions of food, health and care in children’s homes in Kampala, Uganda – a qualitative study

Background More than 14 % of Ugandan children are orphaned and many live in children’s homes. Ugandan authorities have targeted adolescent girls as a priority group for nutrition interventions as safeguarding nutritional health before pregnancy can reduce the chance of passing on malnutrition to the offspring and thus future generations. Ugandan authorities have obligations under international human rights law to progressively realise the rights to adequate food, health and care for all Ugandan children. Two objectives guided this study in children’s homes: (a) To examine female adolescent residents’ experiences, attitudes and views regarding: (i) eating patterns and food, (ii) health conditions, and (iii) care practices; and (b) to consider if the conditions in the homes comply with human rights standards and principles for the promotion of the rights to adequate food, health and care. Methods A human rights-based approach guided the planning and conduct of this study. Five children’s homes in Kampala were included where focus group discussions were held with girls aged 12-14 and 15-17 years. These discussions were analysed through a phenomenological approach. The conditions of food, health and care as experienced by the girls, were compared with international standards for the realisation of the human rights to adequate food, health and care. Results Food, health and care conditions varied greatly across the five homes. In some of these the girls consumed only one meal per day and had no access to clean drinking water, soap, toilet paper and sanitary napkins. The realisation of the right to adequate food for the girls was not met in three homes, the realisation of the right to health was not met in two homes, and the realisation of the right to care was not met in one home. Conclusions In three of the selected children’s homes human rights standards for food, health or care were not met. Care in the children’s homes was an important contributing factor for whether standards for the rights to adequate food and health were met

Household food insecurity and diet diversity after the major 2010 landslide disaster in Eastern Uganda: a cross-sectional survey.

In 2010, a landslide in Bududa, Eastern Uganda, killed about 350 people and nearly 1000 affected households were resettled in Kiryandongo, Western Uganda. A cross-sectional survey assessed household food insecurity and diet diversity among 1078 affected and controls. In Bududa, the affected had a lower adjusted mean score of food insecurity than controls – 9·2 (se 0·4) v. 12·3 (se 0·4) (P<0·01) – but higher diet diversity score (DDS) – 7·1 (se 0·1) v. 5·9 (se 0·1) (P<0·01). On controlling for disaster and covariates, recipients of relief food had higher food insecurity – 12·0 (se 0·6) v. 10·4 (se 0·3) (P=0·02) – whereas farmers had higher DDS – 6·6 (se 0·2) v. 5·6 (se 0·3) (P<0·01). Household size increased the likelihood of food insecurity (OR 1·15; 95 % CI 1·00, 1·32; P<0·05) but reduced DDS (OR 0·93; 95 % CI 0·87, <1·00; P=0·04). Low DDS was more likely in disaster affected (OR 4·22; 95 % CI 2·65, 6·72; P<0·01) and farmers (OR 2·52; 95 % CI 1·37, 4·64; P<0·01). In Kiryandongo, affected households had higher food insecurity – 12·3 (se 0·8) v. 2·6 (se 0·8) (P<0·01) – but lower DDS – 5·8 (se 0·3) v. 7·0 (se 0·3) (P=0·02). The latter reduced with increased age (OR 0·99; 95 % CI 0·97, 1·00; P<0·05), lowest education (OR 0·54; 95 % CI 0·31, 0·93; P=0·03), farmers (OR 0·59; 95 % CI 0·35, 0·98; P=0·04) and asset ownership (OR 0·56; 95 % CI 0·39, 0·81; P<0·01). Addressing social protection could mitigate food insecurity

Food insecurity, dietary diversity and the right to adequate food among households in landslide-prone communities in Eastern Uganda: A cohort study

We assessed food insecurity, dietary diversity and the right to adequate food among households in communities in Eastern Uganda that were affected by major landslides in 2010 and 2018. A prospective cohort study was applied to select 422 households during May-August (the food-plenty season) of 2019. In January-March (the food-poor season) of 2020, 388 households were re-assessed. Socio-demographic, food security, dietary diversity and right to adequate food data were collected using structured questionnaires. Four focus groups discussions and key informant interviews with 10 purposively sampled duty-bearers explored issues of food insecurity, dietary and the right to adequate food. The affected households had significantly higher mean (SE) food insecurity scores than controls, both during the food plenty season: 15.3 (0.5) vs. 10.8 (0.5), and during food-poor season: 15.9 (0.4) vs. 12.5 (0.0). The affected households had significantly lower mean (SE) dietary diversity scores than controls during the food plenty season: 5.4 (0.2) vs. 7.5 (0.2) and during the food poor season: 5.2 (0.2) vs. 7.3 (0.1). Multivariate analyses showed that the disaster event, education and main source of livelihood, were significantly associated with household food security and dietary diversity during the food-plenty season whereas during the food-poor season, the disaster event and education were associated with household food security and dietary diversity. During both food seasons, the majority of affected and control households reported to have consumed unsafe food. Cash-handout was the most preferred for ensuring the right to adequate food. Comprehension and awareness of human rights principles and state obligations were low. The severity of food-insecurity and dietary diversity differed significantly between the affected and control households during both food seasons. Moreover, the right to adequate food of landslide victims faced challenges to its realization. There is need for policy and planning frameworks that cater for seasonal variations, disaster effects and right to adequate food in order to reduce landslide victims’ vulnerability to food insecurity and poor dietary diversity. In the long-term, education and income diversification program interventions need to be integrated into disaster recovery programs since they are central in enhancing the resilience of rural livelihoods to shocks and stressors on the food system

Food as a human right during disasters in Uganda

Natural and human induced disasters are a threat to food security, economic progress and livelihoods in Uganda. However, we have limited knowledge regarding the putative role of the human rights dimension to the impact and management of such tragedies. In this article we assessed the present policies, legislation and institutional capabilities to ascertain whether they could assure the right to adequate food during disaster situations in Uganda. Using purposive sampling, 52 duty bearers working in institutions deemed relevant to food security, nutrition and disaster management were interviewed using a semi-structured guide. Relevant provisions from policy, legislation, institutional budgets and records of Parliament provided the context for analysis. The most important concern coming from the analyses of the information retrieved were inadequate preparedness mechanisms and capabilities. Whereas Uganda’s Constitution proclaims the right to adequate food, and the need to establish a contingencies fund and commission responsible for disaster preparedness and management, they had not been instituted. Implementation of relevant policies appeared slow, especially with regard to assuring adequate relief food as a State obligation. Legislation to guarantee funding and institutionalisation of necessary disaster preparedness and management capabilities was not in place. An ambitious 5-year Uganda Nutrition Action Plan adopted in 2011 had not yet been funded by mid-2013, implying a reality gap in nutrition programming. Budget architecture and financing to disaster management have in effect fallen short of assuring adequate relief food as a human right. Due to capacity constraints, an approach of humanitarian relief may be entrenched in contradiction of State obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. To stay ahead of the potential threats, the Government with support of the Parliament and relevant partners need to enact legislation to appropriate budget resources needed to institute a mechanism of capabilities to implement the constitutional and policy provisions on the right to adequate food and disaster management