Volume IV - Annexes

INTERNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING ARMED
ACTIVITIES
ON THE TERRITORY
OF THE CONGO
6 DECEMBER 2002
VOLUME IV
ANNEXES
23 July2001
Annex60:
24 July2001
Annex 61:
25 July2001
Annex62:
25 July2001
Annex63:
27 July2001
Annex64:
2Aug. 2001
Annex65:
3 Sept. 2001
Annex66:
7 Sept. 2001
Annex67:
Oct. 2001
Annex68:
19Nov. 2001
Annex69:
INDEX OF ANNEXES
IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
VOLUMEIV
Testimony of Gen. James Kazini before the Porter
Commission, 23 July 2001 (excerpts)
Testimony of Hon. Kamanda Bataringaya before the
Porter Commission, 24 July 2001 (excerpts)
Testimony of Hon. Ben Mbonye before the Porter
Commission, 25 July 2001 (excerpts)
Testimony of Gen. K.atumba W amala before the
Porter Commission, 25 July 2001 (excerpts)
Testimony of Hon. Ralph Ochan before the Porter
Commission, 27 July 2001 (excerpts)
Testimony of Hon. Am.ama Mbabazi before the Porter
Commission, 2 August 2001(excerpts)
Testimony of Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya before the
Porter Commission, 3 September 2001 ( excerpts)
Testimony of Hon. Crispus Kiyonga before the Porter
Commission, 7 September 2001 (excerpts)
Porter Commission, Interim Report, October 2001
Letter from J.J.P. Potgifter, Senior Military Liaison
Officer to Major General James Kazini Regarding
Compliance to the Security Council (SC) Resolutions:
Withdrawal from the DRC, 19 November 2001
26Nov. 2001
Annex 70:
5 Dec. 2001
Annex 71:
10 Dec. 2001
Annex 72:
Statement Issued on 20 November 2001 by the
Government of Uganda on the Addendum to the
Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation ofNatural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(Annex to the Letter dated 21 November 2001 from
the Permanent Representative ofUganda to the United
Nations), S/2001/1107, 26 November 2001
Memoire du Gouvernement Relatif au Rapport du
Groupe D'Experts des Nations Unies sur le Pillage et
L'Exploitation Illegale des Resources Naturelles et
autres Richesses de la R.D.C. (Annex to the Letter
dated 5 December 2001 from the Permanent
Representative of the DRC to the United Nations),
S/2001/1156, 5 December 2001
The Response by the Government of the Republic of
Uganda to the Addendum Report of the Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of Congo (Annex to the Letter
dated 10 December 2001 from the Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations),
S/2001/1163, 10 December2001
2
URAnnex60
Excerpted testimony of
Gen. James Kazini
before the Porter Commission
23 July 2001
Part A
URANNEX60
Lead Counsel:
Please stand up.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
23n/01 {1)
1 solemnly swear that the evidence I shall give about the matters before this Commission
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you. Please sit down.
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Yes, please. Can you ... ?
Justice D. Porter:
cw 1/3.
Lead Counsel:
CW1/3. Yes, My Lord.
Can you kindly give the Commission your full name, please? And your rank?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
My names are James Kazini, Army Rank Brigadier, Appointment Army Chief-of Staff,
Uganda People's Oefence Forces.
Justice D. Porter:
Vou are Chief of Staff?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yes, please.
Justice D. Porter:
For what?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Uganda People's Defence Forces.
1
URAnnex60
Justice D. Porter:
UPDF.
Lead Counsel:
Okay .. Can you let the Commission know your age please?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
1 was born in 1957, meaning that now I am 43 years and above, thereabout.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
And where do you reside?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
23/7/01 (1)
1 reside in Kampala, but I work in Bombo and élny other military areas relating to my
course of duties.
Justic-e D. Porter:
Sorry. Vou reside in Kampala but what? But work in?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
1 reside in Kampala and I work in Bombo Army Headquarters.
Justice D. Porter:
Could you get that microphone a bit closer to you?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yeah. 1 reside in Gaba, Kampala.
Justice O. Porter:
ln Gaba. Oh, yes.
Yes?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
And I work in the army headquarters based at Bomba.
URAnnex60
2
23/7/01 (1)
Justice O. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
And you are an employee of the Uganda People's Defence Forces. ls that correct?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Correct.
Lead Counsel:
Where are you currently stationed?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Currently, 1 am stationed in the Western region of the country. My operational tactical
headquarters Kasese, overseeing the .operations against the ADF in the Rwenzoris. So 1
am currently stationed in Kasese.
Justice D. Porter:
Vou are going to have to go a bit slower. 1 have to get this down on the ...•.
Lead Counsel:
Can you repeat that a bit slower, please.
Justice O. Porter:
Currently stationed in the Western division, yes?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Western region
Justice O. Porter:
Western region. Right.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Headquarters, my headquarters is situated in Kasese, overseeing and commanding the
operations against ADF terrorists, under second division.
Justice O. Porter:
Yes?
3
URAnnex60
Close to the border.
Justice O. Porter:
Yes. Government at that time in DRC was still Kabila?
Brigadier J. Kazlni:
Yes, please.
Jus.tice O. Porter:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Now did you also agree to the number of troops that would be deployed?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
And what was the number of troops to be deployed at each of these posts?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
23/7/01 (1)
By our standards it was agreed that we deploy one battalion in all the three locations.
And an infantry battalion is composed of say, 800 men. So divide 800 men by three.
Justice D. Porter:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop, stop. Stop.
Lead Counsel:
i am sure there are a lot of questions.
Justice J. P. Berko:
We had one battalion ....
Justice D. Porter:
... for each location, that is, 800 men.
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex60
17
23/7/01 (1)
This 800 men, îs it a standard measure or is it a UPDF measure that a battalion is 800
men?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
lt is by establishment, by the law of Uganda. Establishment - the UPDF Establishment
says an infantry battalion is composed of say, 800 men. lt is in the books.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Justice D. Porter:
Funny, because the Minister of State said it was 763. ls that right or wrong?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
lt is 756, the Establishment says sa, but in terms of war situations there are other
support elements, which makes it around that figure.
Justice D. Porter:
Oh. 1 see. Yeah.
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Now are you aware of the reasons you deployed your men actually, in 1998? Are you
aware of the reasons for our going into the Congo?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
1 am aware.
Lead Counsel:
What were those reasons, please?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
To pursue and fight the bandits who were hiding in the DRC, that is one. Secondly to
deny ...
Justice D. Porter:
Whoa, whoa. Stop.
18
URAnnex60
23/7/01 (1)
Justice J. P. Berko,
Was aiding who?
Brigadier J. Kazini
ADF.
Justice J. P. Berko:
ADF?
Brigadier J. Kazini
ADF. Secondly, we got also our ....
Justice O. Porter:
Wait, wait, wait. Sarry. You say the most important things and then go rushing off and do
not give us time to put it down
Lead Counsel:
Can you repeat what you said? A bit more slower, please.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Okay.
Justice O. Porter:
What was this document?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Document was a Jetter from the rebel commander Kabanda (called Kabanda) ...
Justice O. Porter:
Wait, wait. Named? 1 think I know, but spell it for me please?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Kabamba, Kabanda, writing to a colonel called Ebamba, who was ....
Justice o. Porter:
Wait. Writing to whom?
Brigadier J. Kazini
URAnnex60
32
23n/01 (1)
Colonel Ebamba. E-B-A-M-B-A. (Spells it).
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah. Thank you.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Who was a Brigade Commander of FAC, this is Force Armé Congolais, in Beni.
Justice D. Porter:
Sorry. Whowas the Commander of FAC?
Brigadier J. Kazini
FAC. Force Armé Congolais, in French.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Telling him that they are still strong in the mountains, so the kind of help they want to
bring, he will soon tell him ways on how to deliverthe supplies.
Justice D. Porter:
1 did not get all that. Are we going ta be able to see this document?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yeah. There is a letter, s.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Brigadier J. Kazini
lt is there.
Justice D. Porter:
Can we see it?
Lead Counsel:
Can we ... ?
URAnne.x:60
33
Justice J. P. Berko:
You have it?
Lead Counsel:
Do you have a copy?
Justice D. Porter:
Do you have it here?
Justice D. Porter:
Mr. Shonubi, 1 think we can carry on while the search is being ....
Captain Kanyogonya:
1 have located it
Brigadier J. Kazini
He has seen it.
Lead Counsel:
He has located it.
Justice D. Porter:
Oh. Vou have got it?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yeah.
Lead Counsel:
Let me have a look at it, please.
Brigadier J. Kazini
You can give it to them.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Maybe you can look at it while ....
My Lords, it will be photocopied and presented to you at a later stage.
Brigadier J. Kazini
URAnnex60
23/7/01 (1)
34
lt is dated 15th February '70, '98. 15th February '98.
Justice D. Porter:
Oh, that is before you went into the Congo?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yeah.
Justice D. Porter:
Six months before you went into the Congo.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yeah.
Lead Counsel:
And to whom is it addressed?
Brigadier J. Katini
Colonel Ebamba.
Lead Counsel:
Colonel Ebamba. And who is Colonel Ebamba?
Brigadier J. Kazini
23/7/01 (1)
He was a Brigade Commander of the FAC in Kabila's government. There were two
armies: Mobutu's army was called FAZ, then Kabila's army is called FAC (F-A-2 then
this ... ).
Justice D. Porter:
Yes. But FAC was the ....
Brigadier J. Kazini
Kabila's army.
Justice O. Porter:
The existing government's army?
Brigadier J. Kazini
URAnnex60
35
23/7/01 (1)
Yeah, up to now. Exactly.
Justice O. Porter:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
And it was corning from whom?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
From Kabanda, a rebel chief.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. And you have said Kabanda was a rebel chief in the ADF. 1s that correct?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Exactly.
Lead Counsel:
And briefly, what was he telling him?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Pardon?
Lead Counsel:
What was he telling him, briefly?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Say,
"Dear Sir, We are greeting you with much respect and honour. First we thank .... "
1 think you can read it by yourselves. 1 do not, 1 cannot ....
Justice J. P. Berko:
You Just read it.
Lead Counsel:
We want you to identify it.
Justice O. Porter:
URAnnex60
36
Read it out.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Read it out.
Justice D. Porter:
So that everybody knows what is going on.
Brigadier J. Kazinî
Okay.
23n/01 (1)
" .... First we thank the Almighty God who enabled us to reach this time when we are still
existing on this earth. Actually this is so great, we have to praise him and thank him each
and every time, and we are sure that he will give us a joyful victory.
Dear Sir, since we heard that you were admitted this way again we were so g/ad to hear
that news because we sti/1 hope that you never change your mind even if you are in
another regime by now."
So other things are not clear to me, maybe he can read them.
Lead Counsel:
Can we get a clearer copy?
Brigadier J. Kazini
There is an original copy, which is clearer.
Justice D. Porter:
Oh, this is a photocopy? We are going to need ....
Brigadier J. Kazini
And for your information, that document we got it from ....
Justice D. Porter:
Just a minute, please. We are going to need the original of this.
Brigadier .J. Kazini
You need it?
Justice D. Porter:
URAnnex60
37
23/7/01 (1)
Yeah.
Brigadier J. Kazini
He Will bring it.
Justice D. Porter:
The copy is notgood enough. Right? After lunch, please?
Captain Kanyogonya:
My Lord, 1 am not sure about where it is right now. The original is ....
Justice D. Porter:
Weil, this is useless.
Captain Kanyogonya:
lt is supposed to be with military intelligence. So I am not sure about access and
whether ....
Justice D. Porter:
Well, perhaps you would like to give somebody some instructions to find out by 2:30.
Yes, Mr. Shonubi?
Lead Counsel:
Right. So you have explained that this was the reason for our moving further in?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yeah. Because, you see, that document we got it in Beni. We did not get it with
Kabanda, in Kabanda's camp. We got it after we had fought in Beni, in Ebamba's
briefcase - that document.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Oh. l see.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yes. That is for clarity.
Justice D. Porter:
We had better produce it and that would be number 9, 1 think?
URAnnex60 38
Justice J. P. Berko:
But you said you have not seen it.
Justice D. Porter:
Forwhat it is worth, anyway.
Justice J. P. Berko:
And you say you found it in whose briefcase?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Colonel Ebamba's briefcase.
Justice D. Porter:
So that will be JK9.
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Now ....
Justice J. P. Berko:
JK1/9.
Lead Counsel:
JK1/9.
Justice D. Porter:
Sorry. 1 was so worried about the exhibit, 1 did not hear. You found it where?
Brigadier J. Kazini
ln Beni, in the briefcase.
Justice J. P. Berko:
They found it in the briefcase of Colonel Ebamba.
Brigadier J. Kazini
ln Beni.
Justice J. P. Berko:
23/7/01 (1)
39
URAnnex60
ln Beni.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yes.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Was he, had he been captured or he was killed?
Brigadier J. Kazini
No. He was not captured.
Justice J. P. Berko:
He was not captured?
Brigadier J. Kazini
23/7/01 (1)
He was not captured, but we captured the place and got some of his property in his
house.
Justice J. P. Berko:
But he had disappeared?
Brigadier J. Kazini
He had run away, yes.
Comm. John G. Rwambuya:
You got the original of the letter, not the copy?
Brigadier J. Kazini
No. Original copy, original of the letter.
Justice J. P. Berko:
You said the original is with military intelligence?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
This is a faxed copy; that is why this has gone wrong.
URAnnex60
40
23/7/01 (1)
Justice O. Porter:
You are not aware?
Brigadier J. Kazini
No.
Justice O. Porter:
Then make him aware.
Lead Counsel:
Maybe, My Lord, 1 will refresh his memory.
If you could, first of all, just read paragraph 27.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Which. paragraph?
Lead Counsel:
Twenty-seven (27), My Lords.
Brigadier J. Kazini
1 read it?
Lead Counsel:
Yes, please. Read it loud, please.
Brigadier J. Kazini
"Numerous accounts in Kampala suggest that the decision to enter the conflict in August
1998 was defended by top military officiais who had served in Eastern Zaïre during the
first war; and who had a taste for the business potential of the region. Some key
witnesses who served with the Rai/y for Congo/ese Democracy rebel faction in early
months, .spoke about the eagerness of Ugandan forces to move in and occupy areas
where gold and diamond mines were /ocated. n
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Maybe if you could stop there for the time being. So what we are asking .....
Brigadier J. Kazini
URAnnex60
44
23/7/01 (1)
Yeah?
Lead Counsel:
This paragraph says that certain members of the Ugandan military who had been in the
Congo earlier, or maybe while it was still Zaire, were extremely eager to move into the
Congo during 1998.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Our forces, even during the war for fighting Mobutu, we did not take part. So which
officers are they talking about? 1 am not aware about that. We, UPDF, ....
Justice D. Porter:
1 thought you said that there was a deployment in 1996 over the border?
Brigadier J. Kazini
But that was a battalion.
Justice O. Porter:
ln three towns?
Brigadier j. Kazini
A battalion, yes. That was one battalion and it still ....
Justice D. Porter:
So you were aware of ... ?
Brigadier J. Kazin.i
And there was a Battalion Commander.
Justice D. Porter:
So you are aware of some of our forces who went over the border to the three places in
1996?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
These are the people, 1 think, we are talking about?
URAnnex60
45
Lead Counsel:
That is correct. That is correct, My Lord.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
Ali right?
Brigadier J. Kazini
No, no, no.
Justice D. Porter:
lt is suggested in the UN Panel Report what you have just read there.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yes?
Justice D. Porter:
23n/01 (1)
That the officers who went over there discovered there were all sorts of commercial
opportunities and were only too keen, in 1998, to go back so that they could exploit
those commercial opportunities.
Brigadier J. Kazini
But to go back ....
Justice D. Porter:
Just a minute! That is what the UN Panel Report says.
Brigadier J. Kazini
But it is not correct.
Justice D. Porter:
Now what Mr. Shonubi is asking you is: were any of the officers involved in those three
locations, those three battalions, part of the High Command which made the decision to
go into the Congo? That is what he has asked you; could you please answer the
question?
46
URAnnex60
23/7/01 (1)
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Very good.
Justice D. Porter:
See how quickly these things can be done if you actually listen to the question?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yeah.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes. Ali right?
Brigadier J. Kazini
1 understand now the question.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Good.
Justice D. Porter:
Try to understand quicker, would you?
Yes, Mr. Shonubi?
Lead Counsel:
Since we were still on the issue of why UPDF was deployed to Congo, 1 would also like
you to read paragraph 28, the first sentence there.
Brigadier J. Kazini
"There are .strong .... »
Twenty-eight (28)?
Lead Counsel:
Yes, please.
Brigadier J. Kazini
URAnnex60
50
23/7/01 {1)
'7here are strong indications that if security and political reasons were the professed
routes of the political leaders motivation to move into the Eastern Democratic Republic
of Congo, some top army officiais clearly had a hidden agenda: economic and financial
objectives. A few months before the 1998 war broke out ..•. "
Lead Counsel:
1 think you can stop there for the time being.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Okay.
Lead Counsel:
Now that is the paragraph which we want to know much about They are saying that the
reasons ... , you have given us ail the reasons that UPDF was employed, deployed in
the DRC.
Now they are saying there that the underlying reasons were because some top military
officiais had other hidden agendas - those being economic and financial. And, in view of
the fact that you were one of the commanders who later on went into the DRC and were
in charge of the troops, what we are asking: is that a correct statement? What is your
comment on that statement?
Brigadier J. Kazini
lt is not correct
Lead Counsel:
There were no other motives?
Brigadier J. Kazini
No.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Brigadier J. Kazini
There have never been any motives of that kind and it shall never be, .1 think.
Justice O. Porter:
URAnne:160
51
23/7/01 (1}
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Now when you went into the DRC, at the time you were deployed there, how
many battalions were there? Were they still one or were they now more?
Brigadier J. Kazini
No. Of course when the intensity, when the conflict intensified we had to bring in more
forces.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Let us start with when we moved in. What was the strength of the battalions? How many
battalions were there?
Brigadier J. Kazini
The initial deployment ....
justice J. P. Berko:
When you went there in August.
Brigadier J. Kazini
Three battalions.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Three battalions?
Brigadier J. Kazini
Yes.
URAnnex60 52
Excerpted testimony of
Gen. James Kazini
before the Porter Commission
23 July2001
PartB
URAnnex60
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
And by the time you left, how many battalions were ... ?
Justice J. P. Berko:
23/7/01 (2)
And then, you said, the war intensified and therefore it increased to how many?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Altogether, by the time I left, we had twelve battalions in the DRC.
Justice D. Porter:
Howmany?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Twelve (12).
Justice o. Porter:
Twelve (12)?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yeah.
Justice O. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Now obviously, you had to ... , you now had several soldiers within the DRC. What steps
did you take to ensure that there was no indiscipline among those soldiers?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yeah. Of course we took several measures. First we have got what we call an
Operational Code of Conduct.
Justice D. Porter:
Youwhat?
URAnne:x:60
2317/01 (2)
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Operational Code of Conduct, which we were applying ail the time like we are doing
here. If you want to check the cases you can go to Makindye where we have got so
many of our troops still under detention because of misconduct in DRC.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. We will get to that. So you had the Operational Code of Conduct?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
That is written down?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Written down, yes.
Justice D. Porter:
And these troops that are in Makindye for misbehaving themselves in the DRC, what
sort of things did they do that you had to imprison them for?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Murder, rape, theft, lîke that. Ali sorts of categories.
Justice D. Porter:
Theft of what sort of things?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
At times persona! property, at times money, at times ... , something like that. We can get
details from our intelligence desks, they have the files.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes, Mr. Shonubi?
Lead Counsel:
Okay. So you had the Code of Conduct. What else did you have?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
URAnnex60 2
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah?
Lead Counsel:
Okay. So did you have any of these soldiers court-martialed?
Brigadier J. Ka:z:ini:
23/7/01 (2)
Weil, they were .... Later on the case was solved because the engine was recovered
and they were not court-martialed, but on returning back here they were pardoned.
Lead Counsel:
So what we are asking now is, generally those officers who were caught in these
malpractices, and really we are referring. to this business of engaging in business and
exploitation of minerai resources - business like timber, gold, diamonds. So what we are
asking specifically: were any of the UPDF soldiers ever found to be engaging in this kind
of business?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Never. There is one (only one) called Okumu, who was actually in lsiro that time; if you
read my intelligence officer's report you can see what action was taken on him. He did
not actually do the mining; he assisted the local people to do the mining and then when
they exploded the . . . (they did some explosions using those local people), there were
some fatal casualties. So we arrested him, that was ....
Lead Counsel:
What is the name of that mine?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Lt. Okumu.
Lead Counsel:
Yeah. The name of the mine where he was involved?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
1 have to look. Can I look at my ... ?
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex60
6
Veah. Sure.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
This is the real report. Maybe you can have it.
Lead Counsel:
Sarry?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
For the intelligence officer. 1 do not think you have it in your records.
Lead Counsel:
1s that the report you were talking about?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Ves, from the intelligence officer.
Lead Counsel:
23/7/01 (2)
Okay. 1 will corne back to that because ... but if you can just .finish on the point you were
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Okay. Vou can get the names of the mines, and I do not know them myself. Vou can
read there what our 10 wrote when I sent him to that general area of lsiro, and what
action we took on the officer who was indulged in that kind of activity.
Lead Counsel:
And you have told us that this gentleman called Okumu was disciplined?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
lndisciplined.
Lead Counsel:
He was indisciplined, but what action was taken?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
He was arrested and brought to the military cells in Makindye. 1 do not know what
followed after that.
URAnnex60
7
23/7/01 (2)
So the UPDF has never supported any of these groups against the other, or factions of
these groups against others?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
No.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
There were these rebellions referred to as 'Nia-Nia rebellions.' What were those about?
ls it 'Nia-Nia' or 'Nai-Nai'? 1 do not know.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Lead Counsel:
There was 'Mayi-Mayi', but there was also, 1 think it is spelt N-I-A-N-1-A.
Brigadier J; Kazini:
Nia-Nia. 1 do not know. We have never, even during our exploitation into Congo, we
never went to Nia-Nia; so maybe that question can be asked to other people. Our forces
have never ever gone to Nia-Nia.
Lead Counsel:
Now you have already told us you were well within the Congo and you had the rebels
there; did we play, or did you as .UPDF, play any role - administrative role - in the
Congo?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
No.
Lead Counsel:
1 mean apart from your own troops, but administrative in the local government or
anything?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
No. Never at ail. No.
URAnnex60
11
23/7/01 (2)
Lead Counsel:
Now there has been, it has been stated that you yourself as a commander in the UPDF,
were responsible for appointment of a persan called Adela Lotsove as an administrative
officer within the Congo. Can you kindly let us know if this is true or not and, if so, how it
came about?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Well, 1 did not appoint her as such, but there was a vacuum ~ a political vacuum - of
running administrative affairs in Bunia.
Lead Counsel:
This was in which area? Bunia?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Bunia.
Lead Counsel:
1s that Orientale province?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
That is lturi, lturi province.
Lead Counsel:
lturi. Okay.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
So she approached me then she asked me to just . . . . Actually, my write-up was an
introduction to the UPDF (the soldiers who were there) to recognize her so that she puts
some structure in place. 1 do not know where she is now, but she can tell you exactly
how she came to tell me to take on that appointment because there was a very serious
vacuum. So my letter was ....
Lead Counsel:
Sarry. Before you go on, what was the nature of the vacuum?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Of the vacuum? No, there was nothing: no administrator, no police, no nothing.
URAnnex60
12
23/7/01 (2}
Lead Counsel:
And you were aware that the lady had played a role, a similar role, during the Mobutu
regime, 1 believe.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
No. 1 do not know. No. No, she did not tell me that.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Can you go ahead, please?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
She told me that she was a born of the area.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Justice O. Porter:
She told me that she what?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
A born of the area, an indigene of the area.
Lead Counsel:
But she did not tell you that she had been employed by both the Mobutu and the Kabila
administrations?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
No. She did not tell me that.
Lead Counsel:
Yes. So you can go ahead and tell us how exactly this was done.
Brigadier J. Kazlni:
That was done? 1 just wrote a letter to her. 1 said that that is a provisional governor,
telling the commander there that he should allow her to run her duties the way she
wants.
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex60
13
23/7/01 (2)
And who were you telling?
Justice D. Porter:
Just a minute, please.
Lead Counsel:
Sorry. Who were you informing about this?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
The local commander, UPDF - our commander there.
Lead Counsel:
Of UPDF?
Justice D. Porter:
UPDF?
Lead Counsel:
Not the rebel commander?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
No. They were not there at that time.
Justice D. Porter:
Have you that letter?
Justice J. P. Berko:
To let her do what? You said you wrote to the commander to allow her to do what?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
To actas a provisional governor.
Lead Counsel:
To act?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
URAnnex60
14
23/7/01 (2)
[Affirmative response], and I hope you understand when I say 'provisional', because one
time it was asked that I appointed a Provincial Governor. No, it was provisional
(something that may be, who is temporary - a temporary arrangement).
Justice D. Porter:
Have you got that letter?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Pardon?
Justice D. Porter:
Have you got that letter?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yeah. 1 have got a copy but not here; it should be with my headquarters.
Justice D. Porter:
We would like to see it, please.
Lead Counsel:
Can you get us a copy this afternoon?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yes, 1 can.
Lead Counsel:
Good.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
How big is this lturi province?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
1 do not know.
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex60
15
Excerpted testimony of
Gen. James Kazini
before the Porter Commission
23 July 2001
Parte
URAnnex60
23/07/01 (4)
Lead Counsel:
... so as you probably are aware, this Commission of lnquiry was set up following the
report of the UN Panel of Experts into the exploitation of natural resources and other
resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So as you mentioned before that
you have read this report, and we would like you to respond to various allegations in that
report.
First of all by, letting us know ....
Justice D. Porter:
You are going to leave that appointment question, are you?
Lead Counsel:
My Lord, after this the photocopies corne back so that ...
Justice D. Porter:
You will corne back to it?
Lead Counsel:
Yes. You will have the benefit of having the document. 1 have not read it myself.
Justice D. Porter:
Okay. Thank you.
Lead Counsel:
Yeah. There are various paragraphs which we would like you to respond to in that
report, commencing with your meeting with the Panel. We assume you actually met with
them because in their report they do mention they met with you.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
They have not
Lead Counsel:
They never you?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Never.
URAnnex60
Yeah.
Justice O. Porter:
And then there is some other reference, is there?
Lead Counsel:
Then there is some ....
Justice D. Porter:
Forty-three (43)?
Lead Counsel:
Then twenty-four (24), My Lord.
Justice D. Porter:
1s that right?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
The meeting ... when they were meeting the President I was there.
Justice D. Porter:
You were there?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yeah, but notthe Minister.
Justice D. Porter:
Right. But you said that the Panel never met with you.
Justice J. P. Berko:
You said you had never met the UN Panel, you said you had never.
Justice O. Porter:
That is why we are asking.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
URAnne:x60
23/07/01 (4)
5
23/07/01 (4)
When the Panel came to meet the President - that was ... their last meeting - 1 was just
called in and then I remember the Head of State saying, "This is the Kazini you are
looking for."
They never asked me anything, ....
Justice D. Porter:
Wait. Wait now, this is important for us.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
When the Panel .... Vou say you were called in and·what? And what, presented?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
The President said, "These are the Commanders". He said, "This is Sc;!leh, this is Kazini
whom you have been talking about." Then there was a kind of talk there (the meeting
was a short one} then itended.
But to say that the Panel had invited me to ask me, never. lt was just like a courtesy eau,
it was not even a meeting - nobody taking minutes. lt was just like a courtesy call on
their last trip when they were finalizing with the Report.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes. Thank you.
Lead Counsel:
Now also in the Government response, 1 do not know if you have had an opportunity to
look at it? Have you had an opportunity to look at that?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
1 have not.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Maybe let me read you the paragraph and you can respond to it.
Brigadier J. Kazini:
Yeah.
URAnnex60
6
23/07/01 (4)
Lead Counsel:
''During this meeting Madame Ba-N'Daw raised a point of interest that Brigadier Kazini
and General Salim Sa/eh had been active in taking natural resources out of the DRC. ln
response to this General Odongo expressed his willingness to be of assistance and
invited the Panel to forward the list of specific questions which both Brigadier Kazini and
General Sa/eh wou/d be required to answer, even though General Sa/eh had retired
from the army. This invitation to the Panel however, was never honoured."
Now what we would like to know: were you ever given any form of questionnaire
originating from the Panel for you to answer?
Brigadier .J. Kazini:
No, please.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
And even at this meeting where you met them, no questions were put to you about your
involvement in the Congo?
Brigadier J. Kazini:
1 (we) did not say anything.
Lead Counsel:
Right. If you could look at paragraph 48 of the Panel Report.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Can we finish this 143, on this Ukrainian plane?
Lead Counsel:
1 thought that would came under a different heading, My Lord, but I can ask the question
now.
Justice J. P. Berko:
Okay. If you have it in mind that is okay.
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex60
7
URAnnex61

Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Kamanda Bataringaya
before the Porter Commission
24 July 2001
URANNEX61
24/7/01
Lead Counsel:
Yes My Lord, we have onewitness for today, ifhe could stand up and take bis oath.
Justice J.P. Berko:
The fourthwitness?
Justice D. Porter:
Yah.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
I, Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya, solenmly swear that, the evidence I shall give, about the
matters before this commission, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. So help me God.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you very much.
Sit down, and feel comfortable.
Lead Counsel:
My Lord, I would believe, this is witness No. C0l/04.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
C0l/04.
Can you kindly, give the commission your full names, please?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
My names are Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya Cos.
Lead Counsel:
Doctor, what was the third name?
Dr. Kamanda Batarlngaya:
Cos.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
How old are you at the moment?
1 URAnnex61
24/7/01
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
What?
Lead Counsel:
How old are you?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
I am 42 years old.
Lead CounseJ:
What is your present occupation?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
I am a Member of Parliament, representing Bwamba County, at the same time I am one
of the newly appointed Ministers.
Justice J.P. Berko:
Y ou are a Minister designate.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yes.
Lead Counseï:
Okay, where do you reside?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Here in Kampala I reside in Bukoto, but I am bom in Bundibugyo District.
Justice J.P. Berko:
Your residence in Kampala. Where are you stayirtg in Kampala?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Bukoto.
Justice J.P. Berko:
Bukoto.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
You also mentioned, you are a Doctor, in what discipline?
URAnnex61 2
24/7/01
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
In medicine.
Lead Counsel:
Doctor, were you formerly employed by the foreign service ofthis country?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
True. Up to now, I am a Uganda's Ambassador to Democratic Republic of Congo, since
1996.
Justice J.P. Berko:
Sîncewhat?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Since 1996, that is since November 1996.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
And when did you cease to be Uganda's Ambassador to the DRC?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Now I cease to be Ambassador because now I am a Member of Parliarnent, but I am the
same person up to now, as I was the Ambassador to the DRC.
Justice J.P. Berko:
TotheDRC?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Now, at the time you were appointed Ambassador, who was the President of the DRC?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
When I was appointed Ambassador the President would be, by then it was Mobutu Tsetse
Tseko Kuku; he was the President by then, thè late.
Lead Counsel:
So you were actually there at the time the Mobutu Regîme was overthrown?
3
URAnnex61
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
True.
Lead Counsel:
And where were you based?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
I was based in Kinshasa.
Lead Counsel:
Now, in Kinshasa, were you thereat the time the AFDL rebels stonned Kinshasa?
Dr. Kamanda Batarîngaya:
Y es I was there, that was in May.
Lead Counsel:
May, of which year?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
1997.
Justice J.P. Berko:
A T.'~T n
./"\J'.UL{
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yes,AFDL.
Lead Counsel:
And, were there any Ugandan troops with whom they stormed Kinshasa?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
There were no U gandan troops when AFDL stormed Kinshasa.
Lead Counsel:
Now, how did you know, there were no Ugandan troops at the time?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
24/7/01
Because, immediately the AFDL tookpower, because we as diplomats were called when
the late President Kabila was being swom in, and soldiers around him, of course being a
Ugandan I could even know, this is a Ugandan or not. And I only saw, because we were
interacting, most ofthem were these Banyamulenge, and I think they looked like soldiers
from Rwanda. There were no Ugandans because if they were there they would have
URAnnex61 4
24/7/01
reported tome as the Ambassador, so that I know that they are in Congo, by then Zaire.
But I never received any of them in my mission.
Justice D. Porter: -
You understand if you say that,
"When President Kabila was sworn ln, there were no Ugandan troops around".
Dr .. Kamanda Bataringaya: -
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
Theywere?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Most ofthem were Banyamulenge, that's what I used to call them.
Lead Counsel:
At the time this AFDL rebellion was going on, you were sitting in Kinshasa. and at that
time the late President Mobutu was in power, did you receive any formal complaints or
any informa} complaints from that regime, about the role our troops were playing, in this
rebellion?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
I recall one incidence in which, by then Zaire government expressed concern when the
war was going on, before Kabila overthrew Mobutu, they just got the ...
Justice D. Porter:
Is that what you asked, Mr. Shonubi?
You are talking about after, aren't you?
Lead Counsel:
NO, My Lord, I am asking during the Mobutu regime, whether he received any format or
informai complaints, about the role of the UPDF, in the rebellion?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Y ou have said that, when there was the war to overthrow President Mobutu, whîch was
going on, whether it was true or not, that one I cannot confirm but that showed about four
people on the T.V. that they had got them from Kisangani front line, one was from South
Africa, that's what they claim, another one ......... .
5
URAnnex61
24/7/01
Justice D. Porter:
Can you be more specific with your evidence? I am losing you totally. You said, while
Mobutu was in power, you recall a complaint, is that right? That's what you have been
asked.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
That's what I amjust drivingat.
Justice D. Porter:
I know, you are going all over the world to get to a simple answer. There was a
complaint, was there?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Just on Medîa not in written form.
Justice D. Porter:
Alright.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yes. That's why I said I recall "On Media".
Lead Counsei:
So there was no formai complaint?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
No formai complaint, but just on Media, that these are from Uganda, South Africa.
Lead Counsel:
Let's start with the formai complaint; there was no formal complaint.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
No fonnal complai."lt.
Lead Counsel:
Okay, was there any informai complaint, apart from Media, let's go to informai
complaint.
Justice D. Porter:
From the Mobutu government?
Dr. Karnanda Bataringaya:
There was no also informa} complaint.
URAnnex61 6
24/7/01
Lead Counsel:
Now, we can go to what you are talking about. Were there any accusations? I think you
can now expand on that.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
When they got about four people whom they showed on the T.V, saying these ones were,
they claimed that he was from South Africa, another one from Burundi, another one from
Rwanda, then another one from Uganda. Said, these people had been caught on front line
in Kisangani, and they were assisting the rebels, by then Kabila now. And that was all.
Lead Counsel:
Did you seek to establish the identity of the Ugandan, whether indeed he was actually
doing what they said he was doing?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Y es, we took the initiatives to enquire what exactly they said was true. But at the end of
the day we never got any communication, to confirm, that what was said in the Media
was true.
Lead Counsel:
Did you ever talk, to this indîvidual?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
No.
Lead Counsel:
Do you know his name?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
I even don't know his name. As I told you that I just saw on the T.V. and read on the
media, and just in press newspaper.
Lead Counsel:
And so, the individual I would assume also was never handed over to Ugandan
authorities.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Correct.
URAnnex61
7
24/7/01
Lead Counsel:
Would it not have been your duty as Ambassador to ensure that your nationals are not
harassed, if indeed this man was a Ugandan, I agree it is your obligation to ensure that he
was not harassed especially ifhe was not part ofwhat he was accused.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Of course, I took the initiative, we wrote a diplomatie note, since it was in the
newspapers, to the Ministry of Foreign Âffairs, saying that if he is a Ugandan, can we
know his origin, where he cornes from, from this part ofUganda, and we never got any
response. So we took it, may be that it was a concoction.
Lead Counsel:
Can you also give the commission briefly, what your duties there, were? And a number
of countries you had to look after?
Dr. Karnanda Bataringaya:
Of course, as Ambassador, a head of Mission, in representing His Excellency the
President of Uganda, representing the Government of Uganda, and representing the
peopie of Uganda, apart from DRC, ï was aiso accredited to Congo Brazzaville, and
Central Africa Republic.
Lead Counsel:
Can you, at least, explain a bit more about your duties; you 've told us of where you are
accredited, your duties? Y es please.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
I tell you that, I was a Head of Mission. And of course, as a Head of Mission, and then I
told you that I was representing His ExceUency the President, in that country, not oniy
His Excellency the President, I was also representing the Government of Uganda and
people of Uganda.
Justice D. Porter:
What he is asking, what did you do thîs awfül day, with all these accreditations? If you
would do it, talking to people, watching the Television, what did you do?
Dr. Karnanda Bataringaya:
No, no. Not watching the television.
URAnnex61 8
Justice D. Porter:
Sorne of them had what colour?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Redcolour.
Justice D. Porter:
The. one, before?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Silver. Metallic silver, yès.
Lead Counsel:
Were, any of those vehicles being used by the army at the time?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
They were being used by civilians.
Lead Counsel:
24/7/01
Did you have any similar problems ofvehicles from the Congo being taken to Uganda?
Do you have any reports ofthat nature?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
1
I never had a report of that nature.
Justice D. Porter:
When you were saying, you visîted this Congo, when was that? What year?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
That was in 1997, in December, then 1998. Twice, that is in February and May.
Lead Counsel:
You also mentioned, if you look at the next page again, Item Roman IV and Roman V, if
you could kindly read those, please.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yah, say:
"Negotiations with the authoritîes, for the recovery and return ofany stolen vehicles, and
other properties from Uganda, in the Republic of Congo back to Uganda. "
Then Roman V:
"Promotion of trade ".
18 URAnnex61
24/7/01
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Now, did you ever have any negotiations, to try and retum the vehicles to U ganda?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Y ah, I took the initiative of requesting the authorities in Congo, through the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, because we had heard even, one of the vehicle stolen was that of the
IGG, and it had aiso ended there.
So the Governors of Chief, the late Kanyamuhanga, plus the Govemor of Upper Congo,
that is Provincial Ryantaari, were willing to assist us in recovering such stolen vehicles.
Lead Counsel:
Now, you also mentioned in the next paragraph and in paragraph 3, you were talking
about the Ugandan businessmen, and promotion of trade.
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Y ou see that?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Yes, Oh, this promotion of trade you see as I told you, as commercial diplomacy, now,
when I went there, there was trade, trying to normalizing it thisway, as we had Ugandan
Airline flying up to Kinshasa, flying up to Goma, Ugandans were able to take the
merchandise up to Kinshasa, that's meat, fish, eggs, which were really by then selling,
they were using Uganda Airline, even up to Goma. And those even these lorries, some of
them, our people who are in West Niie, they were using those which used to go to Bunia,
the market, and these also the Congolese, even Beni, bring their goods also to Bwera,
Kasese. So, that's how we were trying to encourage that trade.
Lead Counsel:
So, the trade was basically, in tenns of, as we shall say things like eggs, fish, meat.
URAnnex61 19
24/7/01
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Eggs, fish, meat, soft drinks like Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Beers. I would see them even
exchanging in bringing Pilsner in Uganda, our Bell in Congo. Those are the things, they
are.
Lead Counsel:
And how were most ofthose things getting to the DRC?
Dr, Kamanda Bataringaya:
They were, just, say in Kinshasa, they were using the Uganda Airlines, by the way it was
and Gorna also. And these near-by places were using lorries, and other small vehicles.
And sornetimes, boats, for example on Lake Albert.
Lead Counsel:
Now, that was the trade, as opportunity of our traders taking goods there?
Dr. Kamanda.Bataringaya:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Were there any Congolese businessmen, bringîng goods to Uganda?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Ah, that one was not possible, but I would see some also Congolese, were bringing these
Bitenge in Kinshasa, on their way also to Dubaï, because they used to use the Uganda
Airline. They used to bring some Bitenge actually, Congolese to sell.
Lead Counsel:
W as there any trade in other items, such as timber?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
Ah, that one I never saw it. I nevet saw that one, trade în timber.
Lead Counsel:
Did you help any trade in minerais, like Diamonds and Gold?
Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya:
No.
Justice D. Porter:
Just go back to timber, was there trade in timber within the Congo?
20
URAnnex61
URAnnex62
Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Ben Mboye
before the Porter Commission
25 July 2001
URANNEX62
25/7/01 (1)
CW0l/05
Lead Counsel:
I already have one wîtness for this moming. And I ask him to be swom in.
Dr. Mbonye:
I, Dr. Ben Mbonye, solemnly swear that the evidence I shall give about the matters before
this Commission, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help
meGod.
Justice Porter:
Thankyou.
Lead Counsel:
Can you give the Commission your full name, please.
Dr. Mbonye:
My name is Dr. Ben Mbonye.
Lead Counsel:
What is your age?
Dr.Mbonye
I am 54.
Lead Counsel:
And where do you reside?
Dr.Mbonye:
I reside at Plot No. 14 Aldi Bua Road, Nakasero - Kampala.
Justice Porter:
Thankyou.
Lead Counsel:
And wbat is your present occupation?
Dr. Mbonye:
I am deployed as a Secretary in the Office of the President.
Lead Counsel:
And before that - what was your occupation, before that?
URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Dr.Mbonye:
Before that I worked as a Pennanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence.
Lead Counsel:
When did you start that? Which period were you employed as a Pennanent Secretary
Dr. Mbonye:
I started working as a Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence from 1991 up to
2000, July.
Lead Counsel:
To 2000 July?
Dr. Mbonye:
YesmyLord.
Lead Counsel:
And what were your duties as a Secretary for Defence?
Dr.Mbonye:
I was its Accounting Officer - the Accounting Officer for the Ministry and I also had
administrative responsibilities for the Ministry headquarter staff.
Lead Counsel:
Now, would those duties include the regulation of the expenditure and the administration
of the budget ofthat Ministry?
Dr.Mbonye:
YesmyLord.
Lead Counsel:
Would you recall what the budget for the Ministry ofDefence was in the year 1998/99?
Dr.Mbonye:
If a.rn shown the document I definitely, will recall that.
Justice Porter:
This would be BNl and Nos .... 15 I think
Lead Counsel:
Is that the Defence budget?
Dr. Mbonye:
YesmyLord
URAnnex62 2
25/7/01 (1)
Justice Porter:
Is it 15
Lead Counsel:
It is 15 My Lord
Justice Porter:
Yeah. One five.
Lead Counsel:
So according to that, what was the total amount allotted to Ministry of Defence in the
year 1998/99.
Dr. Mbonye:
The total amount allotted according to this document is - was 145, 624,479,000.
Lead Counsel:
And can you tell us, whether at the end of that period that that amount had proved
sufficîent for the needs of your Ministry.
Dr.Mbonye:
What I recall during that year of l 998/99, I recall that we utilized more funds than had
been provided, and the Ministry of Finance I think did provide extra funding during that
year.
Lead Counsel to Justice Porter:
My Lord if we could tender that before we proceed on more questions.
Justice Porter:
Wewill do that, yes.
Lead Counsel:
Much obliged
Lead Counsel to Dr. Mbonye:
Now, looking again at the same document, can you tell us how much was spent on the
NRA land forces during that year?
Dr. Mbonye
This document wouldn't reveal that. These are the budget estimates which are provided
at the beginning of the Financial Y ear. There should be a document that reflect the
outtum during that Financial Year.
3 URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Lead Counsel:
Would that document assist you?
Dr.Mbonye
The document reflects the budget estimates at the beginning of the Financial Year and the
last column reflects what the accumulative expenditure was at the time the analysis was
made which was in June of the following year 1999. But sometimes the ...
Justice Porter:
Just a minute. Can we still have this document?
Lead Counsei:
YesMyLord
Justice Porter:
What is it?
Yes Mr. Shonubi, we are going to put this in, this document?
Lead Counsel:
Y es My Lord, I think let us put it in
Justice Porter:
Alright. So that's going to be BMI 16
And what is it, what do you caii it?
Lead Counsel:
Can you describe and give us the details - what is this document?
Dr. Mbonye:
This is a document I think which was worked out analyzing what expenditure had
actually been incurred by the 30th of June, 1999. It reflects the items spent on, it reflects
the estimated amount at the beginning of the Financial Year and it also indicates
cu.'nulative expenditwe at the end of the Financiai Y ear.
Lead Counsel:
So looking at those two documents, how much by how much - or what was the deficit
between the difference between what was actually hudgeted and what was actually spent
in the overall Defence budget?
URAnnex62 4
25/7/01 (1)
Dr. Mbonye:
The estimated amount spent at the beginning of the Financial Y ear was 145 billion as
stated .earlier, and the figure we have at the end ofthe Financial Year is 117 billion plus
67.
Justice Porter:
Wait, wait
There was how much? Hundred ....... ?
Dr.Mbonye:
There are still lots of figures my Lord. The first figure of the non-wage bill was 117,
999,735,316 and then the wage bill was 67,886,313,826. Then there was a capital
development expenditure of 7,627,749,770. This however would seem to be the total
expenditure for the lJPDF land forces excluding the Ministry of Defence headquarters
intemalizes their three programmes under the Ministry: Prog. 01, Prog. 02, Prog. 03 and
Prog. 01 is expenditure on the Ministry headquarters; it is not reflected in these figures.
But this is the total expenditure outturn as according to this document at the end of that
Financial Y ear My Lord.
Justice Berko:
Can you give us the total please?
Dr. Mbonye:
I am just trying to total it up.
Justice Berko:
Okay.
Justice Porter:
Justlooking at the billions ... Oh you are doing it.
Dr.Mbonye:
I have a total of 193,512,000,000 with some other figures. I have not added the other
smaller figures.
Justice Porter:
Alright.
Lead Counsel:
Now that represents a difference of approximately 47 billion.
Is that correct?
5
URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Dr.Mbonye:
That's correct My Lord. About 47 billion shillings of expenditure.
Justice Porter:
Yes,go on.
Lèad Counsel:
And you have mentioned that this did not include Programmes 02 and 03, I believe?
Dr.Mbonye:
Prog. 01
Lead Counsei:
Prog. 01 and Prog ..... ?
Dr. Mbonye:
No. Just Prog. 01
Lead Counsel:
Just Prog. 01
Dr.Mbonye:
But normally that wouldn't be very much. It is just money spent on the Ministry
headquarters for staff and a few procurements. It would not weigh heavily on this figure.
Lead Counsei:
But itwould actually mean this 47 billion would actually increase slightly.
Dr.Mbonye:
I will give you an example for instance that during that Financîal Year the estimated
expenditure - the budgeted amount for e.xpenditure on the headquarters, was
1,811,240,000. That's the estimated amount that was supposed to be spent that year. So
it is very little, compared with the rest of the budget for the anny. And normally it was
never overspent.
Justice Berko:
And you said excess was financed from the Ministry of Finance?
Dr.Mbonye:
That's correct My Lord
Justice Porter:
This is the first time l've ever heard ofanything ofone billion of anything described as a
very small amount. It is actually quite a lot ofmoney, isn't it?
URAnne:x62 6
25/7/01 (1)
Dr.Mbonye:
I am talking about that as small compared with what was spent on the land forces My
Lord.
Justice Porter:
It would be about a million dollar something?
Dr.Mbonye:
No, one billion would be - yes that would be ....
Justice Porter:
Roughly ..
.. .. approximately a million dollars. That's right My Lord
Justice Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Now, could you kindly look at the 1999 budget?
Justice Porter:
What are the estimates?
Lead Counsel:
Y eah. The estimates.
Justice Porter:
Again this would be 17: Estimates for Defence Ministry 1999/2000. ExhibitorDMl 17
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Now, again what we really want to know is what the budget was and what the actual
expenditure was. So you can start by letting us know, for that year, what was the actual
budget? The one budgeted?
Dr. Mbonye:
The actual budgetedMy Lord according to ~his document was Shs. 188,434,762,000.
Lead Counsel:
And the actual amount spent? Maybe you ...
Lead Counsel to Justice Porter:
It' s another exhibit My Lord
7
URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Justice Porter
There is another analysis, is it there?
Dr.Mbonye:
That is another analysis for that particular year
Justice Porter
Okay, so that would be Exhibitor DMI 18 for 2000.
Dr.Mbonye:
My Lord again this analysis refers to Prog. 02 and Prog. 03 of the UPDF and the nonwage
expenditure while at the outtum, cumulative expenditure, that is at the end of the
Financial Year. This analysis was as at 30th of June, 2000 was Shs. 88,939,822,792 and
the capital development outtum was Shs. 3,736,979,999. And the wage bill My Lord was
- the outturn was Shs.100,099,837,741.
The total outturn My Lord for the land forces for that Financîal Y ear - the total I have is
Shs.192, 776,638,542.
Lead Counsel:
Would this amount again exclude Prog. 01?
Dr.Mbonye:
This, My Lmd would also exclude Prog. ûi which was - where the expenditure was
estimated at Shs 1,806,563,000. So ifwe assume that there was no over-expenditure on
Prog. 01 and we added 1.8b to 192b we would probably end up with 194b as the outturn -
as the estimated outtum for that Financial Y ear.
Justice Porter
So thatis the expenditure of 6 ...
Dr.Mbonye:
About 6b My Lord
Lead Counsel:
Now if we could also look at 2000/2001?
Dr.Mbonye:
My Lord I do not know whether I should answer questions on this because by that time I
had already left the Ministry.
Lead Counsel:
In2000?
URAnnex62
8
25/7/01 (1)
Dr.Mbonye:
2000/2001 - I had left the Ministry ofDefence.
Justice Porter:
Had you prepared the estimates for2000?
Dr. Mbonye:
I did My Lord but by the time the budget was passed by the Parliament I had left the
Ministry. But I did participate in its preparation My Lord.
Justice Porter:
And these arnount tackles the draft estimates.
Dr. Mbonye:
Y es they are draft estimates My Lord
Justice Porter:
Is that probably what you prepared?
Dr.Mbonye:
These would be what I prepared. Because by the time I left we had already submitted to
the Ministry of Finance.
Justice Porter
Well, can you just give us evidence in regard to 2000/2001? ... and we have to look
elsewhere for the years of the document.
Dr. Mbonye:
My Lord the estimated overall budget for the Ministry ofDefence for the year 2000/2001
was Shs. 187,748,181,000.
Justice Porter:
Right... Suggest to the summing up what you said, you are talking about an overexpenditure
of about 30% in 1998/99 - a much smaller over-expenditure of 5% in
1999/2000.
Dr. Mbonye:
That's correct My Lord
Justice Porter:
That's roughly right.
Dr.Mbonye:
That's roughly right.
9 URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Justice Porter:
Are you able to assist us as to why there was such a bigger expenditure in. 1998/99.
Dr.Mbonye:
My Lord I think that is füe tîme when we had increased activities/operations within the
army.
Justice Porter:
That's right.
Had the army started to move in August, 1998 into the Congo I think?
Dr.Mbonye:
That's correct My Lord.
Justice Porter:
Yes. It is interesting that the estimate for peace is only ceded by a third when U ganda
goes to war. And I thought war is more expensive than peace.
Dr. Mbonye:
I haven't got your question My Lord.
Justice Porter:
Well, when the estimates for Financial Year 1998/99 were prepared, nobody was
expecting to be in the DRC.
Dr.Mbonye:
That's correct My Lord
Justice Porter:
And it was 145b. Now then ... when the UPDF did go into the DRC the result was an
over-expenditure of only 30%.
Dr. Mbonye:
That's the figure that \Ve have 1'y1y Lord.
Justice Porter:
It doesn't seem to make sense tome. Peace time army for surely is cheaper than war
time army?
Dr. Mbonye:
Yeah, it should be - a peace time anny should be cheaper My Lord, and war time army ...
Justice Porter:
Yes, but a lot cheaper and not 30%. That's expensive.
URAnnex62 10
25/7/01 (1)
Dr. Mbonye:
Well, the 4 7b overspent, I think most of this went to the movement of troops and food,
and other logistics that the forces required.
Justice Porter:
Yes?
Dr.Mbonye:
I think the other reason perhaps why we ended up with a smaller overrun. the following
Financial Year, was because forces had stabilized and the first year we used to airlift all
the food supplies to them and that caused us heavy expenditure on transport. But we
changed the system the following years if I recall well, and instead of ferrying food from
Uganda, we'd send money into the DRC and the troops would buy food locally. So that
eut down on our expenses. Plus the fact that we had also included some budgetary
provisions before it.
Justice Porter:
Yeah, that doesn't quite go with what we have been told by the actual military people on
the ground. They said that three battalions went in August, 1998 and it was a year before
there was movement across the Congo and further battalions were brought in. Any
comment on that?
Dr.Mbonye:
I wouldn 't know about the movements of troops and what strength were all the troops
were inside, and - but we were simply responding to demands for logistical support. We
wouldn't be aware of why various troops went in and what strength was inside.
Justice Porter:
Okay
Lead Counsel:
The difference in 1998/99. What would you think should have attributed you to the
movement into the Congo?
11
URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Dr. Mbonye:
Movements, purchase of the food for them, and other logistic provisions, like fuel for
vehicles which were inside. That's what I would attribute it to My Lord. Because we
had not budgeted for it.
Lead Counsel:
So, after you had overspent in 1998/99 and the Treasury had catered for the difference -
your budget for the following year was obviously taken into account, your overexpenditure
in the previous year would now be the wiser for your next budget. Is that not
be correct?
Dr. Mbonye:
That's correct My Lord
Lead Counsel:
So you then were presented with the budget of 188 - approximately 188 billion.
Dr. Mbonye:
That's correct My Lord
Lead Counsel:
So the question is: Why did that again not suffi ce because again you had a deficit of that
particular year?
Dr. Mbonye:
The estimates for ..... .
Justice Porter to Lead Counsel::
I don't see why you are asking Mr. Shonubi, but we are talking about 5% - and 5%
overruns on unpredictable situations is acceptable I would think, don't you?
Lead Counsel:
in the budget.
Dr. Mbonye:
That's correct. We also have to look into what overruns we used to experience in the
previous years. Because there would always be some degree of overruns because wè
were never provided with adequate funds. Even with the previous years we used to
experience some overruns of about 5%., 10%. So that wou1d be taken care of that way.
Justice Berko:
Dr. would you be able to tell us what percentage of the budget went into the Congo war?
URAnnex62 12
25/7/01 (1)
Dr.Mbonye:
WeU, it would be difficult for me to know precisely what percentage went into the Congo
because for us we would get demands from the army, and some of these demands
sometimes would go for operations within Uganda and some of the provisions would go
to Congo. And that sub-divisîon for instance ifit was for requirement of food would be
carried out by the army headquarters. So I wouldn't know what percentage would go into
Congo and,what percentage would remain here.
Justice Porter:
What most ministries have is quite a lot of control over the expenditure of the people that
they serve. That' s not so as far as the Ministry of Defence is concemed. Is that right?
You get a demand, you pay.
Dr. Mbonye:
We get a demand and provided the demand is supported by adequate documentation. We
release the funds and then we expect accountability of the funds and we are satisfied with
that. We do not follow into detail how the expendîture is carried out right deep in the
smallest units in the field. That would probably be carried out by the Finance Officers
under the army. So we look after the gross at macro level rather than micro level of the
expenditure in the units.
L.ead Counsel:
How did you cater for operations se ...... , I believe you were still Permanent Secretary
that time.
Dr. Mbonye:
Yes I was, and again these demands would corne in through the army headquarters not
directly to us. It would be submitted. The submissions would be made to the Chief of
Logistics and the Chief of Logistics would then submit together with other provisions
through the Chief of Staff or the Army Commander to the Ministry headquarters for us
to make provisions.
L.ead Counsel:
And in these operations, let's say an operation sent h ........ the only source of funding to
the troops was from your Ministry.
Dr. Mbonye:
13 URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
It was my Lord because we would be told that some of these provisions were supposed to
support the troops in Congo. And those would be for food, for chartered aircrafts and
fuel provisions, and things like that. So we did provide their support from our normal
budget My Lord.
Justice Porter:
Y ou didn't expect the troops on the ground to fund. themselves, by trading or doing
whatever.
Dr. Mbonye:
No, no. ldon't recallhaving a ...
Justice Porter:
Leaving off the land .and ...
Dr. Mbonye:
No. We were always asked to make provisions for them.
Lead Counsel:
You were aware that there were certain rebel groups operating within the Congo?
Dr. Mbonye:
Yes I heard aboutit My Lord.
Lead Counsel:
Well, were the troops in the Congo at any time, in particular I am referring to some of the
Colonels - were they at any time paid their salaries by the rebel groups in the Congo?
Dr. Mbonye:
I am not aware of that My Lord
Lead Counsel:
Was your budget at any time supplemented by other sources other than the Treasury?
Dr.Mbonye:
No My Lord, I don't recall getting any funds :from any other sources other than the
Treasury. We never did.
Lead Counsel:
Did troops in the Congo, who were deployed in the Congo, were they paid salaries above
what was paid to the troops which rernained within the country?
Dr. Mbonye:
No they were paid just the same salaries as their colleagues in U ganda.
URAnnex62 14
25/7/01 (1)
Justice Porter:
So, the rations in the end were paid in cash. So that would look like an increase.
Dr.Mbonye:
I think in some of the areas we paid them, rations in cash so that they could buy food
themselves intemally. And then in some units there would be stock-pîling by buying
food locally from within. We found it much cheaper and cost effective.
Lead Counsel:
Were they paid allowances separate from the troops which remained in Uganda?
Dr. Mbonye:
I don't recall that. I don't recall there were any extra allowances.
Lead Counsel:
You have also mentioned that at some point, what you were doing was to ferry, monitor
the troops to be able to buy the food to sustain themselves as a post ration. ls that
correct?
Dr.Mbonye:
That' s correct
Lead Counsel:
Now, you will recall that atone point there was an incident involving one of the officers -
I think his name was Byakutaaga. Do you recall that incident?
Dr. Mbonye:
Y es I do recall the incident. I saw it in the newspapers just like you did.
Lead Counsel:
Had you left the Ministry at that time?
Dr. Mbonye:
When the story came out I had left the Ministry, that's true.
Lead Counsel:
Your initial expenditure when the UPDF had just moved into the Congo, how many
battalions did you have to cater for, initially?
Dr. Mbonye:
I wouldn't know how many battalions went in at that time at any particular time. I
was ....
15 URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Dr.Mbonye:
Oh, they might have got this infonnation from those who had ît. They definitely didn 't
get it from me, because I didn't have it myself. So, they might have found this figure
from people who had this information.
Lead Counsel:
Okay, suppose you can proceed to 116 as the Commissioners don't have any questions on
that.
.Justice Berko:
What is surprising is that you are sitting here as PS, Financial Officer of the Ministry and
you don't know the figures, and somebody coming ail the way from New York is able to
get the figures, then I don't seem to understand. If somebody from outside can corne and
get the figures of the soldiers we have here, and those we have in Congo, then I cannot
understand why you, sitting here as a PS cannot get these figures for us?
Dr. Mbonye:
My Lord, the experts might have had some avenues of getting this information direct
from some Operation Commanders and such places, but I didn't have the figures My
Lord.
Justice Berko:
Were these Operation Commanders not under the Ministry ofDefence?
Dr. Mbonye:
They are - were not directly answerable to me. They are directly answerable to the Anny
Commander. They are different structures My Lord. The Mînistry civilian staff .are
separate from the Anny. The Anny has got its own leadership and its own operations.
116 My Lord reads:
"According to various sources, UPDF has an average of 10,000 in the Democratic
Republic of Congo out of 50,000 total. Indeed the budget fine for paya/one for a year is
about $41 m for 50,000 Ugandan soldiers. If a bonus of $20 is paid to each of the 10,000
soldiers, that would amount to $200,000 per month in 1988/99 - a total of 2.4m per
year.
Justice Porter:
There are wrong about these bonuses. It is not such a thing, is that right?
URAnnex62 33
25/7/01 (1)
Dr.Mbonye:
I am not aware ofthese bonuses My Lord
Justice Porter:
Y ou see, as Permanent Secretary you should be aware.
Dr. Mbonye:
I should have been aware, but I don't recall that each soldier was being paid a bonus of
$20. I don't recall that.
Justice Porter:
Y ou keep saying you don 't recall. Are you prepared to say it did not happen?
Dr.Mbonye:
Because I do not know the source of this information - because I did not pay. I did not.
Justice Porter:
Come on, you are a Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, you sign the
cheques, don't you, - don't you?
Dr. Mbonye:
My Lord I did not sign payment bonuses for .....
Justice Porter:
You sign the cheques frorn the Ministry, that's part ofyour job.
Dr. Mbonye:
That's correct.
Justice Porter
Yes. Now, don't tell me you don't know whether bonuses were being paid over and
above the ordinary pay of the army, Ijust don't believe it, I am sorry.
Dr. Mbonye:
I did not pay bonuses to soldiers ....... .
Justice Porter:
So you are prepared to say that these bonuses were not paid?
Dr. Mbonye:
I did not pay bonuses to soldiers ..... .
Justice Porter:
Right. So paragraph 116 alleging that bonuses paid to 10,000 soldiers in the DRC is
incorrect and irrelevant, is that right?
34
URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Dr. Mbonye:
I look at it that way My Lord. It is incorrect.
Justice Porter:
I don't care how you look at it, I want some evidence please, is that paragraph ...
Dr.Mbonye:
I did not pay ...
Justice Porter:
Incorrect and irrelevant so far as your Ministry is concemed?
Dr.Mbonye:
YesMyLord
Justice Porter:
Thankyou.
Lead Counsel:
Can you read paragraph 117 please?
Dr. Mbonye:
"On the basis of a rate of $2000 per hour, and six hours on the average for a return
journey, and 3 rotations a day, UPDF spent on average $12.96m per year on transport
alone. ûther expenses for purchases, maintenance and replacement of equipment are
important. According to some sources, Uganda spent $126m on its armedforces in 1999
and over-spending of about $16m. "
This calculation My Lord seems to assume that there were three trips per day on a
joumey of six hours. I would need to calculate this into more detail My Lord - before me
to ascertain that this figure would be correct.
Justice Porter:
The witness wants to do sûme calculations, I think?
Dr.Mbonye:
This My Lord ...
Justice Porter:
Just a minute, I think we will retire and let him doit and corne backing 20 minutes.
Lead Counsel:
Much obliged My Lord.
URAnne:x62
35
25/7/01 (1)
After 20 minutes
Justice Porter:
Y ou said that you wanted to do your own calculations, and you said that there was an
assumption that there were three rotations a day - six hours for a returnjourney. That's
what the Panel said. Y ou had a chance to look at all this?
Dr. Mbonye:
Y es I did My Lord - the calculation here My Lord states that there was a $2000 charge
per hour for a retum journey of six hours and three rotations in a day. That would corne
to about -first of all that cornes to about 18 hours per day. ffyou consider that they
would first load the aircraft, and I recall they would load until about 10.00 o'clock, 11.00
o 'clock before departure, and at the same time they were not supposed to retum at night
from what I recall, it would not be true that they would fly at night. It was not true that
they would use 18 hours in one day. They would definitely use less. And they
wouldn't ....
Justice Porter:
Right. So you what are saying that the calculation ..... îs quite wrong?
Dr.Mbonye:
It's wrong My Lord.
Justice Porter:
And it is shown to be wrong by the figures which you've been producing to us?
Dr. Mbonye:
Yes My Lord, because it also assumes that they were flying three trips per day for 365
days in a year. I recall that they were not flying everyday. And even when they flew,
from what I recall, it would be difficult for them to make two trips in a day; not even
three. So the calculations My Lord in that provision is quite wrong. In 117.
Justice Porter:
Thankyou
Lead Counsel:
The last sentence
36
URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Dr. Mbonye:
My Lord the paragraph reads ...
Lead Counsel:
Maybe not the whole paragraph. Ifyou could oead the second Iast sentence which is the
fourth line from the bottom of that paragraph?
Dr. Mbonye:
lt is not quite eligible in this document.
Lead Counsel:
Okay
Justice Porter:
lndeed part of the funds go ...
Lead Counsel:
My Lord that paragraph, yes, refers to taxes
Justice Porter:
A ... tax collection?
Lead Counsel:
YesMyLord
Justice Porter:
Is that what you want?
Lead Counsel:
That's correct My Lord
Dr.Mhonye:
That sentence reads as follows My Lord:
"In the case of the former RCD~ML and MLC, not on/y was part of the taxes was sent to
Kampala, but also îndividual colonels wouid claim direct payment from RCD-ML."
I never received any taxes in the Ministry of Defence froro these institutions My Lord.
Lead Counsel:
Paragraph 135
Dr.Mbonye:
The paragraph reads as follows My Lord:
"Uganda, unlike Rwanda did not set up an extra budgetary system ta finance its presence
in the DRC The regular defence budget is used, and broadly the deficit is handled by the
39
URAnnex62
25/7/01 (1)
Treasury. However the Ugandan economy benefited from the .conjlict through the reexportation
economy. ln turn, the Treasury benefited and this al/owed an increase in the
Defence budget. "
Lead Counsel:
Okay, I think that's the part we are interested in. I amjust asking you to confinn. I think
you may have said thîs before ~ about the deficit. How the deficit was catered for.
Dr.Mbonye:
My Lord the deficit was covered by- this was in 1989/1990 when we had a big overrun
because we had not budgeted for the operations, and we were covered by the Ministry of
Finance.
Lead Counsel to Judges:
My Lords I don't have any more questions unless the Commissioners do have some
questions for the witness.
Justice Porter:
That would be by a supplementary budget, wouldn't it?
Dr.Mbonye:
Y es My Lord. Sorne of this would corne in as supplementary budget and some of it
would be handled through domestic arrears. In other words, it would be paid from the
following Financial Year. In both cases it would corne from the MinistryofFinance.
Justice Porter:
Yes.
Right. And thank you very much for your assistance. We are very grateful to you for
sparing your time. Wewould adjourn to ...
Lead Counsel:
2.30MyLord
Justice Porter:
There is another witness?
Lead Counsel:
YesMyLord
Dr.Mbonye:
Thank you My Lord.
40 URAnnex62
URAnnex63
Excerpted testimony of
Gen. Katumba Wamala
before the Porter Commission
25 July 2001
URANNEX63
Justice D. Porter:
Yes, the witness to be sworn, please?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
25/7/01 (1)
I, Katumba Wamala, Major General, solemnly swear that, the evidence I shall give, about
the matters before this Commission, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the .truth. So, help me God.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you. Sit down.
Lead Counsel:
Can you give the commission your full names, please?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
My full names are Edward Katumba W amala.
1 am a Major General, by ranlc.
Lead Counsel:
And where do you reside?
Major General Katumba Wamalà:
I reside in Mukono, in a village calledNabuti.
Lead Counsel:
And what is your present status as far as employment is concerned?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
I am presently the Inspector General of Police, of the Uganda Police Forces.
Lead Counsel:
Can you also give the commission your age, please?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
I am 45 years old.
Justice J.P. Berko:
45?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
45, yes.
URAnne:x63
25/7/01 (1)
Lead Counsel:
Now, what were your duties before you took up that post? Where were you employed
before you took up that post?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Before I took up the present appointment I was in the DRC as the head of the operations
sector.
Justice D. Porter:
As a what?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
As Operations' Commander of Operations Sector.
Lead Counsel:
And that was from which date to which date?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
I was from early August 2000 to April 2001.
Lead Counsel:
And before this date had you been involved in UPDF operations in the DRC?
Major General Katumba Wamala;
I was involved partly but not in the operations, if I could talk a little bit. In 1997 I was
operating in West Nile, as the Operations' Commander of West Nile Operations. And so
it happened that ....
Lead Counsel:
You need to go a bit slowly.
Major Generai Katumba Wamaïa:
And at that time "we were operating against West Nile Bank Front. This is a rebel group
in West Nile. And time and again this rebel group used to launch attacks on the areas of
Arua. Especially in the areas ofMaracha, ...
Justice D. Porter:
Oh, wait a minute.
Especially, in the areas of?
URAnnex63
2
25/7/01 (1)
Major General Katumba Wamala:
At that time, my instructions were that, already the Lusaka agreement had been signed
and I also had to ensure that the Lusaka agreement is not violated, and that we defend
what was in the Lusaka agreement. And at the time I went there, there was a threat on
Gbadolite itself, from Kabila forces.
Justice D. Porter:
Threat, from whom?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
From the Kahila forces, from the Congolese or Kabila forces.
Lead Counsel:
Now, during the time you were there was any assistance, by way of military assistance,
given to the rebels in the Congo?
Did the UPDF render any military support to them?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
In terms of combat?
Lead Counsel:
In terms of combat, yes.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Not really.
Justice D. Porter:
What do you mean by "Not really "?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Well, we were not involved in combat with them. For us, our main concern was
protecting. If you realize most of those places, what is there, are the big airports, and
that's where all our troops were concentrated. For us we were securing those supply
lines.
Lead Counsel:
Now, in thfa handover report, that you were given when you took over, was there
anything as far as the discipline of the troops in the Congo îs concemed?
URAnne:x:63
14
25/7/01 (1)
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Yes, the instructions were that we had to have very, very strict control over the troops.
And this was right from the Commander in Chief And that the operational Code of
conduct would apply to any member of the force, who would act in a manner that would
bring disrepute to the force.
Lead Counsel:
So, what I am asking is, in that report, were there any incidents that were reported to you
of indiscipline or any areas of which you should be particularly careful in the report?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
No.
Lead Counsel:
So, what steps did you take, having taken over to ensure that you would have discipline?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
First of all, when I took over I called, all my sector commanders in the different sectors,
and we went over what was expected of us and I told them why we were there. And that
was for our national interest. That's why we were in Congo. And whatever we were to
do was to be in line with protecting our national interest, which was our national security.
And that was all.
Lead Counsel:
During your time you were there, did you have any incidents, where UPDF troops got
involved in business?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Not as a force.
Lead Counsel:
Not as a force.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Yah.
Lead Counsel:
Did you have any incidence, where they got involved as individuals?
URAnnex63
15
25/7/01 (1)
activity. The areas where mîning activity are the areas of Isiro and Watsa, where I never
went. So, I can't say whether there was any movement of minerais from Congo ornot.
Lead Counsel:
Now also during this time, the rebel forces, that is the RCD, were probably collecting
taxes, on various transactions in their area of operation. Were any of the proce~s of
these taxes paid to the UPDF or to any of the Colonels directly, individual Colonels
directly?
Major General Katmnba Wamala:
Not that I know of, because for us, ail our requirements were coming from Kampala.
What we couldn't get, like the time when food became very bulky to carry, we were all
given our ration cash allowance and we used to buy food locally, on the ground. So we
never relied on the tax collections of the rebel groups. I was getting my operational fund
directly from my ... at the army headquarters. So we never relied on the tax collectîon.
This was purely, their own management.
Lead Counsel:
I was particularly referring actually, to paragraph 68.
Justice D. Porter:
I forgot to ask before, and I do not think I would bave got an answer; how much was this
ration allowance?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
It was 510 Shs. per person per day, which was converted in dollars here and then sent to
us.
Justice D. Porter:
What was that in dollars?
Major General Katnmba Wamala:
Eight dollars.
Justice D. Porter:
Eight dollars?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Yes. That's what it came to in total.
URAnnex63
24
Justice D. Porter:
And senior officers were not expected to eat any more thanjunior officers?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
No, in the UPDF, we all have the same rations.
Justice D. Porter:
So, you are looking at paragraph what?
Lead Counsel:
60, My Lord.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Do I have to read that paragraph?
Lead Counsel:
25/7/01 (1)
No, you can respond to it because the question we are going to ask you is basically, what
we were trying to find out, if there were any direct payments to Colonels and whether
these taxes being raised were being used to finance or support the whole effort as alleged
in that paragraph.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Whether they have been used to support the rebels?
Lead Counsel:
Both for the rebels and the payments to UPDF?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Well, as I said, we had no business in what they were collecting, their taxes, and how
they were using them. We didn't have any hand in that. And we were not at all involved
in the collectîon and use of taxes.
Lead Counsel:
Now, there were aircraft coming from Entebbe to the Congo, and you told us that most of
these aircrafts were bringing logistics, were there anything on these aircrafts, not related
to military?
URAnnex63
25
25/7/01 (2)
Major General Katumba Wamala:
They had their own way of doing business. They had their own way of supplying their
· own troops. They had their way of getting their logistics. We didn't manage their
logistics at all.
Lead Counsel:
Now, during the time you were there, in the Congo, did you make any administrative
appointments? Local administration.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Local Administration?
Lead Counsel:
Yah.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
No.
Justice J.P. Berko:
Congolese people.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Congolese people?
No, not at all.
Justice D. Porter:
Why not? Why would you not do that?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
My orders never told me to go out there and appoint leaders for the Congolese people,
because it is not part ofmy mission.
Lead Counsel:
Did you know ofa gentleman called Roger Lumbala?
Justice D. Porter:
Which paragraph?
Lead Counsel:
Paragraph 180, My Lord.
29
URAnnex63
25/7/01 (2)
Look at that.
May be you can read that loud. What I am asking you is that you went into the Congo in
2000 August?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Now, ifyou look at that, it talks about an incident, which occurred in October.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
The Nia, Nia confrontation?
Lead Counsel:
Called the Nia, Nia confrontation.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Can you teB us whether that confrontation ever took place, and in what nature was that?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Actually this was, there was no UPDF involved in that confrontation. What happened
was that a gentleman called Roger Lumbala, I think was one of the people on leadership
in RCD, had kind of fallen out with Wamba dia Wamba, and the RCD main stream. So
he tried to attack Wamba dia Wamba's forces, which were guarding that Nia Nia Bridge.
And the UPDF's response was to deny them the clashing, and we advîsed them to sit on
the table ai.,d solve their differences, poiiticaliy.
Justice D. Porter:
So, what did UPDF do?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
UPDF separated the two groups. And we advised the leadership to sit down and solve
their problem, politically.
Lead Counsel:
Were there UPDF troops on bath sides of this conflict?
URAQnex 63 30
Major General Katuinba Wamala:
No, not on both sides.
Lead Counsel:
So, maybe you can show a bit of more light to that.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
This kind of clashes ...
Lead Counsel:
25/7/01 (2)
You were supporting actually UPDF as, you were supporting both sides, as it were
before, we were supporting Wamba as well as, I don't know about Roger Lumbala.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Yes, that's what I am saying that Roger Lumbala was one of the leaders in ROC. Then
he fell out and he had a small group. So he tried to attack Wamba dia Wamba's forces.
This kind of clashes was common, in the areas of Bunia and even when in Buta. And
Wamba tried to fight, again we had to corne and stop the fighting. So it was one of those
occasions.
Lead Counsel:
This area is supposed to be rich in Coltan. You know the meaning of Coltan?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
I have heard about Coltan but I have never seen it with my eyes. And that's one area,
which is, it's kind ofremote area on Isiro road.
Lead Counsel:
And so this conflict, according to you, was not about Coltan? Not about the deposits of
Coltan in that area, Bafwasende and the Nia-Nia area?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
That area Nia Niais very far from Bafwasende. It's not near Bafwasende. But these
conflicts were mainly; I think it was a kind of Leadership in the RCD.
URAnnex63
31
25/7/01 (2)
Justice J.P. Berko:
If you read this one, they are saying, that the conflict was rather between UPDF Kazini
and Roger Lumbala, and they fought another group of UPDF, for the control of these
mine areas.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
My Lordship, at that time General Kazini was out of Congo. Was long out of Congo.
W as not commanding that force.
Justice D. Porter:
He was the over all Commander, wasn't it?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
No, he wasn't. By that tirne he wasn't overall Commander. General Kazini was already
in the Western side. He was commanding the operations agaînst ADF.
Justice J.P. Berko:
So what they are saying in the report that the confrontation was rather between Kazini's
group and another group of UPDF, cannot be true?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
Y our Lordship, it cannot be true. I am teUing you because I moved into Bunia and we sat
down with Mr. W amba that time when this conflict, and the one which followed, the one
of Mbusa when those two came out, I moved into Bunia and we sat down with Mr.
Wamba, and we advised that you sit down with your leadership and solve these wrangles,
instead of each one of you resorting to unseat the other by force. It had nothing to do
with Kazini.
J usfü:e D. Porter:
So, this paragraph is nonsense. It cornes from nowhere.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
In my own opinion Sir, I know what was on the ground, having been there at that time,
this paragraph is misplaced. It' s not true.
Justice D. Porter:
Alright.
URAnnex63
32
25/7/01 (2)
Lead Counsel:
Paragraph 180.
They are training different Hema and Lendu, and manipulating those groups to fight each
other. And they also mentioned Colonel Peter Kerim, assisting in training the Lendus.
Did the UPDF ever get involved in training these separate groups?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
No, but by the time I went to Congo, Lt. Col. Kyakabale, Aroja and Col. Kerim were not
in Congo. So I can't say whether they did the training, I can't answer for them. But I
didn't see the evidence ofthis.
Lead Counsel:
What I was trying to find out whether it was a policy, but îfit was a policy, even if they
had gone it would have continued when you were there.
Major General Katumba Wamala:
No, it wasn't a policy.
Lead Counsel:
Now, you have heard of this UN panel report, which you've just been looking at. W ere
you ever summoned by this panel to be înterviewed?
Major General Katumba Wamala:
No, I just heard about the panel. I was never summoned by the panel.
Lead Counsel:
I don't have more questions unless the commissioners have some more.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you very much for your assistance. I don't think we shall need you actually, îf we
do you may respond. But for this summons you are released. Thank you for help.
Lead Counsel:
My Lords, I have no more witnesses fortoday.
I do have a witness tomorrow, and I do believe it is a short witness.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you very much.
We adjoum to 9 o'clock tomorrow moming.
35
URAnnex63
URAnnex64
Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Ralph Ochan
before the Porter Commission
27 July 2001
Part A
URANNEX64
Witness: Ralph Ochan CW/01/07
Justice D. Porter:
Good morning everybody.
Mr.Ochan:
27/7/01 (1)
I Ochan Ralph solemnly swear that the evidence I shall give about the rnatters before this
Commission shall be the truth, the whole tnith and nothing but the truth so help me God.
Lead Counsel:
Can you give the Commission your full narnes please?
Mr. Qchan:
My full narnes are Ralph Ochan
Lead Counsel:
And what is your age?
Mr. Ocban:
53,myLord.
Lead Counsel:
Can you tell us where you reside.
Mr. Ochan:
I reside at Plot 9 Martyrs lane in Ntinda Kampala.
Lead Counsel:
Where do you work and what is your profession?
Mr. Ocban:
Currently I am the Permanent Secretary Ministry ofForeign Affairs.
Lead Counsel:
For purposes of this Commission l will ask you what your profession is or what you are
by training.
Mr.Ocban:
I am a Lawyer by profession I practice in Foreign Services.
1 URAnnex64
27/7/01 (1)
Lead Counsel:
You have said you are the Pennanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Services, is
that correct?
Mr. Ochan:
YesmyLord.
Lead Counsel:
For how long have you been in this post?
Mr. Ochan:
Since September 1998.
Lead Counsel:
What are your duties?
Mr. Ochan:
I am responsible for the supervision of our Foreign Policy Institutions those at home and
abroad. Also I am the Principal Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Aff airs on matters of
Foreign Policy.
Justice J.P. Berko:
I presume you are also the Accounting Officer Sir.
Mr. Ocban:
Yes indeed I am also the Accounting Officer, sorry my Lord.
Lead Counsel:
In your ministry who is responsible for communications and correspondence, for
example, with the United Nations.
Mr. Ochan:
I am responsible for that.
Lead Counsel:
And communications with for example the UN Security Council.
Mr. Ochan:
Yes I am responsible for communications for UN Security Council.
URAnnex64
2
27/7/01 (1)
Lead Counsel:
Now I will take you to the period in 1996 and I appreciate that you were not in the office
at that time but I assume you have updated yourself with your records. Are you aware
when the Uganda People Defence Forces first entered the Democratic Republic of
Congo?
Mr. Ochan:
I have established that on the record.
Lead Counsel:
So can you tell us when that was please?
Mr. Ochan:
By an agreement dated 27th of April 1998 the form ofunderstanding was reached by the
governrnent of the DRC and the government ofUganda on the deployment of the UPDF
inside the DRC.
Lead Counsel:
When was that? When did the troops enter Congo from your records or from your
recollection?
Mr. Ochan:
From my recollection it would have been prior to the day when this agr.eement was
signed.
Lead Counsel:
So this document you are referring to is' what decrees the stay in Co9go?
Mr. Ochan:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
I would like you to look at this document and inform the Commission whether this is the
document you are referring to. Exhibit SBK 1/3.
Mr. Ocban:
Y es, my Lord this is the document I am referring to.
3
URAnnex:64
27/7/0l (1)
Lead Counsel:
So this was the legal basis. So prior to that, are you aware of the time the UPDF first
went to the Congo?
Mr. Ochan:
No I have no recollection of the precise date.
Lead Counsel:
Would you be able to re-collect the year?
Mr.Ochan:
I can re-collect in broad terms the timing. I may recall that there was a rebellion in DRC
and by the Congolese Patriots against the regime of Mobutu. I will have to check with
my records and give the Commission the precîse date and time when the rebellion began.
I believe that it would have been at the end of the rebellion when a new regime was
established in Congo that negotiations started with that regime which resulted in this
document. So the UPDF would have entered around that time.
Lead Counsel:
During the course of this rebellion was the UPDF inside the Democratic Republic of
Congo?
Mr.Ochan:
I cannot say I am confident to speak: on that. I have a general idea my task in this business
has been strictly on the diplomatie end ofthis.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. We go back to the protocol. Now you have said that this was the legal basis for
our entering in Congo.
Mr. Ochan:
YesmyLord.
Lead Counsel:
Which provision in that protocol would you say there was permission to go and enter the
Congo?
URA.nnex64 4
27/7/01 (1)
Mr. Ocban:
First of all my Lord this document was if you like negotîated by representatives who
work under tremendous pressure at the time to deal with the terrible situation that existed
between around the common borders.
Lead Counsel:
I am sorry to interrupt the question is simple, which provision in the protocol was used to
enter the Congo? If you can answer that one then you can explain.
Mr.Ocban:
As you can see from the document my Lord it is not even numbered but I would say at
the bottom of page one, the two security services concurred in strengthening cooperation
in the common word. That is the broad provision that provided for our operations.
Lead Counsel:
Could you please read that one now for us.
Mr. Ocban:
I will read the last two paragraphs. "The two parties recognized the existence of enemy
groups which operate on either side of the common border. Consequently the two armies
agreed to cooperate in order to ensure security and peace around their common
borders".
Justice D. Porter:
And the next one.
Mr.Ochan:
And the next one, "the two security services concu"ed .to strengthening their
cooperation ".
Justice D. Porter:
Our problem has been first of all we see an agreement to cooperate to ensure security and
peace around the common border. We see no provision to cross that border and that has
been a problem for us.
Mr.Ochan:
My Lord the problem was ultimately addressed on signatory on the 10th of July by the
Heads of States of the region in the Lusaka cease-fire agreement.
5 URAnne~64
27/7/01 (1)
Justice D. Porter:
Y es we will corne to this in due course: that was April 1999 and immediately before or
immediately after this Protocol OPDF stationed three battalions in Congo, there is no
question when that happened. Is there any provision in the Protocol for that to be done?
Mr.Ochan:
Y ou have to read the Protocol very boldly my Lord. And if you like I will give you the
background to the provision that I have just read out.
Justice D. Porter:
The background is irrelevant we want you to reduce to an agreed document. I suppose all
sorts of things go wrong but it is the contract that we will look at and this is the
International document but it does not seem to say anything about crossing the border. I
can understand if the Congolese army is the one at the border and the UPDF on the other
side, they could agree to cooperate with the information while guarding the border so that
rebels from one side did not cross the border, I can understand that. But what I cannot
understand is the UPDF going to the Congo. Could you put it the other way, did the
Congo army corne to Uganda?
Mr. Ochan:
Not to the best of my knowledge.
Justice D. Porter:
Not to the best of ours either. If you look at article 51 of the charter it is very plain the
borders should not be crossed without certain conditions being observed and the purposes
of the protocol between two countries will be to comply with those conditîons. I would
say precisely it was agreed.
Mr. Ochan:
The circumstances my Lord under which the agreement was written must be ta,ken into
account in trying to interpret it in terms of the roots of the Public International Law.
There is a whole volume of the argument that our submission are prepared in the case
which is now before the International Court of Justice on this matter, I would not wish to
go into those arguments but I can show you that the point is addressed.
Justice D. Porter:
Wejust really wanted the explanation of the problem.
URAnnex64 6
27/7/01 (1)
Mr. Ochan:
My explanation of the problem is really straightforward, therewere incursions in Uganda,
schools were bumt down, school children were killed, 83 of them were bumt in
Kicwamba, there was a massive invasion at Mpondwe. So this agreement meant that in
effect the UPDF was permitted to ensure that they go to the root cause, to the homes, to
the bases of these perpetrators of this on the western border. This is the background my
Lorçl.
Justice J.P. Berko:
Mr. Ochan, you see before this protocol was negotiated or was agreed upon, Congolese
had security concems in their area and Uganda had security concems in their area. Now
fill in these agreements Uganda had been in Congo but Congolese had not been in
Uganda. So the way you see it is that Congolese interpreted to mean that they have to be
in their country to secure the border there and then UPDF will be on our side to secure
the border.
Mr. Ochan:
That is not correct my Lord.
Justice J.P. Berko:
What did this mean?
Mr.Ochan:
First of all the reason it was easy for rebels to cross over into U ganda and hum down
schools and kill school children because there was no effective administration in the
eastem part of the Congo. The basis of this agreement is that UPDF would cross over
and maintain Law and order and make sure that the homes where the rebels were found
and Congolese stayed free, the problem was addressed by our own troops my Lord it is
common knowledge that the DRC did not have any effective administration and that
explains why rebels could have corne and could train there, could fly equipment there to
cross into Uganda and cause extermination. The Congolese recognized this and allowed
our people. The problem was in the homes of the rebellion where the rebels committed .
murder in the eastem part of the DRC.
7
URAnne:x:64
Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Ralph Ochan
before the Porter Commission
27 July 2001
PartB
URAnnex64
Justice D. Porter:
And what was the position with regard to private people living in Congo.
Ochan:
27/7/01 (2)
Y ou know my Lord there has been trade in this central part of the region since before
these countries were established. And nobody absolutely says; tbat is illegal or that is
unl~wful. The people in the Eastern Congo have been buying and selling from their
bretbren in Uganda, in Sudan, in Rwanda. Nobody bas suggested that this trade is
unlawful, nobody bas suggested that there is something wrong with this. I know for a
fact that manufactured products the major exports and imports of Eastern Congo all
transit tbrough Uganda and through Kenya through the port of Mombasa. It is impossible
for them to go through Kinshasha because of transport difficulty, this has been a well
established way of trade for the population of the Eastern part of Congo. To the best of
my knowledge there are no manufacturing establishments in the Eastern parts of Congo
for even the most basic commodity. Somebody has to sell it to them. In fact my
President said it is unpatriotic to allow Africans in one area to starve because some
resolution says you should not trade with them, the resolution is anti-people.
Lead Counsel:
Mr. Ochan taking you back to this resolution you have confinned of course what the
Commander in Chief said. My concentration was the political side and the diplomatie
side, had you by this time received any reports that here is your country, your country is
exploiting the DRC natural resources.
Ochan:
No, we were bit by this resolution. The final establishment of the panel is the
culmination of the process.
Lead Counsel:
Now you also realized that soon before this resolution, that the Kisangani clashes
occurred and this resolution at the same time does condernn that particular clash hetween
Rwandan and Ugandan forces in Kisangani in the DRC wbich begun on 5th June 2000.
Do you recall these clashes?
7 URAnnex64
Ochan:
Attachment one is the Congolese Ietter.
Justice J.P. Berko:
27/7/01 (2)
Attachment one is the Congolese letter. Okay. And I believe attachment two is the UN
resolution.
Ocban:
Yes.
Justice J.P. Berko:
What was the attachment one about?
Ochan:
He was complaining that the Security Council has not done enough to condemn Uganda
and Rwanda.
Justice J.P. Berko:
This was the Congo representative and representing the government of the DRC.
Ocban:
Yes.
Justice J.P. Berko:
So this was now a complaint by the DRC to the UN about Uganda.
Ochan:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Can you look at page 2 of that document (attachment one), paragraph 2. Can you read it
please.
Ocban:
What used to be described as a war triggered by security concerns of Rwanda and
Uganda has now clearly proven today to be a war for the control of gold, diamonds,
timber and other natural resources of the Democratic Republîc of Congo by both
Rwanda and Uganda.
URAnnex64 14
27/7/01 (2)
Lead Counsel:
Did your Ministry make a response on receiving this because the allegations now were in
black and white from the DRC itself to the UN security.
Ocban:
I think by now the panel had already been established but the Congolese wrote these
letters as the matter of their daily work to UN in keeping with their strategy of ensuring
that the real problem that needs to be addressed is obscured. There is this lettering every
single day of the week, you cannot really respond to all of it, you just focus on the real
work at hand mainly trying to live up to the obligations we committed ourselves to under
Lusaka. But you cannot respond to every accusation, in fact in open meeting we don't
even respond to the insults and abuses of the Congolese representatives because it is not
helpful to sît there and try to respond to everything they say. But of course you realize in
the end our own Head of State could no longer take these insults anymore and made the
drastic decision.
Lead Counsel:
Which drastic decision are you referring to?
Ocban:
To pull out of Congo, completely and the same Security Council would dance around and
write to you and say please don't doit because it is going to cause more problems than to
solve problems, stick to Lusaka.
Lead Counsel:
But it was Uganda's obligation under the Lusaka Agreement actually to withdraw.
Ochan:
According to the timetable drawn out here.
Lead Counsel:
So it was not really a drastic decision.
Ochan:
It was, to withdraw outside the context of the Agreement, that was the decision.
Lead Counsel:
There is a letter which has been mentioned by another witness, who wrote this letter?
15 URAnnex64
Ochan:
It is the Secretary General who wrote it.
Lead Counsel:
Do you have a copy?
Ochan:
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
What is the date ofthat letter?
Lead Counsel:
My Lord it is dated 4th May 2001.
Justice D. Porter:
From where?
Lead Counsel:
27/7/01 (2)
From the Secretary General of the United Nations, Koffi Annan. And you were saying
that this letter was asking what?
Ochan:
To stay engaged within the Lusaka Peace Agreement.
Justice D. Porter:
Engaged with who?
Ochan:
Within the peace process, within the context of the Lusaka peace Agreement.
Justice D. Porter:
Mr. Ochan what I read here is to engage with the International Community and the
United Nations in particular, and the paragraph says; Can you read it please.
Ochan:
Can I read it out? "At this particularly sensitive and delicate stage in the DRC peace
process, I believe it is crucial that Uganda and ail the other signatories to the Lusaka
agreement stay Jully engaged with the International Community and the United Nations
in particular ".
URAnnex64 16
27/7/01 (2)
Justice D. Porter:
Fully engaged with the International Community and the United Nations in particular.
Ochan:
Indeed because the United Nations adopted the Lusaka peace Agreement.
As together we seek to consolidate the recent positive trends in the DRC. I am confident
of your commitment to search for peace in the DRC. In this regard I wish to encourage
you to continue with the withdrawal of Ugandan troops in the context of the
disengagement process.
Ochan:
But what our President had announced was incomplete the unilateral withdrawal outside
the disengagement process, outside Kampala and Harare disengagement plan. So that îs
the incomplete departure from the agreement. Can he say don't depart from the
agreement.
Justice D. Porter:
And the agreement requires you to stay.
Ocban:
To withdraw as per the disengagement plan and surpass all the parties.
Justice D. Porter:
They don't call a spade a spade.
Ochan:
They usuaUy don't.
Justice J.P. Berko:
So I take ît that it is on the basis of this letter that Uganda is still in DRC.
Ochan:
W ell as you know the Army Council, the High Command, the Cabinet and Parliament all
resolved that we should stay within the process under the Agreement. In other words the
Secretary General managed to persuade them to side with him.
Justice D. Porter:
Withdrawal had taken place, hadn't it?
URAnnex64
17
Ochan:
Y es, but within the Lusaka.
Justice D. Porter:
That was 79 kms or something, actually on the way home.
Ochan:
Y es, that is still very much with in the disengagement plan.
Justice D. Porter:
27/7/01 (2)
What we were told by UPDF Army Officers was that in fact the forces withdrew (UPDF)
from ail except over three sites and those sites were on the border, the northem parts of
the Rwenzori.
Ochan:
That is right.
JusticeD. Porter:
Is that what you understand to be the situation?
Ochan:
I understand it to be so because the other aspects of the Agreement are also now
beginning to move. The preparation for the dialogue is going on, President Masire bas
been allowed to corne in to the villages in the DRC, and our friends in Ministry of
Defence have reported that they have made progress in ensuring that the safe havens for
perpetrators of crime are no longer made available to them. So basically the
circumstances from their perspective is probably most right for this process to even move
a little faster than they would have been tmder the Lusaka plan.
URAnnex64
18
Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Ralph Ochan
before the Porter Commission
27 July 2001
Parte
URAnneJ:64
27/7/01 (3)
Lead Counsel:
Lastly on this particular letter from the Permanent Mission you will notice on page 3 that;
the DRC Permanent Mission recommends adoption of sanctions against Rwanda and
Uganda for the systematic plundering of Congolese natural resources which is the reason
for their allegation against RCD. And you have also told us you did not bother to
respond to all this.
Ocban:
We worked more within the contacts of the Security Council to ensure that the resolution
that came out on the establishing of the panel did not include items on sanctions.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. We can leave this matter atone. You have looked at the report of the panel.
Ocban:
Yeslhave.
Lead Counsel:
Were you at anytime interviewed by the panel prior to this report?
Ocban:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
What was the nature of your interview or your meeting with them?
Ochan:
The panel did not seem to know what they wanted. They wanted to meet with ministers
and exchange views with them. They had no work programme, they had no prepared
text, they did not even seem to k:now really their terms of reference. So we encouraged
them to organize themselves better to try and draw up a work programme that addressed
their mandate and to talk to people in this country and elsewhere whom we thought
would be able to provide them the kind of the information they needed. So we placed at
the disposai ofthe panel the complete array of technical and political leadership in this
country. They met with all officiais that remotely had anything to do with trade, with
minerals, with our economic policy, with our economic situation, with our file of
1
URAnnex64
2ïlïiûi (3)
resources in and outside. I am sure my Lord we offered complete and unreserved
cooperation to the panel. They met at the end of the day the Head of State, the army at
least offered them free transport to those parts of the DRC where we were. They
declined to take this, even when they lefl we again wrote to them and said; if you want to
corne back and go to visit the areas in question we are still prepared but they did not
respond. We offered complete and unreserved assistance to the panel. We answered all
the questions that they put to us both in interviews and in a written form.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Y ou have now probably read the report.
Ochan:
I have read it.
Lead Counsel:
So my question was, what was your reaction.
Ochan:
My reaction is that these people must have written their report before they came here.
They did not talk to us. I know for a fact that when they Ianded in Harare they were met
by a second Secretary, in Namibia they were not even met by anybody. So they don 't
have any cooperation at aH, those countries did not even receive a paragraph. We
answered all the questions, we received the Ioudest condemnation, it's an incredible
method ofwork.
Lead Counsel:
Did you as the Government ofUganda ever make a formai reaction to their report?
Ochan:
We did, I hope you have a copy of our formai response my Lord if you don't have it I
think we will avait it to the Commission. We made a formai response and presented it to
the Security Council and that resulted in the Security Council calling on the panel to
revisit its work and as my Lord you know a panel has been reconstituted under a new
Chairperson, I can't remember the gentleman's name but he is an Egyptian National, who
is now going to chair the panel, I suppose we shall cooperate with them again.
URAnnex64
2
27/7/01 (3)
Lead Counsel:
My Lord I do believe there should not be any need to attend this response I will seek
advice whether I will need to exhibit the response, the Government response.
Justice D. Porter:
I don't think it should be exhibited but I think Mr. Ochan shouldjust look at it and tell us
the. details of the response.
Lead Counsel:
And the gist of that response is what you have already told us.
Ochan:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
We will be grateful if at some point you can send us an unmarked copy.
Ochan:
I will be happy to do that.
Justice D. Porter:
And Mr. Ochan one of the problems this Co:mmission has is that; in the panel report,
there were all sorts of sources, reliable sources .and very reliable sources that were meant
to settle these things, but we have actually no idea who these sources are and whether
they are able to talk to us and whether we have any to chance to call them before us. This
is extremely difficult and Ijust wanted to put that on record because itis very bard for us
to be able to say that with the exception of one or two names that specific people were
supposed to have done specific things at specific tîme, it is very difficult. And as you
know a Commission like this can only rely on swom evidence. It may hear of all sorts of
things. But unless somebody is prepared to corne here and give evidence we in our report
cannot I think take any notice of that; I think you have understood the situation.
Ochan:
That is entîrely correct my Lord, I can only add that if there are reliable sources that do
not wish to give you evidence here, we will try to do what we can so they can give you
evidence wherever they feel safe to give you evidence.
3
URAnnex64
URAnnex65
Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Amama Mbabazi
before the Porter Commission
2 August 2001
Part A
URANNEX65
02/08/01
Amama Mbabazi:
1, Amama Mbabazi, solemnly swear that the evidence I shall give about the matters
before this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So
help me God.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you. You may have a seat. Please sit down.
This is still Brief One now?
Lead Counsel:
Brief One, My Lord.
Justice D. Porter:
The witness number is what?
Lead Counsel:
lt is 1/8, 1 believe. C1/8.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes, carry on.
Lead Counsel:
Right. Can you give the Commission your full names, please?
Amama Mbabazi:
Amama Mbabazi.
Lead Counsel:
And how old are you?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 am fifty-two (52).
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Where do you reside?
Amama Mbabazi:
URAnnex65
ln Kololo, Kampala. Kololo, Kampala.
Lead Counsel:
And what is ta your occupation?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 am Minister of Defence, of Uganda.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
And what post did you hold prior ta that?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 was Minister-of-State for Foreign Affairs in charge of regional cooperation.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
And for how long did you hold that post?
Amama Mbabazi:
Nearly three years, very close to three years.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsei:
Can you give a specific ... ? From around which date? Which year to which year?
Amama Mbabazi:
02/08/ûî
1 think I wasappointed, 1 am not sure whether it was 29th or 31 st of July, 1998. 1 took over
the Ministry on 2nd August, 1998, three years ago exactly, today.
Justice O. Porter:
So it is. Yes?
2
URAnnex65
02/08/01
Amama Mbaba:z:i:
So these were known to us, and since it was the Rwandese who were involved in Congo
directly, we introduced these to the Rwanda Government; and the Rwanda
Government, which in turn, had contact with ....
Justice D. Porter:
Wait. Vou are going tao fast. There are all sorts of things that we have to ask you about.
Since it was the Rwandese invotved in Congo directly, you said, what?
Amama Mbaba:z:i:
We introduced these groups, Kabila and Kisasse, to Rwanda Government. The Rwanda
Government ....
Justice D. Porter:
Vou see, that is ....
Amama Mbaba:z:i:
Sarry?
Justice D. Porter:
That is our difficulty at the moment. We are trying to work out whether Uganda was
directly involved in the overthrow of Mobutu; that is what we are trying to work out.
Amama Mbaba:z:I:
No, ....
Justice O. Porter:
And it would be nice if somebody could corne up and say: yes, we were or no, we were
not.
Amama Mbaba;z:i:
No, we were not.
Justice O. Porter:
And it would help us if you were prepared to say we were not involved in the overthrow
of Mobutu. 1s that right?
Amama Mbabazi:
15
URAnnex65
Excerpted testîmony of
Hon. Amama Mbabazî
before the Porter Commission
2 August 2001
PartB
URAnnex6S
02/08/01 (3)
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Justice O. Porter:
Nowthen, ....
Lead Counsel:
They also give you a background if you look at the same paragraph 26.
Justice D. Porter:
"By the time .... "
Lead Counsel:
"By the time the August 1998 .... "
If you could read that one also.
Justice D. Porter:
If you read it out loud.
Lead Counsel:
If you read it aloud.
Justice D. Porter:
lt is probably fair on those who are listening to us, to understand what is going
on.
Lead Counsel:
From the word, "By.,, if you could read that then give your comments.
Amama Mbabazi:
1 thought you would read it.
"By the time the August 1998 war broke out, Rwandans and Ugandans (top
officers and their associates) had a strong sen se of the potential of the natural
resources and their locations in eastern Congo."
Justice D. Porter:
Goon.
URAnnex65
9
02/08/01 (3)
Amama Mbabazi:
"Some historians have argued that Ugandan forces were instrumental in the
conquest of areas such as Wasta, Bunia, Beni and Butembo during the first
war."
Justice D. Porter:
Right. Now is this correct?
Amama Mbabazi:
No. 1 have answered that. lt is absolutely incorrect. lt is wrong; it is false.
Justice D. Porter:
Who actuaHy did conquer ... ? They were conquered, so who did it?
Amama Mbabazi:
The forces which were there; the AFDL, the Rwandese were in Congo. By the
time Kisangani fell there were forces from Angola.
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah?
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Can you read paragraph ... ?
Amama Mbabazi:
But we did not have UPDF.
Justice D. Porter:
ln those areas?
Amama Mbabazi:
ln those areas. Not the UPDF - the army. There was no order that they get
involved at all. 1 hope there were no individuals who were privately involved.
Lead Counsel:
Yeah. Can we move to paragraph 27? If you could kindly read that one also.
Amama Mbabazi:
URAnnex65
10
02/08/01 (3)
1 had read it.
Lead Counsel:
This "Numerous accounts .... "
You had read that one?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 read it aloud. Read it out again.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. No problem.
So what they are saying here is that the reason we entered the conflict in
August '98 - this is now talking about August '98 if you remember - was
defended by some top military officiais who had served in eastern Zaïre during
the first war and had a taste of the business potential. So they are saying that
the reason we actually went there was for purposes of exploiting the business
potential of the region.
Amama Mbabazi;
That is what they are saying, yes. And, of course, it is wrong; it is not true. ln
the first place ....
Justice D. Porter:
But in that they have a problem because, according to your evidence, these
top military officiais did not serve in eastern Zaire, they served in northeastern
Zaïre so far as UPDF is concerned
Amama Mbabazi:
That is right.
Justice D. Porter:
And therefore, would not have had a taste of the business potential of the
region of eastern Zaire?
Amama Mbabazi:
No.
URAnnex6S
11
û2i08/ûi (3)
Justice D. Porter:
That is what your evidence amounts to, .1 think.
Amama Mbabazi:
That is correct.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Now they also talk about eagerness to occupy areas where gold and diamond
mines were located. As you probably know, UPDF later on moved farther
inland into the DRC.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
And they allege that these were areas which were, mostly, where the gold and
diamond mines were located. Now is that statement true that there was
eagerness to occupy these areas? And were these areas occupied?
Amama Mbabazi:
No, it is not true. Our forces advanced in areas where the enemy had a
presence. 1 do not know any place where they went because there were
minerais and there was no enemy present.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Then I will take you to paragraph 28, which is also on the same ~ just
basically on the same. They say that
" ... if security and political reasons were the ones professed by the political
leaders as the motivation to move into the eastern Democratic Republic of
URAnnex65
12
02/08/01 (3)
Congo, some top army officiais clearly had a hidden agenda: economic and
financial objectives."
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
So what they are saying is much as you the politicians may have had security
and political reasons in mind ....
Justice D. Porter:
1 do not think he can help us here because if there was a hidden agenda it
would be hidden from him.
Lead Counsel:
Probably it would be hidden from him.
Justice D. Porter:
And he is one of them, yeah. 1 do not think he can help.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. So let us go back to the main brief.
Amama Mbabazi:
No, but I can comment on it.
Justice D. Porter:
Vou can comment, by all means. 1 did not think you would be able to.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes. 1 can only say like I did at the United Nations that first of all, these are
statements for which there is no evidence to back them up. 1 do not know why
anyone would take them as they are. They are hanging statements, they have
not produced any evidence, credible or not credible actually, to back these
conclusive statements they are making; and really at the United Nations we
simply dismissed them.
URAnnex65
13
û2iû8i0î (3)
rebellion. And we reaUy had to choose what to do because these were the
forces - the same forces - we were operating with against ADF, and we either
had to oppose their mutiny in support of the authority in Kinshasa or take a
neutral stance and let the Congolese resolve their own internai differences.
Justice D. Porter:
Right Could we just slow that down a bit? You were operatîng with what
forces?
Amama Mbabazi:
Pur two battalions in Congo were operating together - jointly.
Justice D. Porter:
With?
Amama Mbabazi:
With the AF ... the Congo Government Force.
Justice D. Porter:
The Congo aïmy, yes.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yeah.
Justice D. Porter:
And then you said what? That they rebelled?
Amama Mbabazi:
Then they mutinied.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes? And then?
Amama Mbabazi:
So we were faced with a situation of mutiny in the whole brigade, not only the
battalions but the whole brigade, and we had to make a decision whether to
go against them, whether to try and put down the mutiny or not; and we chose
not to interfere because we did not think it was our business to do so.
URAnnex6S
21
02/08/01 (3)
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah? Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Now they, of course, later organised themselves into an organisation which
has corne to be known as RCD.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Now did you have any formai arrangement, once they established that
authority, with thein by way of protocol or other agreement?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yeah. When the rebellion broke out, it spread quickly. And although it broke
out in the east, the main fighting and attack came from the west of Congo -
from the port of Matabi side towards Kinshasa; and there were very quick
developments because •... Then there was a regional meeting - there was a
summit on this, then in quick succession, 1 would say, President Kabila flew
into Khartoum and, like his predecessor, forged an alliance with Khartoum to
came to his aid militarily.
So we, therefore, realised that there was greater danger facing us from Congo
than we had originaHy envisaged, with the coming in of the Sudan. There was
intensified supply of arms and deployment of armed rebel groups - Ugandan
rebel groups, some of whom had been trained in Sudan and were flown into
eastern Congo. There was consistent supply mainly from the air, by the
Sudan, of the ADF and a pro-ldi Amin army or armed group that had now
been organised in northeastern Congo as well. So it was obvious that we had
a fight at our hands and we decided therefore, to commit more troops into the
situation in Congo.
Well, of course, by then, the Zimbabwean . . . the Angolan, Namibian and
Zimbabwean forces had been committed ... well, were also sent into Congo.
So a situation - a new situation - had developed, and we decided to respond
to it by sending more forces into Congo. Now that, therefore, we were going to
URAnnex65
22
02i08/01 (3)
have more forces in Congo, it was imperative that we discuss with the other
forces on the ground in Congo, which meant the R ....
Justice D. Porter:
Sorry? lmperative you discuss?
Amama Mbabazi:
lt was imperative that we discuss with the other forces, which were in Congo:
that is, the Rwandese Paîriotic Army and the RCD, in order to have a ciear
understanding about our presence there.
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Which brings ....
Amama Mbabazi:
Now you are asking about a protocol ....
Lead Counsel:
lt brings us back to the question whether you had . . . you put anything to
writing?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 do not remember that we did at that stage. Subsequently, 1 think in
September, a decision was made between Uganda and Rwanda at a summit
here in Kampala, 1 think, that we should closely coordinate our operations in
Congo. And, of course, because already - because of that lack of close
cooperation, we were beginning,to get reports of dîsharmony.
So a Joint Ministerial ... wen, eau it a Joint lnter-Governmental Committee
was established, which I co-chaired with a Rwandese minister, to look into
... well, it had specific references. 1 did not corne with it; 1 can bring it maybe in
future, if you wish. To look into the . . . into operational issues, the question of
administration in areas where we had military presence, and the question of
command during war and code of conduct of our forces while in Congo. And
some .....
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex65
23
02/08/01 (3)
So this was the ....
Amama Mbabazi:
Sorne of these, 1 think, are in writing, but the initial things are not in writing.
Lead Counsel:
So you did sign something with the Rwandese, but what about the RCD
rebels; was anything signed - anything in writing signed?
Amama Mbabazi:
Not to my recollection, net te my immediate recollection.
Lead Counsel:
Are you aware if we gave any active support to the RCD rebels during our
stay in the Congo?
Amama Mbabazi:
Subsequently.
Lead Counsel:
Subsequently?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yeah.
Lead Counsel:
What would be the nature of that support we gave?
Amama Mbabazi:
Well, immediately after the rebellion broke out, as I said, the region tried to
find an answer - tried to resolve the problem. So meetings were held and we
helped the RCD in the process of negotiations: 1 mean, on positions that were
being presented, on ... ; glving them technical expertise in these areas - in the
field of negotiations. Of course, subsequently, they aise developed internai
strife and we tried to bring them together; and, as you know of course, they
eventually ....
Justice D. Porter:
URAnnex6S
24
û2iû8/01 (3j
What Mr. Shonubi is specifically trying to ask you is whether any military
assistance was given to the RCD. ls that right Mr. Shonubi?
Lead Counsel:
That is correct, My Lord.
Amama Mbabazi:
Oh! Not at the beginning, no.
Justice J. P. Berko:
But did you later on give assistance?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes. To the RCD faction called RCD-Kisangani. We trained their forces.
Lead Counsel:
This was the support?
Justice D. Porter:
Oid you get further than that? Military involvement in fighting with the RCD?
Amama Mbabazi:
We trained, 1 said. We trained.
Justice D. Porter:
1 know what you said. 1 am asking you: was there aise ... did UPDF fight on
behalf of RCD?
Amama Mbabazi:
No. Not on behalf ....
Justice O. Porter:
Together with or on behalf of?
Amama Mbabazi:
Together with, yes, but not on their behalf.
Justice D. Porter:
URAnnex65
25
02/08/01 (3)
You can explain that in a minute.
Now what do you mean by that?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 mean that the RCD had an agenda which was different from ours: Ours was
restricted to taking action which was calculated to defend ourselves against
any security threat emanating from Congo. RCD had the specific objective of
capti.Jring power in Kinshasa; we were not party to that.
Justice D, Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Right. Now, having gone through that, around this time is when you had the ...
started having objections by the Congolese Government to your presence in
the Congo. ls that correct?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
And soon after this, of course, you had what we eau the 'Kisangani clashes'.
Vou recall those?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Lead Co.unsel:
You have talked about your joint arrangement with the Rwandese forces, and
now you were in a situation where you had a clash with those same forces
with whom you had an agreement. Can you tell the Panel the reason ... oh,
sorry, the Commission, the reason for those clashes?
We have several Panels here. The reason for those clashes, please?
Amama Mbabazi:
URAnnex65
26
Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Amama Mbabazi
before the Porter Commission
2 August 2001
PartC
URAnnex6S
02/08/01 (4)
Okay. We can move on ....
Justice D. Porter:
Vou said now it is going better with the younger Kabila?
Amama Mbabazi:
That is correct.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Amama Mbabazi:
And another meeting, the second attempt, is slated for 20th this month -
August and we are all hopeful that this time round it will happen.
So that was the other area where implementation was supposed to happen
but had not happened for those reasons.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Now soon after this is probably when the main allegations of exploitation of
the resources of Congo by Ugandan -forces as well as Ugandan civilians
started. ts that correct?
Amama Mbabazi:
Soon after?
Lead Counsel:
Around this time, let us say, that is when the allegations started: the
allegations that are the subject of this commission.
Amama Mbabazi:
Well, the ... 1 cannot point to a date when they started.
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex6S
21
02/08/01 (4)
Maybe let me ask: when did you first begin to hear of allegations of this
nature?
Amama Mbabazi:
Right from the beginning.
Lead Counsel:
Right from the beginning?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Justice J. P. Berko:
And when was your beginning?
Amama Mbabazi:
Beginning of the war.
Justice D. Porter:
1998?
Amama Mbabazi:
Which meant 1998 August. And, in fact, at a sitting of the two Presidents -
actually President Museveni and Vice President Kagame then, 1 think it was in
September 1998, 1 had mentioned the decision to establish this Joint
Ministerial Cornmittee of which I was co-chair. One of the things we were to
look into were these aUegations that some of our officers were involved in
trade.
At that summit, 1 do not remember the precise date but I think it was
September 1998, the following decisions were made: one, that the question of
administïation and the contrai of economic activities in the areas where our
forces were would be under the contrai of the rebel authorities; and Ugandan
and Rwandese military forces - officers and men - were strictly prohibited
from engaging in any of such activities. And, as I said, ....
Justice D. Porter:
Just before the temptation passes, could you show him JK1/11, please?
URAnnex65
22
02/08/01 (4)
Have you seen that before?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes, 1 have. 1 think so.
Justice D. Porter:
ln view of what you have just said it is quite an interesting document.
Amama Mbabazi:
Have I seen this? Can I just .•. ?
Justice D. Porter:
By all means, yes.
Amama Mbabazi:
... peruse it and see?
Justice D. Porter:
Yes. But just to assist, it is headed "Appointment as Provisional Governor of
lturi and ... ", 1 cannot pronounce it properly, of one "... Madame Lotsove
Adele by James Kazini, Brigadier- Commander Safe Haven."
And you have just said that UPDF was strictly enjoined from getting involved
in that sort of thing?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yeah. Yes, this ... it is true this happened and ....
Justice D. Porter:
So this is a straight breach of instruction by ... ?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
By Brigadier Kazini.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes, and Brigadier Kazini was reprimanded for it.
URAnnex65
23
û2/0ôiûî (4)
Justice D. Porter:
He was reprimanded?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes, in a Uganda ....
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah. And ....
Amama Mbabazi:
ln a military ....
Justice D. Porter:
When he was reprimanded, was the so-called appointment withdrawn? 1 do
not think it was because, 1 think, she is still there, isn't she?
Amama Mbabazi:
No, 1 do not think so.
Justice D. Porter:
She is not. But she was for a long time?
Amama Mbabazi:
She was there in the sense of a physi.cal presence, ....
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Amama Mbabazi:
... but not in recognised administrative capacity.
Justice D. Porter:
Right. Yeah.
Yes? Thank you.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
URAnnex65
24
02/08/01 (4)
Amama Mbaba;d:
And, of course, you must ... 1 read in the papers that Kazini appeared before
you?
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Amama Mbabazi:
So I suppose he explained this. Of course ....
Justice D. Porter:
No. Not satisfactorily, no.
Amama Mbabazi:
Oh.
Justice D. Porter:
He tried but I think he admitted in the end that he was wrong. Yeah?
Lead Counsel:
That is correct, My Lord.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes. The reason for it was - the reason why he acted like this, from what he
explained, was because of this split in RCD, because •...
Justice D. Porter:
1 think what he said was that there were two warring factions of the RCD and
they could not agree on who was going to be the Provisional Governor, so he
Amama Mbabazi:
Justice D. Porter:
URAnnex65
25
02/08/01 (4)
He just picked this lady on information that he had and made the appointment
over their heads.
Amama Mbabazi:
So the intention was good. By Kazini, obviously, the intention was good, it was
warranted by the circumstances; but he acted out of ....
Justice D. P.orter:
He acted contrary to his instructions ... ?
Amama Mbabazi:
... his authority.
Justice D. Porter:
Contrary ta his orders?
Amama Mbabazi:
That is right.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
1 think, My Lord, while we are still on that point we can ask him to react to
paragraph 71 of the Report, which is ....
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah.
Lead Counsel:
... on the same point.
Amama Mbabazi:
71 of UN Panel?
Lead Counsel:
71 of the UN Panel.
Justice D. Porter:
URAnnex65 26
02/08/01 (4)
About halfway down, 18th of Jurie 1.999.
Oh, sorry.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
If you could kindly read the paragraph?
Justice O. Porter:
ltsays,
"18 June 1999, Ugandan General Kazini appointed as Governor of this
Province, Adele Lotsove, a Congo/ese who had already been emp/oyed by
the Mobutu and Kabila administrations. Information gathered clearly indicates
that she was instrumental in the collection and transfer of funds from her
assigned administrative region to the Ugandan authorities În 1999. According
to some sources, shê a/so contributed to the reallocation of land from Lêndus
to Hemas."
That is it. Weil, the first part of it is true, we know.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yeah.
Justice D. Porter:
1 do not know whether she had been employed by Mobutu and Kabila
administrations, but I suppose if she had it would be a recommendation, 1
suppose. Do you know anything about her collecting and transferring funds to
the Ugandan authorities in 1999?
Amama Mbabazl:
No.
Justice D. Porter:
No.
Amama Mbabazi:
URAnnex65
27
û2/û8iû1 (4)
She could not do that.
Justice D. Porter:
What about reallocation of land from Lendus to Hemas? There was later a
flare-up between the Lendus and Hemas over land, wasn't there?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
Do you know about this?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Justice O. Porter:
1s it possible that she was involved in ....
Amama Mbabazi:
No.
Justice D. Porter:
... reallocating land and causing problems?
Amama Mbabazi:
Not to my knowledge.
Justice D. Porter:
Not to your knowledge?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 never heard that she was involved until this report came up.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah. That is his reaction, Mr. Shonubi. Yes?
URAnnex65
28
02/08/01 (4)
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Much obliged.
Now we were on the reports of exploitation, when you received these reports.
We asked you when you first received these reports and you said right from
the very beginning. Now what was your reaction? What steps did you take?
Amama Mbabazi:
Weil, first of ail we instituted ... 1 would not call it a commission of inquiry but
our Joint Committee; one of the tasks we were given was to investigate this
matter with particular reference to some diamond mines in Kisangani -
somewhere around Kisangani. And we did.
And, as I said, as a consequence of that ... well, ln fact, it was because of the
reports that that deciSion was made, especially by Uganda later on, to say; no
soldiers - officers and men, no political leaders should engage in any
business in Congo.
Justice D. Porter:
And that was expressed in the radio message that President Museveni gave
to the forces?
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes, for the army. But the decision was communicated to me, for instance, as
Chairman - Co-Chairman - of that Joint Ministerial Committee.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
So this was ... the President's message was subsequent to th ose allegations
being received? That issued that message?
Amama Mbaba:zi:
[Affirmative response}.
Justice J. P. Berko:
URAnnex65
29
û2iû8/ûî (4)
Mr. Minister, what came out of the investigation relating to the ... you said the
diamond mine near Kisangani?
Amama Mbabazi:
Oh, that it was not true.
Justiçe J. P. Berko:
If it was not true, why then did you have to issue ... ?
Amama Mbabazl:
The issuance ....
Justiçe J. P. Berko:
... the communication you said, that they should not engage in mining if the
allegation was f aise?
Amama Mbabazi:
Weil, the allegation simply helped to make the point that we needed to have
clear instructions about the code of conduct of our soldiers while in Congo.
And Sû whetheï it had happened or not, a âecision was taken that ihey shouid
not involve themselves in business.
Justiçe J. P. Berko:
Okay.
Lead Counsel:
Now subsequent to that there was, of course, the Panel of Experts, which was
set up by the UN Security Council; and you are aware that they came out with
a report?
Amama Mbabazi:
[Affirmative response].
Lead Counsel:
Okay. Now before I ask you your reaction to the Report, can you tell us
whether you were ever înterviewed by them?
Amama Mbabazi:
URAnnex65
30
02/08/01 (4)
No, 1 was not.
Lead Counsel:
Oid you ever meet them?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 was not.
Lead Counsel:
You did not?
Amama Mbabazi:
No.
Justice D. Po.rter:
When they were here, what position were you actually holding?
Amama Mbabazi:
1 was in charge of Regional Cooperation, 1 was stiU Joint Chairman of - 1 was
Co-Chairman of that Joint Ministerial Committee in Congo, 1 was the
Chairman of the Political Committee, 1 was everything that was in a position to
know what was happening in Congo.
Justice D. Porter:
So you would have expected ta have been interviewed?
Amama Mbabazi:
Surely. Yes.
Justice D. Porter:
Yeah.
Amama Mbabazi:
1 had represented Uganda in the debate of the Security Council when a
decision to set up this Panel was made; and we had made a presentation
strongly supporting the establishment of such a Panel in order to clear the air
of ail these rumours.
URAnnex65
31
02/08/01 (4)
Justice o. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Would that have been the reason for your correspondence with a Mr. Richard
Holbrooke? Did you correspond with Richard Holbrooke on this matter?
Amama Mbabazi:
On that one?
Lead Counsel:
On that matter, yes.
Amama Mbabazi:
1 must have. Do you have ... ?
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
This was 261h January, 2000.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
And also on ... there was one on 30th January, 2000.
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
What was the reason for that correspondence, please? The reason for that
correspondance, what ... ?
Amama Mbabazi:
We, 1 think, we had been invited as a Political Committee, to hold a joint
session with the Security Council in New York; and we did hold meetings with
URAnnex65 32
02/08/01 (4)
the Security Council and there were a number of points on whîch there was
no unanimity. So I think my correspondence to him, in his capacity as the
Presîdent of the Security Council then, was to make our position known and
recorded.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
Of course this was not the first time you had written to him; you had written to
him about two ....
Amama Mbabazi:
Previously, yes. 1 had
Lead Counsel:
About two or three, two days before on the same subject. ls that correct?
Amama Mbabazi:
Lead Counsel:
Amama Mbabazl:
Yeah. Four days.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
My Lord, could we tender those two documents as one?
Justice D. Porter:
So this would be ... 56, 1 think. What were the dates?
Lead Counsel:
26th of January 2000 and 30th
•
URAnnex65
33
Justice D. Porter:
2000 and?
Lead Counsel:
And 30th of January, 2000.
Amama Mbabazi:
Do you have a copy of th.at?
Lead Counsel:
Yes, 1 have.
Amama Mbabazi:
26th?
Lead Counsel:
261
\ yes.
Amama Mbabazi:
Okay.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
Maybe you would like to quickly tell us what you were ... ?
Justice J. P. Berko:
What number? What number did you say? Exhibit number?
Justice D. Porter:
1 am sorry?
Justice J. P. Berko:
Exhibit number.
Justice D. Porter:
Oh, 1 am sorry, 55.
URAnnex65
û2iû8/û1 (4)
34
02/08/01 (4)
Yes?
Lead Counsel:
You have seen what you needed to add to your first letter?
Justice O. Porter:
lt is 56 1 think.
Amama Mbabazi:
[Negative response]
Lead Counsel:
Okay. So ....
Amama Mbabazi:
Yes. This is it.
Lead Counsel:
That is the letter?
Amama Mbabazi:
[Affirmative response].
Lead Counsel:
Okay, that is it. So the question was really that after receiving or reading this
Panel Report, what did you proceed to do? What did you do about it?
Amama Mbabazi:
We prepared our response ta it because they were making recommendations,
among other things, ta the Security Council that they impose sanctions on
Uganda; sa we had ta defend ourselves.
Lead Counsel:
Okay.
Amama Mbabazi:
And we did.
Lead Counsel:
URAnnex65
35
URAnnex66
Excerpted testimony of
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya
before the Porter Commission
3 September 2001
URANNEX66
03/09/01
Lt, Col, Andrew Lutaya:
I Andrew Lutaya solemnly swear that the evidence I shall give about the matters hefore
thîs Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, notbing but the truth. So help me
God.
Lead Counsel:
My Lord this is witness; CW/01/16.
Justice D. Porter:
Y es. Carry on.
Lead Counsel:
Can you give the Commission your full names please
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
My names are Andrew Lutaya Lugobe.
Lead Counsel:
How old are you?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
46 years.
Lead Counsel:
And wbere do you reside?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
I reside in Gaba, Buziga.
Lead Counsel:
Andwhat is your current occupation?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
A Contractor.
Lead Counsel:
And bave you ever been in the UPDF?
Lt. Col, Andrew Lutaya:
Yes I have been in the UPDF.
Lead Counsel:
Are you still in the UPDF?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
URAnnex66
Yes, I am still in the UPDF
Lead Counsel:
Okay. What rank do you hold?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
I am a Lieutenant Colonel.
Lead Counsel:
03/09/01
Now in your role as a UPDF Officer, have you ever been depioyed in the Congo?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
Yes I have been deployed in Congo.
Lead Counsel:
When was this?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
This was in March 1997.
Lead Counsel:
And what were you deployed to do in Congo?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
I was requested by the RPA, Maj. Gen. Paul Kagame to go and assist them in the rapid
deployment on the waters and in the air through the Army Commander, Maj. Gen.
Mugisha-Muntu by that time.
Lead Counsel:
And were these the areas of your specialty, where were you requeste~ to actually go and
help in those particular areas?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
I worked with Maj. Gen. Paul Kagame for quite sometime when he was still in the forces
in Uganda and so many other Officers. So they were aware about my capability on the
waters that is why I was deployed to assist.
Lead Counsel:
That was in the DPDF.
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
NRA.
Justice D. Porter:
URAnnex66 2
And you said, and so many others.
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
YesMyLord.
Justice D. Porter:
Also knew you?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
YesMyLord.
Justice D. Porter:
Who are now RP A?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
Who are now RP A.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes.
Lead Counsel:
03/09/01
You have also said that they knew of your capabilities on water, and also in the air, is that
correct?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
Y es, that is correct.
Lead Counsel:
Do you have any particular training in these areas?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
I am a Pilot by profession.
Lead Counsel:
So what were you doing with the RP A, what role were you playing?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
My role was to organize the troops i.e. the troops ofRPA and the Congolese as .soon as
possible to the frontline.
Lead Counsel:
Which particular Congolese were these?
Lt Col. Andrew Lutaya:
These are the late Kabila group, and the current President now, Joseph Kabila.
3 URAnnex66
Lead Counsel:
And where was this frontline at the time, that you are talking about?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
03/09/01
Well, there were several frontlines, but where I operated most was from Lubumbashi
towards Kinshasa, Kananga,.Kîkwikitî, Bandundu and Kinshasa.
Lead Counsel:
And these troops you were with, did they eventually get to Kinshasa?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
Yes, they did.
Lead Counsel:
And you were with them when they did.
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
Yes, I was with them.
Lead Counsel:
Were there any other Ugandan troops with you?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
Not at that time.
Lead Counsel:
To your knowledge, did any other Ugandan troops play part in this war which led to the
fall of Kinshasa under Laurent Kabila?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
Not in the sector where I was, there were no Ugandan troops.
Lead Counsel:
And since then have been back to the Congo?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
No, I have never been back to Congo.
Lead Counsel:
What was the nationality of the troops that were being transported by yourself?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
They were Rwandese and Congolese.
URAnne:x:66 4
Lead Counsel:
What kind of Aeroplane was being used?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
03/09/01
Several types of Aircrafts were used including a C130H, ifl talk about Cl 30, it is not the
Ugandan Air Cargo, 727, and other small light Aircrafts.
Lead Counsel:
These belong to the RP A?
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
I found the Cl30 in Congo.
Lead Counsel:
No more questions for this witness unless the Commission has more.
Justice D. Porter:
There is nothing further you can assist us with in relation to the UPDF being in the
Congo.
Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaya:
No.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you Mr. Lutaya, you are released.
URAnnex66
5
URAnnex67
Excerpted testimony of
Hon. Crispus Kîyonga
before the Porter Commission
7 September 2001
URANNEX67
7/09/01 (1)
Justice D. Porter:
You seem to have said: President Yoweri Museveni has no control over the UPDF. We
have listened to our record of the proceedings and he said no such thing. What he said
was, the President Museveni has no control over Congolese and we are very concemed
that, that should be corrected. And we are therefore announcing it publicly in this days
proceedings. We would ask that, that correction be made.
Lead Counsel:
I have noted that My Lord the Joumalists from the Monitor are aroqnd, and I will also
talk to them after these proceedings.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you, and you last said the New Vision said no such a thing.
Justice J.P. Berko:
May be ifhe is in doubt he can go with you and check the tape itself.
Justice D. Porter:
Yes, Good moming Dr. Kiyonga. Can you take the oath please.
Dr C. Kiyonga
I Dr. Crispus Kiyonga solemnly swear that the evidence I shall give about the matters
before this Commission shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So
helpme God.
Justice D. Porter:
Y es please, sit down make yourself comfortable.
Lead Counsel:
CW /01/17 . Can you give the Commission your full names please.
Dr C. K.iyonga
My names are Dr Crispus Kiyonga
Lead Counsel:
How old are you?
Dr C. K.iyonga
I am 49 years.
Lead Counsel:
Where do you reside?
1 URAnnex67
Dr C. Kiyonga
I reside in Kampala because that's where I work.
Lead Counsel:
Where in Kampala can you be slightly more specific?
Dr C. Kiyonga
I live in Kisugu, this is South Eastern part of Kampala
Lead Counsel:
What is your occupation?
Dr C. Kiyonga
7/09/01 (1)
Currently I am a Minister in the Govemment of Uganda and also the acting National
Political Commissar for the National Movement and I represent Bukonzo county West in
Parliament
Lead Counsel:
Now before that what were you doing?
Dr C. Kiyonga
Before July or up to the Middle of July I had been the Minister for Health in the
Govemment for the past five years.
Lead Counsel:
That was July which year?
Dr C. Kiyonga
July this year 2001
Justice D. Porter:
And Bukonzo county is Kasese district, which is close to the border of the Congo.
Dr C. Kiyonga
Yes, my my, the area I represent borders, the DRC on the Eastern part ofDRC.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you. How long have you been a member of parliament?
Dr C. Kiyonga
Sin ce 19 ... elected member of Parliament for that area sin ce 1989.
URAnnex67 2
7/09/01 (1)
we don't see an alternative. We are not convinced that there's going to be peace in Congo
without an effective force we have not seen yet an alternative to the UPDF.
Justice D. Porter:
Now are your people suffering now?
Dr C. Kiyonga
Yes, although the suffering bas markedly been reduced as I have told you My Lord 40
years is been displacement of people. Firstly those who. live on the mountain ranges.
Even from 62 there schools were closed no health services these schools got reopened in
the middle of the 80's so you have generations who have missed education and also have
lost theîr production. Then since 96 many rnore got again re-displaced to corne to the low
lands. But when the UPDF pursued these enernies and occupied parts of the mountains
and went to the Congo they are now going back to reopening their land they have not yet
fully reached the height where they normally reside because they are still conscious but
over the last one year or so the situation has markedly improved, markedly improved.
Justice J.P. Berko:
Can you tell us something about say cross border trade between the two countries?
Dr C. Kiyonga
Y es My Lord and I think this will be helpful because many people I think they talk from
hear-say but for me I live in that area.
Justice D. Porter:
That's why we wanted you to come and talk to us.
Dr C. Kiyonga
Y es. In 1960 when Congo got independence I was a young boy in P .4 no in P .2 in 1960.
In 1962 I saw Bakongo coming to Uganda as refugees when the fighting started across
there and I also saw our people in Kasese some traders getting rich in 1960, 62, 63 by
trading in coffee which was coming from Congo. The Bakongo peasants more traders
were bringing their coffee to Uganda for a long time I think up to may be the late 60's.
the coffee was coming from Congo and bought by our people and exported by our people
either through cooperatives or private traders. Tuen I think during Amin's time I can't
remember exactly the time because I was now in secondary school not staying in the
village but definitely there was a reversai our people started taking their coffee to Congo
8 URAnnex67
7/09/01 (1)
took to Congo, took to Congo even when we took over power here in 86 I was made
Minister in charge of marketing. So I used to go my area there appeal to the people that
please don't take coffee they would pretend to corporate with me but they were taking
coffee at night big big numbers of people now they can tell me freely because the
situation has changed. We would put troops on the border they would find a way of
going. So until we had refonns here economic reforms and the pay to the peasants started
making meaning they now started selling .coffee here and the Bakongo started now also
bringing their coffee. So on coffee as one example I would say the trade bas always been
oscillating depending on where the market is better it is a natural response to market
forces. If the market is better in Congo we take our things there. If the market is better
here we bring incidentally that border just cuss across one tribe. My people the Bakonzo
people in Uganda were just ½ a million in Congo they call them Banandi but were the
same people they are 3 ½ million so we intermarry we talk the same language and we
trade, we trade together. Then the other significant trade bas been in timber. Timber
wood for a long time since I was a small child I have seen timber coming from Congo on
huge trucks. Coming some timber they sell in Kasese not so much because we have our
own timber I think sorne of the Bakongo corne and sell in Kampala here but most of it, it
was being sold in Kenya for a long time. Bakongo themselves bring their timber some
they sell here in Uganda most of it they were selling in Kenya. Even now if we go you
will see Bakongo with their trucks carrying timber taking it across to Kenya and some
they are selling here. That I have witness. The other trade which was under cover is gold
a luvial gold. I can testify that there are business men even now in Kasese who from that
time 60's 70's used to quietly get gold from Congo from other traders and take it to
Kenya to sell to Asians in Kenya I think the trade here was not so strong and the
smuggling was obviously not allowed so they were doing it under cover I could tell you
that when I went înto exile in 1981, I was a young boy and just finished medical school I
had no money I don 't know where I was going in Kenya just to save my life, so I went to
one trader how do I live in Kenya? So he told me, if you have money, I can give you
some gold. Oh I said I see, but where will I put the gold? He said you will sell it to the
Asians. So I said I have only eighty thousand shillings. He gave me what he called four
tollers. So I took them asked him how will I carry this? You put in your socks. So that's
URAnnex67 9
7/09/01 (1)
what the businessman told me. So I put in my socks I escaped across the border to Kenya
he gave me telephone of this Asian I telephoned him he said "oh you are from my
friends" he said "bring your (nani)" then he gave me five thousand Kenya shillings which
I lived on until I got a job in Kenya. So this has been going on between our people in
Kasese and may be in Kampala here and traders in the Congo. I think when again we
changed we made reforms and said oh ifyou have an export no problem open your bank
account and put your money there. I suspect many of our people if they are still in this
trade they now have foreign exchange accounts. I suspect that trade still goes on. Then
in Congo where I have been once, I have been to Congo once although I live near the
border because of a different colonial set up there, even when I went into exile I had to
cross from Kasese to go to Kenya because it is English speaking. The Bakongo what they
use, their supplies in Eastern Congo cornes from outside, mainly things like clothing,
paraffin, petrol, cernent, most of the textiles cornes from abroad from China from
Singapore, supplies like cernent like iron bars building materials, either from Kenya or
from Uganda. Soap from Uganda. Plastics from Uganda. Tuen in return our people also
get some things like timber trade the women in my constituency they go to buy a
particular cloth called bitengi. They go and buy them from Congo they sell them in
Kasese and here in Kampala. They go and buy plates, kitchen ware and bring here. So
trade goes on there and nobody can stop that trade, that I can be sure. Even if you put
troops there, you cannot stop that trade. It has to respond fast that these are the same
people, secondly they have needs, and they look where there is a supplier and where there
is a market. That's what I would say about trade but what My Lords could also be
relevant to this Inquiry and also to the UN, these Congo people are really suffering
people, and the result oftheir suffering we will all suffer not only from security, from fire
even from disease, you see we are always getting Choiera from Congo because there is
no administration there. In my constituency we have a hospital we've just built recently,
if you go something like 30- 40% of the people who corne to attend are from Congo.
They are suffering people, Congo is in my view, richly endowed with these minerais,
with forest, with water, so for me I would be happy if the UN was asking where have the
resources of Congo been going since 1960? They would just ask about 1996 where have
the resources of Congo been going, since 1960? The country is still poor, you go and see
10 URAnnex67
7/09/01 (1)
those poor peasants, there are no roads, there is no power supply, and yet these resources
have heen going who has been taking them. The UN reallywould help Congo as now we
hope they will democratized to ask these questions. Who bas been taking the wealth of
Congo not since 1998 but since 1960, when Bakongo got independence. The mining has
been going on who has been takîng this money.
Justice D. Porter:
What do you think the answer to the question is?
Dr C. Kiyonga
The answer is lack of liberation of the Bakongo lack of democracy in the Congo.
Justice D. Porter:
But who has been taking the resources.
Dr C. Kiyonga
Oh, many people including multinational companies and foreign companies may be
foreign governments also they are involved there. I don 't know but suddenly few
Bakongo small traders take as I told you this gold and diamond, you go if you go like I
was recently in Belgium, they showed me a village that, that is the Bakongo village. You
find some Bakongo there. But I think most of this is being taken by Multinational
companies since 1960's. and this is traceable and it is possible to know. Then Congo is
now one of the most indebted. Countries in sub-saharan Africa they've been getting
money from World bank, from IMF I don't know who has been taking this money. And
the Bakongo will one day have to pay despite their problem. I think UN would help
Congo more fundamentally, if we probe deeper than just say 19 I don't know 96. The
plan has been going on since 1960 of Congo to talk of nothing of the colonial period.
Justice D. Porter:
Just going back to the attacks, the cross border attacks, have you ever received as
Uganda, ever received assistance from the KJsha..nsa govemment to help stop these
attacks?
Dr C. Kiyonga
Well, the assistance in this fonn not significant assistance, I would say not significant but
in the initial days of Kabila the old man not the new President
URAnnex67 11
Justice D. Porter:
Just go back to Mobutu you started with.
Dr C. Kiyonga
No, Mobutu never helped us at all.
Justice D. Porter:
Right,now
Dr C. Kiyonga
We talked to him and he just says I will do something. He does nothing.
Justice D. Porter:
So now Mzee Kabila
Dr C. Kiyonga
7/09/01 (1)
Kabila I think was willing to help, for example I was sent one time by the President to go
and discuss with Kabila's govemment how we could help them to train their police. I
went there and had a meeting with President Kabila. But he was not in position to help us
because be himself had just taken over power, be didn't have an army an army in the
sense of formal and the right size for his country so be said nothing about the Police but
politically he was willing to work with us at least be would not give cover. He would not
give cover to our enemies because be knew we wouldn't give cover to his enemies as
well. But some how in the middle he seemed to have changed because we had evidence.
These chaps who are fighting us the ADF some of them are from my villages from my
constituency and we even at a peasant level, we started to know that some of these
fellows were living with Kabila's soldiers in Beni and Butembo. So somewhere in the
middle Kabila I think changed bis mind and wanted to give covert assistance to the
rebels. So to answer your question My Lord no the Bakongo have never helped us in any
significant way with our security problem because there bas never been effective
administration in the Congo. Even they can't deal with their own problem the Mai Mai I
have told you about the PLC. Now there is Mai Mai is another force within the rebel
across the border calling themselves they are an Mai Mai they are also fighting there.
They have never helped us in any significant way with our security.
Lead Counsel:
I think the subject bas been quite exbausted, My Lord, by the witness.
12 URAnnex67
URAnnex68
THE REPl.11LIC OF UGA!'<llA
JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
INTO
URANNEX68
ALLEGATIONS INTO ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND OTHER FORMS OF WEALTH IN THE
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO 2001
(May - October, 2001)
Legal Notice No. 5/2001
INTERJMREPORT
OCTOBER, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION
1 MEMBERS: ............................................ 2
2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ................. 3
3 TIME FRAME OF THEINQUIRY ... 3
4 CONSTRAINTS/LIMITATIONS .... .4
5 METHODOLOGY ............................... 4
6 RULES OF PROCEDURE ................. 6
7 WORKING HOURS ............................ 6
8 PLACEOFWORK ............................... 6
9 SECTIONS OF EVIDENCE ............. 7
CONSIDERATION OF THE UN REPORT
10 ILLEGALITY ........................................ 8
10.1 Violation Of Sovereignty ........... 8
.1 of 10 /.1 Wheth.er the UPDF should have gone into the Democratic &public of
Congo. 8
.1 of 10/.2 Wheher Businessmen and International Companies may trade in a war
zone without compromising the S ouereignfy of the country 9
10.2 Respect By Actors Of The exîsting Regulatory Framework 9
10.3 Use And Abuse Of Power ....... lû
.3 of10/.1 Forced monopo!J in trading 10
.3 of 10 / .2 U nilateral fixing of price1 of products by the b~er 11
URAnnex68
.J of 10/ .J Confiscation and Jooting of prodncts /rom fart111rs 11
.J of 10/.4 Use of milita,y farces in variom z.onts to protect so1111 int,nst or to mati a
situation of monopo!J ..................... 11
.J of 10/.5 Violation of international law incillding ''soft" 111111. 12
11 EXPLOITATION ............................... 14
12 BACKGROUND AND PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURES14
13 PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURES THATFACILITATED EXPLOITATION
20
13.1 Transportation Networks ........ 20
14 Allegations against the Government ofUganda 21
15 Allegations again~t Gen Salim Saleh .. 22
16 Allegations againstKainerogaba Muhoozi 23
17 MASS SCALE LOOTING .................. 23
18 Allegations against Uganda ................. 26
19 SYSTEMATIC AND SYSTEMICEXPLOITATION 27
19.1 Timber: Dara Forest and Dara Great Lakes International. 28
19.2 Mining Sector ............................ 39
2
URAnnex68
19.3 Wildlife ....................................... 39
20 Allegations against the Government ofUganda 40
21 Allegations agaînst His Excellency the President and his family41
22 MONOPOLIES AND PR1CE FIXING 41
23 Allegations against Uganda ................ .42
24 Current Structures ofillegal exploitation 44
24.1 Adnûnistrative Structures ........ .44
24.2 Modes of transportation ......... .45
25 Allegations against Uganda ................. .45
25.1 Private Companies .................. ..46
26 Allegations against Uganda ................ .47
26.iindividual Actors ........................... 48
27 ECONOMIC DATA : CONFIRMATION OF THE ILLEGAL
EXPLOITA TIÜN OF THE NA TURAL RESOURCES OF THE
DEMOCRA TIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO 48
28 Allegations against Uganda ................ .48
29 LINKS BETWEEN THE EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONFLICT.48
29.1 Budgets compared to nùlitary expenditure. 48
29.2 Finandng the Wat .................... .50
30 Allegations against Uganda ................. 57
31 FACILITATORSORPASSIVEACCOMPLICES 57
31.1 President Museveni ................... 57
URAnnex68
lNTRODUCTION
This report is an Interim Report as a result of an inquiry made into the
allegations contained in a UN Expert Panel report on the illegal exploitation of
natural resources and other form$ ofwealth in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The Expert Panel was appointed by the Secretary General at the
request of the Security Council. It produced a report which was submitted to
the Security Council on 16th April, 2001. In that report, the Expert Panel alleges
that there has been illegal exploitation of Congolese natural resources by
individuals, governments and armed groups; and that the Govemment of the
Republic of Uganda was one of those involved.
The Security Coundl considered the Panel report and made a number of
decisions and observations. lt noted that the report contained disturbing
information about the illegal exploitation of Congolese resources. It took note
of the action plan of the Expert Panel for time extension of the Panel's
mandate to allow it to conduct a follow-up investigation and to prepare an
addendum to its final report. It also urged governments named in the report to
conduct their own inquiries into these allegations ..
Accordingly His Excellency the President of the Republic of Uganda, through
bis Minister of Foreign Affairs took urgent steps to implement the decision to
set up an inquiry.
It should be clea,rly understood that, although this Commission's inquiries are
at an advanced stage, it is not able to answer ail the questions asked of it. This
Interim Report is directed at Legality, involvement in illegal activities by the
Ugandan Government, His Excellency the President and Members of his
URAnnex68
family only, although other issues have bad to be addressed to deal with these
matters.
Even so there remain outstanding issues, particularly with regard to members
of President Museveni's family
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION
On 23rd May 2001, the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued Legal Notice No.5
which was published as Supplernent N o.23 in the Uganda Gazette of 25th May
2001, and by which the Minister established the Commission of Inquiry
(Allegations into Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other Forms of
Wealth in the Democratic Republic of Congo ) 2001.
1 MEMBERS:
The Commission consisted of the following persons:
Hon. Justice David Porter
Hon. Justice J.P. Berko
Mr. John Rwambuya retired Senior UN official
Mr. Bisereko Kyomuhendo Principal State Attorney
Commission
Mr. Alan Shonubi, Advocate
Chainnan
Member
Member
Secretary to
Lead Counsel
The Commission was ably assisted by Dr. Henry Onoria particularly on
International Law and Mr. Vincent Wagona from the office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions.
2
URAnnex68
2 TERMS OF REFERENCE
The teons ofreference of the Commission are as follows; _
■ to inquire into the allegations of illegal exploitation of natural
resources and other forms of wealth of the Del}1ocratic Republic
of Congo, to wit minerais, coffee, timber livestock, wildlife, ivory,
moneys or other property from the Democratic Republic of
Congo contained in the said report.
■ To inquire into the allegations of mass scale looting and
systematic exploitation of natural resources and other forms of
wealth from the Democratic Republic of Congo by the
Governtnent of Uganda made in the said report;
• To inquire into allegations of complicity or involvement by His
Excellency the President and bis farnily in the alleged illegal
exploitation made in the said report;
■ To inquire into allegations of involvement in the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic
of Congo by top ranking UPDF officer and other l.Jgandan
individuals named in the said report.
3 TIME FRAME OF THEINQUIRY
The Commission was required to submit a report of its findirtgs and
recommendations to the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs within three
months after commencing duties.
The Commissioners were sworn in on 4th June 2001, but because of logistical
set backs, they did not open public hearings until 12 July 2001. The intervening
period was spent in preparing office, acquiring equipment, recruiting
3
URAnnex68
secretapat, collecting and reading source docÙments and relevant data (such as
the UN Panel Report) and interviewing, selecting and summoning witnesses.
4 CONSTRAINTS/LIMITATIONS
The Commission has experienced various constraints in. its task. One of the
màjor snags was the lack of sources of information. Although the Panel was
able to accept unsworn, and often hearsay evidence, this Commission is forced
by The Commissions oflnquiry Act to work only with swom evidence.
The Commission had hoped for the Panel's assistance in providing some of the
sources it had not included in its report, but disappointingly, this was not the
case. In refusing to share with this Commission their source ofinforrnation, the
Panel made- it clear that it was the policy of UN not to clisclose such sources in
its reports.
Other constraints induded umvfüingness by witnesses interviewed to tell ail
they knew, inefficiency of some çfficials or poor record keeping, fear of self
incrimination in instances of corruption and in sorne cases fear of reprisai. Also
financial shortage, bureaucracy in releasing approved funds and limited rime for
completing the tasks had an adverse effect on the work of the Commission.
5 METHODOLOGY
In conducting its inquiry, the Commission looked at its task as one of inquiry
and investigation rather than that of prosecution or defence of any one who
appeared before it. The hearing was conducted in public and evidence was
given on oath. Witnesses were free to be accompanied or assisted by counsel
before the Commission, if they so wished. The Commission utilized two
4
URAnnex68
types of information for its inquiry: documentation and evidence.
Documentation:
Abundant documents were available to the Commission. They included;
• Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of
Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, dated 16th April 2001.
· • Response by the Govemment of the Republic of Uganda to the
above report dated 23 April 2001.
• Statement by H.E President Museveni about the UN Panel
Report dated 3 May 2001.
• Legal Notice issued by the Minister of State for Foreign
Affairs/Holding the Portfolio of Minister of Foreign Affairs,
dated 23 May 2001, establishing the Commission and terms of
reference therein.
• The Commission of Inquiry Act, cap. 56 of the Laws of Uganda
as amended by Statutory Instrument 200 of 1965.
• Sections 89 and 93 of the Penal Code Act.
• Lusaka Agreement 1999 (and subsequent protocols).
• [A list of other relevant documents is given in Annex I Exhibits:
Evidence
Virtually all Ugandans and some non~Ugandans mentioned in the Panel report
provided evidence on oath. They included His Excellency President Museveni,
the Defence Minister, Mr. Amama Mbabazi, the Army Commander, Major
Gen. J. J. Odongo, the Secretary of Defence, Dr. Ben Mbonye, the Chief of
5
URAnnex68
staff, Brig. James Kazini, Major Gen. Salim Saleh (Caleb Akandwanaho). Also
inte.rviewed were Govermnent officiais from various Ministries and institutions.
They produced and defended or explained data and reports presented to the
Commission. This enabled the Commission to cross check or compare the
figures or sources with those given in the Panel Report.
Other witnesses volunteered to share the information they had and others
appeared in response to the Commission's appeal to the public to corne
forward and give evidence. Unlike the UN Panel of Experts, the Commission's
terms of reference restricted its task to the allegations relating to Uganda and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [ A full list of witnesses is given in
Annex II Witnesses]
6 RULESOFPROCEDURE
While the Commission was empowered to adopt its own nùes of procedure, it
on the whole adhered to the Evidence Act (cap.43).
7 WORKING HOURS
The working hours of the Commission were from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. from
Montlay to Friday of each week. Public hearings were normally conducted
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.rn.
8 PLACE OF WORK
The Cornmission's office was located in suites 102-104 Nile HotelJntemational
Conference Centre.
6
URAnnex68
9 SECTIONS OF EVIDENCE
The evidence gathered was divided in the following briefs;
1. Background to Uganda involvement in the Congo.
2. Exploitation allegations pertaining to timbet - Dara Case Study and
other timbet related allegations.
3. Exploitation allegations pertaining to minerais, diamonds, gold,
cassiterite, other minerais and economic data.
4. Exploitation allegations pertaining to coffee, livestock, wildlife, ivory,
money and other ptoperty.
5. Exploitation allegations pertaining to mass scale looting systematic and
systemic exploitation.
6. Allegations against His Excellency the President and his Jamily in alleged
illegal exploitation.
7. Exploitation by individuals and top UPDF officers named in the ,report. ,
8. Upcountry considerations and evidente
These were generally intertwined in such a way that the evidence in one brief
cowd also appear in another brief or, to some extent, be mentioned in another.
7
URAnnex.68
CONSIDERATION OF THE UN PANEL REPORT
10 ILLEGALITY.
This Commission has read paragraph 15 of the report of experts on illegality.
Bearing in minp that there are pending proceedings before the International
Court of Justice between the Oemocratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, this
Commission takes the view that it would be wrong to attempt a full definition
of illegality in the context of exploitation of resources in the Democratic
Republic o"r Congo .
The UN Panel Report defined four concepts of illegality:-
10.l Violation Of Sovereignty
The histoty of Zaire now the Democratic Republic of Congo since
independence has been characterised by the seizure of power by militaty
means. There is no doubt that, even before the rebellion in 1996 Kinshasa had
little or no conttol over the Eastern the Democratic Republic of Congo, and
that t0 all intents and purposes, apart from the technical drawing of lines on a
map, in practice these were different countries.
The point about sovereignty is that consideration ofit Jalls into two headings:-
.1 OF 10/.1 WHETHER THE UPDF SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO .
Our consideration of the evidence shows that the original incursion into the
Democratic Republic of Congo was by consent between Uganda and the
Laurent Kabila govemment. It has been shown that movement across the
Democratic Republic of Congo over the period of a year was sttategically
8
URAnnex68
necessary from Uganda's point of view, and this Commission has said that in
view of the outstanding ICJ case, and will not attempt finally to decide the
matter. llowever, there are rnany examples from up-country visits of breach of
Uganda's sovereignty, prior to the first incursion by the UPDF, by groups
actively supported and sheltered, first by the Mobutu regime, and later by the
régime of Laurent Kabila.
However, whethet or not the movement across the Democratic Republic of
Congo was legal or illegal under International Law is irrelevant to the
consideration of exploitation of the resources of the DRC, because exploitation
would be by trade, and this Commission has been advised that even during an
illegal occupation, trade is not affected (see Annex Ill Paper on IUegality and
International Law) .
. 1 OF 10/.2WHEHER BUSINESSMEN AND INTERNATIONAL
COMPANIES MAY TRADE IN A WAR ZONE WITHOUT
COMPROMISING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE COUNTRY
Even if it were to be argued that Uganda's presence in the Democratic
Republic of Congo is unlawful on the basis of UN resolutions, this does not
necessarily imply that commercial activities in the Eastern Part of the
Democratic Republic of Congo should be deemed illegal. For International
Doctrine and practice adroits of the continuity of the political, socio-economic
and cultural life of the people and communities in territory occupied. Trade by
businessmen and International Companies is only a facet of that continuity
10.2 Respect By Actors Of The existing Regulatory Ftamework
There is no doubt that since 2nd August 1998, the Kinshasa Regime has never
had effective control in the Eastern and North Eastern the Democratic
9
URAnnex68
Republic of Congo . This was a mere reflection of the situation which prevailed
before the rebellion against the Mobutu regime. Therefore the authorities
exerting effective power and control over the Eastern and North Eastern the
Democratic Republic of Congo after August 1998 were the various rebel
groups.
This Commission is surprised tû see, in paragraph 15(b) of the Report, the
suggestion by the UN Panel that rebels in effective control of an area somehow
adopt the title of "sovereignty" over that area. Our vîew is that sovereignty is
indivisible and relates to the whole of the Democratic Republic of Congo . This
Commission thinks that the UN Panel was ilI advised to use this phraseology.
The Panel appeats to say on the one hand that breach of sovereignty is illegal,
and on the other hand that rebels exerting effective power and control over an
area can set up a regulatory framework to govern the use and exploitation of
natural resources in that area. The two are incompatible.
This Commission is inclined to the vîew .that Congolese, in effective control of
territory, who set up or adopt a regulatory framework, commit no breach of
sovereignty, and therefore that regulatory framework must be obeyed by
traders and businessmen who operate in that territory. It is not for those
traders or businessmen to look into application of taxes, merely to comply with
the regulations
10.3 Use And Abuse Of Power
The UN Panel gives five examples of abuse of power :
.3 OF 10/.1 FORCED MONOPOLY IN TRADING
10
URAnnex68
Forced monopoly should not be confused with price fixing in the ordinary
course of trade. For example in the coffee trade, quite often coffee buyers will
provide sacks, either free or at a price, for the growers: this îs an advantage to
both parties: clean coffee for the trader, and facilitation of packing for the
growers. However, coffee prices will be fixed by the buyers, and the fewer
bùyers there are, the more like a monopoly this will look : but such a practice is
in the ordinary course of business. (see Panel Report paragraph 65)
Similar practices exist in the tobacco industry, where seed money, fertilizers,
chemicals and hand tools are provided, recovered from the farmer through
tobacco prices.
But whete the circumstances arnount to a use of military force as suggested
under paragraph .3 of 10/.4 below, this should be considered as illegal .
. 3 OF 10/.2 UNILATERAL FIXING OF PRICES OF PRODUCTS BY
THEBUYER
In view of the practices in the coffee and tobacco trade, this Commission
cannot agree that this involves illegality .
. 3 OF 10/.3 CONFISCATION AND LOOTING OF PRODùCTS
FROM FARMERS
These would obviously be rightly considered as illegal
.3 OF 10/.4 USE OF MILITARY FORCES IN VARIOUS ZONES TO
PROTECT SOME INTER.EST OR TO CREATE A SITUATION
OF MONOPOLY.
Once again one has to distinguish circumstances. There is a great deal of
difference between provision of security in the general sense, which enables a
11
URAnnex68
businessman to trade advantageously, and specific protection of interests for
the benefit of a particular party. To satisfy this commission's conditions of
work, this Commission would need evidence of specific instances .
. 3 OF 10/.5 VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW INCLUDING
"SOFI'"LAW.
In paragraph 15 (d), the Panel considered that business activities carried out in
violation of international law were illegal, and included "soft" law in that
definition.
This Commission has received a great deal of evidence relating to import,
export and transit of timber. Certification of timber is an example of "soft"
law, and the only one referred to in the Panel Report.
On the hasis of evidence this Commission has received there is no doubt
whatever that, although the international community quite rightly promotes
proper forest management for the protection of the environment, and uses
certification as a powerful tool to that end, nevertheless in commercial terms
the difference between certification and non certification amounts to a
difference in price only, and as a matter of fact, companies involved in the
timber trade will use certification where they can, but will nevertheless sell
uncertified timber where cettification is not possible or too expensive.
It is difficult to describe an act as illegal unless there is some penalty attached to
the performing of the act, which is not the case for certification of timber, and
this Commission doubts that the Panel of experts was correct in induding
"soft" law in their definition of illegality.
This Commission does not think that the definition of illegality is quite as
12
URAnnex68
simple as the Panel of Expens has set out in the report.
On the basis of the response of the Republic of Uganda, and that of His
Excellency President Museveni, this Commission takes the view that there are
man y considerations which the · Panel did not indude, some of which are
implicitly recognised in documents such as the Lusaka Agreement to which the
Panel does not refer throughout the Report. This omission was unfortunate,
because there is no doubt that the Lusaka Agreement recognizes and
legitimizes the various rebel groups, and their administrations. The agreement
itself is witnessed by major nations and representatives of the UN and
recognized and being implemented by the UNSC.
As this Commission understands the position of the Govemment of the
Republic of Uganda, and the case put forward by His Excellency the President
in their respective responses, there is a level of trade which must be expected to
continue whatever the political situation, and for which provision must be
made during times of trouble. In respect of a country like the Democratic
Republic of Congo, which on the Eastern sicle is in practice landlocked due to
the difficulty of communication with Kinshasa, and indeed Uganda itself, crossborder
trade is a fact of lif e, and in some cases is the support of life itself.
Control of that level of trade must be allowed to be exercised by whoever is in
de facto control of the area in question. Coffee, for instance, grows, is picked,
dried, packed and stored: but it does not wait for . politicians to settle their
differences. A market must be fol.ltld for it before it goes off. If that market is
across the border of another country, then that is where it will be sold,
whatever the rules of an administration thousands of kilometres away, which
has no de facto control over the area where the coffee was grown.
13
URAnnex68
At a higher level of trade, such as mineral resources, wherever there are such
resources, there will be miners to mine them. Those miners have to make a
living, and in order to do that they have to sell what they mine. There have
been earlier precedents of rebels while in de facto control, granting concessions
to companies based in other countries, before being successful and later
forming the govemment. The UN Panel Report cites concessions granted to
Zimbabwean companies during Laurent Kabila's rebellion against Mobutu.
11 EXPLOITATION
This Commission has also read the Panel's definition of exploitation in
paragraph 16 of the Panel Report. Once again, this Commission hesitates to
enter upon a full definition of the word for the same reason as above. However
the word itself does not bear the overtones of illegality with which it has been
used in the present context. It is perfectly normal to exploit a forest, or a Gold
Mine or a diaiüûnd mine in the ordinary course of trade. Many national or
international companies enter onto the sovereign territory of another country
than their own in search of opportunities for exploitation of natural resources.
It is the question of illegality which should hring such actions to the attention
of the international community.
12 BACKGROUND AND PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURES
ln Paragraph 23 of the Panel of Experts Report, the Panel recites the outbreak
of war between Zairean forces and the AFDL, a rebel movement led by the late
Laurent Kabila. The Panel recites that the AFDL was supported by the
Angolan, Rwandan and Ugandan forces.
14
URAnnex68
The Panel leaves the impression that Ugandan forces marched with the AFDL,
certainly in the Eastern Zaire. The Panel develops that point in the following
way in paragraph 23:
'This AFDL!ed conques/ of then eastern Zaire fondamental/y altered the
composition of the regional stakeholders and the distribution of natural
resources. PretJiousfy, the distribution nom, was (via legal andillegal channels)
through local!J based Congolese, mostfy civilian-managed, business opera/ions.
However, these traditional modes were quick!J overtaken by new power
structures. Along with 11e111 pftyers came ne111 mies for exploiting natural
resources. Foreign troops and their 'Jriends" openfy embraced business in
''liberated territories'~ encouraged indirect/y by the AFDL leader, the laie
President Kabila. "
And in paragraph 26 and onward, under the heading ''Pre-existing structures
that facilitated illegal exploitation":
''26. Illegal exploitation byfareigners aided by the Congolese began with the
ftrst ''war of liberation" in 1996. The AFDL rebels, backed by Angolan,
F.wandan and Ugandan soldiers conquered eastern and south-eastern Zaire.
As they .were advancing, the 11 AFDL leader, the late Laurent-Désiré
Kabila, signed contracts with a number of fareign companies. N11mero11s
qcco1111ts and do&11ments suggest that by 1997 a ftnt. 111t1ve of ''new
businessmen" speaking on!J English, Kinyarwanda and Kiswahili had
commenced operations in the eastern Democratic R.ep11blic of the Congo. Theft
of livestock, cojfee beqns t1nd other reso11rces be.gan to be reported with
freq11e11fY. By the lime the Allgust 1998 war broke out, Rwandans and
Ugandans (top ojficm and their associates) had a strong sense of the potential
of the nat11rai resources and their focqtions in thfl eastern th, Democratic
R.ep11blic of the Congo. S ome historians have a,gued that Ugandan farces wm
instrumental in the conques/ of areas such as Watsa, Bunia, Beni and
Butembo during the ftrst war.
15
URAnnex68
27. Numerous accounts in Kampala SU)!,!,eSt that the decision to enter the
conjlict in August 1998 was defended by some top mi/itary officiais who had
served in eastern Zaire dming the ftrst war and who had had a taste of the
business potenlialof the region. Some k~ witnesses, who served with the Rtrlfy
far Congolese Democrary rebel faction in earfy months, spoke about the
èagerness of Ugandan forres to move in and occupy areas where gold and
diamond mines were located. Other sources infoTTJJed the Panel that, late in
September 1998, th9 wm alt?atfy engaged i,; dist:111sions with General
Salim Sa/eh on the creation of a c01'/ljJa1!J that would suppfy the eastern
Democratic &public .of the Congo with merchandise, and on the import of
n(1fura/ resources. Theprrject never materialized in this foTTJJ, but the sources
rportedfy also discussed this and other busi11ess venture possibilities with the
Preside11t of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni.
There are strong indications that, if security and political reasons were the
proftssed roots of the political leaders' motivatùm to move into the .eastern
Democratic &public of the Congo, some top 4"'!} officiais clearfy had a
hidden agenda: economic and jinancial objectives. A ftw months before the
1998 war broke out, General Salim Sa/eh and the eider son of President
Museveni reportedfy visited the eastern Democratic fupublic of the Congo.
One month after the beginning of the conftict, General James T.<:azjni was
already invoived in commercial activities. According to very reliable sources, he
knew the most profitable sectors and immediatefy organized the local
commanders to Jerue their economic a11d ftnancial objectives. "
As this Commission underst.ands the Panel's argument, leaving aside for the
moment alleged personal involvements, and endeavouring to separate alleged
Ugandan and Rwandan involvement:, which unfortunately the Panel failed to
do, the Panel say:
1. Ugandan top Officers gained experience of business potential
in the Congo because they supported the ADFL in Eastern
Congo during Laurent Kabila's rebellion against President
Moburu, while conquering East and South East Zaïre
2. Top Military officials in the UPDF who had served in Eastern
16
URAnnex68
Zaire in 1996 argued for Uganda's involvement in 1998 for
their own selfish ends
3. The Panel acknowledges that political leaders might have been
motivated to move into the Congo for security and political
reasons: however top army leaders had a hidden agenda
economic and financial motives
Reference to the transcript of evidence wil1 quite clearly show that, so far as
Uganda was concemed, while the AFDL, together at least with the Rwandan
anny, if not the Angolan anny, swept across the country, and finally attacked
and took Kinshasa, the UPDF was concemed with dealing with incw:sions into
Uganda at Uganda's northwestem border with the Sudan and Zaïre. The
UPDF therefore went into Zaire at its North Eastern-most point, and pursued
West Bank Nile Front rebels successfully. Thereafter, the UPDF was
withdrawn from Zaïre. This Commission was told that this was a short
catnpaign and that the UPDF moved quickly;
There is some evidence that Uganda provided extremely limited assistance to
the Rwandans, by detaching a pilot to fly Rwandan .soldiers on quick response
in a plane chartered by Rwanda. The pilot has told this Commission that he
never flew Ugandan troops. Uganda's ambassador to Kinshasa told this
Commission that, although he was away at the time of the fall of Kinshasa to
Laurent Kabila, he returned only ten days later to witness the swearing in of
Laurent Kabila, and he saw no sign of Ugandan troops.
Ail of this evidence is supported
1
by the evidence of ministers and permanent
secretaries responsible at the rime, and this Commission, in default of
representation for the opposing view, has been forced to descend into the
17
URAnnex68
arena and put the points raised in the Panel Report strongly to the witnesses
who have corne before it.
On point 1 above, on the evidence which this Commission has heard, this
Commission finds as a fact that there is no indication whatever that in 1998
"Ugandans (top officers and their associates) had a strong .sense of the
potentil!,l of the natural resources and their iocations in Eastern the Democratic
Republic of the Congo" due to their earlier experiences, because the earlier
experiences were in North Eastern Zaïre, rather then Eastern Zaire.
On point 2 ahove, it is beyond contest that in April 1998, Uganda's
Ambassador to Kinshasa had briefed His Excellency the President on the
situation in the Congo after several vîsits to the border area and discussions
with traclitional .chiefs, opinion leaders and local authorities in Beni and Irumu:
there were also intelligence reports from UPDF Intelligence. The situation was
that ADF, NALU, EX-FAZ, EX-FAR and WNBF were operating along the
common border. Vehicles stolen from Uganda were ending up in the Congo.
ADF, EX-FAZ and EX-FAR were getting support through Sudan. On this
sicle ofhis report, the Ambassador recommended a military solution in addition
to a political one : as a joint operation between Uganda and the Democratic
Republic of Congo to get rid of the anned g:roups.
There was a Ministerial Meeting on Security and Refugee Matters between
Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo on 7.4.98 in Kampala. Uganda
recommended Joint Comtnand for the UPDF and the ADFL, with increased
deployment of ADFL on the border, and other cooperative measures: the
Democratic Republic of Congo preferred joint operations rather than joint
command. However, there was a clear understanding of the problems of
18
URAnnex68
security, and acknowledgement of the problem. The language of the discussion
clearly îndicates that the Democratic Republic of Congo expected any joint
command to include "foreigners into the affaîrs of a foreign state"
A joint communiqué was prepared on 26'" April after a meeting between
Ministers, in wlùch it was stated that there was agreement on ways and means
to eradicate insecurity, although no details were spelt out.
Thereafter at a date late in April, a Protocol was drawn up at Kinshasa inwlùch
the two parties (Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo ) recognised
the existence of enemy groups which operate on either side of the common
border. Consequently the two armies agreed to "co-operate in order to insure
(sic) security and peace along the common border''.
It was at about tlùs time probably, on the evidence tlùs Commission has heard,
that shortly before the Protocol, the UPDF wentinto the Oemocratic Republic
of Congo, with a force of three battalions in three places, Bukira, Buswaga and
Lhume. When they did that they met no resistance from the ADFL: and
presumably, whatever the political situation, it follows that the two armies were
in agreement to tlùs action: wlùch the politicians appear to have attempted
(unsuccessfully in tlùs Comrrùssion's view) to legalise in meetings and by the
drafting of the Protocol which tlùs Comrrùssion has referred to above. The
circumstances shown by the evidence amount to a genuine invitation to
Uganda to take part in security operations over the border.
Now tlùs does not sound to this Commission like a collection of gung-ho top
military commanders wanting to dash off into the Democratic Republic of
Congo to make money, and persuading even their commander-in clùef, whose
decision it finally must have been, to agree with them, and commit Uganda to
19
URAnnex68
the danger and expense of occupation of another country. There were sound
reasons for the concems ofboth countries, and the action Uganda took was as
a result of discussions and agreement.
There was a problem of security, to which the Panel does not refer: there
clearly were discussions and agreements of the most open kind: all these
documents were available to the Panel This Commission thinks that, taken
together with this Commission's finding on Point 1, it cannot be said either
that the Government of Uganda acted for any other motive than for security
and politjcal reasons: and thls finding also deals with Point 3 above.
As to Point 4 above, these allegations should not be dealt with here, as this
Commission is ttying to consider overall policy and the actions of
Govemment. However, in: view of what has been said above, this Commission
doubts that this is a correct conclusion.
î3 PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURES THA1'FACILITA'fED
EXPLOITATION
13.1 Transportation Networks
ln the UN Panel report at Pàragraph 31, the comment is made that aircraft fly
from the military airport transporting arms, military equipment, soldiers and,
for some companies, merchandise. On the return flights, they will carry coffee,
gold, diamond traders and business representatives, and in some cases soldiers.
A great deal of this Commission's time has been taken up ttying to investigate
what was going on at Entebbe Airport. Restricting this Commission's
conclusions to flights in and out .of the military airport, this Commission bas
discovered that at various different times, both military planes and private
20
URAnnex68
commercial planes were operating from the airport. On the basis of CAA data
it is quite clear that the private flights outnumbered the military flights by a
large number.
The Ministry of Defence at one time was operating its own plane, at another
chartering aircraft. There are some limited eJCamples which appear from the
manifests this Commission bas been able to col.lect that military flights were
occasionally assisting private businessmen, and occasionally private charters
were assisting the Ministry of Defence . But generally these flights were
operating separately.
The justification for private flights operating from a military airport was that
they were flying to a war zone, and therefore needed to be under military
control: and further, the policy of He the President was to assist as a
humanitarian act trade with the Oemocratic Republic of Congo to be
facilitated.
14 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF
UGANDA
In Paragraph 31 of the Report, that the Govemment of Uganda permitted
these flights to facilitate the exploitation of nat:ural resources of Congo.
The problem here is a matter of perception. What was happening was two
entirely separate operations, one private and the other military. It would have
been easy for an observer to assume that all operations were military, because
the planes used do not carry any special markings, for instance camouflage, and
the Ministry of Defence planes were not arrned.
21
URAnnex68
Having made that incorrect assumption, that all operations were military, the
observer would wrongly conclude that military officials were carrying out
enormous amounts of trade at the military airport. So far as this Commission
can tell, that was not the case, although the investigations are not yet complete.
By far the largest number of flights were private, carrying merchandise to and
from the Congo. This Commission actually saw an Antonov Aircraft carrying a
cargo of 19 tons of Cocoa for Unilever land during the visit to the airport. It
was using the military airport, and had dropped passengers from the
Democratic Republic of Congo at the International Airport for Immigration
and Customs formalities. It was met by Customs officiais when it taxied over to
the military installation.
This Commission has to say, however, that it is not convinced that military
planes were not carrying merchandise for senior officers from the Congo. In
the examînation of the officers involved, this Commission was faced with a
conspiracy of silence. The only cargo this Com.f!lission could trace as having
been flown back from the Democt:atic Republic of Congo in a military airplane
was on two occasions loads of coffee owned by Jean Piene Bemba.
15 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GEN SALIM SALEH
Gen Salim Saleh was criticised for visiting the Eastern the Democratic Republic
of Congo before the 1998 war broke out. Gen Saleh told this Commission on
oath that he had nevet: visited the Eastern the Democratic Republic of Congo,
but that he had gone to I<inshasa at the invitation of Lament Kabila, and there
discussed trade possibilities, and in particular air services. This was at a rime
when there was every reason to .count on the co-operation of Laurent Kabila,
and this Commission sees no problem in such matters as trade being
22
URAnnex68
discussed at that rime.
16 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST KAINERUGABA MUHOOZI
This is the only time Lt Muhoozi's name is mentioned in the whole report.
Before this Commission Lt Muhoozi said that he went, not to Eastern the
Oemocratic Republic of Congo but to Kinshasa on two occasions. The first
was in 1997, during the regime of Mobutu, when he went to look for a market
for meat products on behalf of his family ranch, which is well known for the
keeping of cattle and the need for a market. The second occasion was in early
1998 when he had started working for Caleb International, Salim Saleh's fum,
for discussions with some potential partners in the Democratic Republic of
Congo with the possibility of developing some mining interest there. This was
during the regime of Laurent Kabila, when friendly relations were thought to
exist between the Kinshasa Government and Uganda.
This Commission is fully satisfied that these were genuine visits during
peacetime to promote international trade, and this Commission cannot
understand why they appear as criticisms in the UN Panel Report.
17 MASS $CALE LOOTING
The UN Panel Report states as a general proposition that between September
1998 and August 1999, occupied zones of the Democratic Republic of Congo
were drained of existing stockpiles.
Ugandan soldiers under Gen Kazini were accused of having, in late August
1998 absconded with stockpiles of Timber belonging to Amex Bois. The
Report does not state whether Gen Kazini was present at the time. This
23
URAnnex68
Commission has been able to investigate this allegation to some extent. This
Commission found on the evidence that only a short time aftet this was
supposed to have happened, Amex Bois was ttansitting quantities of timber
thmugh Uganda: and wonders, if Amex Bois was drained of stockpiles of
timber, how they were able to replenish theîr stocks so quickly. This creates a
serioùs doubt in t,hjs Commission's winds as to dle truth of tbis allegation. One
suggestion given to this Commission on oath is that some UPDF soldiers had
used a little of the timber for firewood, falling far short of draining the stocks.
Gen Kazini was also alleged to have ordered the confiscation of stockpiles of
timber of La Forestiere in December of that year. The Panel rely on an
allegation that Gen Kazini was seen in the area at the time of the alleged
incident In fact when Gen Kazini left La Forestiere, he obtained a withdrawal
document signed by the relevant authorities which stated that La Forestiere had
no such complaint.
In January 1999, Jean Pierre Bemba with Gen Kazini was alleged to have
organized a large operation for the confiscation of coffee heans. The recital of
information upon which the Panel relied deals with acts of Jean Pierre Bemba,
but does not implicate Gen Kazini.
It is further alleged that :-
'Cars and other i'tem.r were apparent!J al.ro taken frôm thé country, a.r the
.rtati.rtic.r on Ugandan regi.rtet'fd cars reflected an inmase of about one quarter
in 1999'~
The assumption that the increase in registered cars in Uganda at the relevant
period represented cars stolen from the Democratic Republic of Congo
24
URAnnex68
was obviously wrong as it ignored completely other probable sources from
whkh the increase could have corne.
Besicles, the information this Commission has received frotn Interpol Data
Base shows that the number of stolen vehicles that were recovered by Uganda
and handed over to the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1998 and 2001
was only three.
If the allegation were true, there would have been a cSignificant number of left
band drive cars in the streets of Kampala. This Commission has evidence, and
have observed ourselves, that this is not the case.
In Paragraph 42 it is alleged that in Bunia Congolese civilians were injured or
murdered for resisting the attempted seizure of property by "RCD rebels and
foreign soldiers". It is not dear whether this is an allegation against the UPDF,
but the allegation is not sufficiently detailed to investigate, or to rely upon.
In Paragraph 43 and 44, the highest army commanders of Uganda ate alleged
to have encouraged, organized and coordinated looting, and in particular Gen
Kazini is said to have appointed loyal commanders and reliable civllian
Congolese to secure his network in areas rich in minerai resources. This
Commission shall revert to this in the final report. The appointment ofAdele
Lotsove was quoted as an example, and is further dealt with in Paragraph 71.
Tius Commission has considered the matter .at paragraph 18 below of this
report.
ln Paragraph 45 it is alleged that key officiais in the Government of Uganda
were aware of the situation on the ground: and furthet, in the case of gold, that
the increased ptoduction would have alerted any govemment.
25
URAnnex68
18 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UGANDA
In relation to the allegations in Paragraphs 43,44, 68 and 71of the Panel Report
relating to the appointment of Adele Lotsove, in paragraph 71 of the UN Panel
Report it was stated that the illegal exploitation of natural resources was
facilitated by the administrative sttuctures e$tablished by Uganda and Rwanda.
An example which the Panel quoted was the appointrnent as Governor of Ituri
Province of Adele Lotsove on .the 18th June 1999. This Commission has seen
the lettet of appointment among the exhibits: the only difference is that the
letter is the appointment of a Provisional Governor. This Commission is
howev,:r impressed by the terms of the letter of appointment, which exhorts
the new Provisional Governor to act in a proper fashion, and the way in which
she should approach her work is particularised. 'This Commission has been told
that Brigadier Kazini was reprimanded for this act. In his defence he pointed
out that, due to a split in the RCD factions, no one could agree on the
necessary appointment of an administrative head for Ituri province, and he
therefote thought it right to act to fil! the vacuum. In fact, not only did he
appoint a Provisional Govemor, he actually created a new Province in defiance
of organized opposition,_ leaving yet more disgruntled Congolese, and in
defiance of the express command of his Commander in Chief. This
Commission does not think that a reprimand was appropriate for this,
especially when it was not entered on the officer's record as it was supposed to
be: this Commission had asked for a copy of this, but have not been availed it.
This Commission also thinks that warniog flags were flying as to the capability
of this officer to fill his very sensitive post
26
URAnnex68
As to the allegation that Madame Lotsove was instrumental in the collection
and transfer of fonds from her assigned administrative region to the Uganda
authorities in 1999, this Commission has been interested in the mechanics of
such a transfer of funds.
It would have helped this Commission in this Commission's work had the
Panel named the authorities concemed. If local UPDF authorities were
concerned, this Commission does rtot see how it would now be possible to
check any payments made. If govemment authorities in Uganda were
concerned, this Commission does not see how any payments made could have
reached Treasury without being recorded. In those circumstances this
Commission is at a loss to work out what information gathered by the Panel
could clearly indicate that such payments were made, and this Commission
therefore doubts this conclusion.
It has proved impossible to trace or investigate the allegation in Paragraph 45,
because the key officials and the source of information upon which the Panel
relies is not given. In evidence on oath before this Commission, this allegation
bas been denied in toto.
19 SYSTEMATIC AND SYSTEMIC EXPLOITATION
In Paragraphs 46-54 of the Panel Report, the Panel allege that a company (Dara
Forêt ) used illicit business practices and complicity with occupying forces and
the Government (presumably the Government of Uganda ) as well as its
international connections to exploit the natural resources of the Congo. The
Panel conducted a case study which is alleged to support this proposition.
27
URAnnex68
The allegations of impropriety concem Dara Forêt, Dara Great Lakes
Industries and associated companies, and the Uganda Government.
19.1 TIMBER: DARA FOREST AND DARA GREAT LAKES
INTERNATIONAL.
This Comnùssion reproduces here the example according ta the Panel Report.
Evidence brought, and severely tested by this Commission, is interpoiated
together with this Commission's comments.
DARA-Forest case study. A Ugandan-Thai fores/ company cal/ed DARAForest
moved to the It11ri area late in 1998.
Dara Forêt is a company registered in the Democratic Republic of Congo .
Whilst it has Tuai (5%) and Congolese (40%) Directors, it has no Ugandan
Directors shareholders, or any other Ugandan Interest apart from a Ugandan
Company nai-ned Royal Star Holdings, whose directors and shareholders (55%)
are exclusively Thai Nationals.
In March 1998, DARA-Forest appliedfar a litence to carry 011/ logging activities in
the Democra'lic Republic of the Congo, b11t »w denied a fores/ concession by the
Kinshasa a11thorities.
Mr. John Supit Kotiran, the managing Director of Dara Forêt, denied before
this Commission that he had ever made any application ta Kinshasa authorities.
This Commission has no evidence of any such application.
28
URAnnex68
In 1999, the company began to bl!J production by hin"ng individuals to har,;est timber
and then sel/ il to the company. Initial/y, these individuals were Co11golese operati11g in
partnership with Ugandans.
The evidence of Mr. Kotiran was that the company was buying individual trees
from Congolese, with the assistance of Local Chiefs in the Congo. He was then
shipping them in transit through Uganda (with the exception of a trial run of
two containers which he imported to Uganda and in respect of which he bas
produced the relevant .custorns documents) to foreign destinations.
The same year, DARA engaged in industrial production with the constrllction ofa
sawmi/1 in Mangina. By 2000, il had obtained ils own concession from RCD-ML
So far as this Commission ·can ascertain, this is correct
Anafysis of satellite images over a penod of lime reveals the extent to which
dejorestation oce11md in Orientale Province belween 1998 and 2000. The most
harvested fomts in the areas were around Dj11g11, Mambassa, Beni, KomanJa,
Lnna, Mont M<!JO and Aboro. This logging adivi!J was carried 0111 without
consideration of any of the minimum acceptable 111/es of timber harvesting far
sustainable fores/ management or even s11stainable Jogging.
Timber harvested in this regjon, which is occupied by the Ugandan af1l{Y and RCDML,
has exclusive/y transited or remained in Uganda. 011r own investigation in
Kampala has shown that mahogany otigjnating in the Democratic Republic of the
Con1,o is lar:?,efy available in Kampala, at a lower pnce than U1,andan mahogany.
This difference in price is simpfy due to the lower cost of acquisition of timber. Timber
harvested in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by Uganda pays very litt/e tax .or
noneatall
29
URAnnex68
There is no evidence before this Commission that Uganda as a country or as a
Goverrtment harvests timber in the Democratic Republic of Congo . This
Commission doubts that the allegation in the Report is correct.
In addition, msloms fées are general/y not paid when soldiers escorf those tmcks or
when orders are received from some local commanders or General Kazfni. Timber
from the Democratic Republic of the Congo is then exported to Ke'!Ya and Uganda,
and to other continents. The Panel gathered from the Ke1!Jan port authorities that
uast quantities of timbet are exported to Asia, Europe and North America.
The Panel also discovered during ils inl)estigation that individual Ugandan loggers
violatedforestry legislation, recognized by their al!, RCD-ML, by logging (extractin!)
the timber direct!J. According to the Congolese kgislation on the permis de coupe,
on!J individual Congolese nationals are allowed to harvest timber and on/y in smalt
quantitie1. Foreignm must app/y for the larger concession,. Initial/y, Ugandans
operatedîn partnership with a Congokse permit ho/der:. S oon, the Ugandans began to
P'!Y the Congolese to sub-lease the pennit and, rubsequent!J, to obtain the licence in
direct violation of the law.
In so far as the above relates to Dara Forêt, Mr. Kotiram bas told this
Commission that he has not yet eut a single tree within bis concession. He has
given good and sufficient reason for that, and thîs Commission will recite it in
due course.
During a visit to Mpondwe/Kasindi and also at Arua/ Ariwari, thîs
Commission spoke to the Congolese Officers there, and they denied strongly
that it would be possible for UPDF to influence the passage of merchandise, or
for theit commanders to give orders in that regard. It should also be pointed
out that even if what is alleged was happening, there would be no customs fees
payable on exit from the Congo, so the only loser would be Uganda. It is true
that large quantities of timber transit Uganda for export to Europe and
30
URAnnex68
America., in the ordinary course of trade.
In so far as individual Ugandan loggers are concemed, this Commission has- -n--o
way of investigating this non-specific tnatter: This Commission have had
evidence that there are Ugandans who go over to the Congo and buy trees by
negotiating with individual Congolese permit holders or Chiefs, and import the
timber once eut to Uganda, which helps to account for the presence of
Congolese hardwood in the Uganda market. This Commission was informed
that the low price of Congolese hardwood is due to the fact that Congolese
timber is harvested and eut with chain saws, while chain saws are not permitted
in Uganda. The efficiency of chain saws accounts for the increase in cross
border trade. This cross border trade bas been carried on throughout living
memory.
Timber extraction in the Democratic &public ef the Congo and its export have been
charactetized by un/aefulness and il/egaliry. Besides extmctt"ng timber witho11t
a11thotization in a sovtreign country and t"n violation of the hcal legislation, DARAFomt
consistent!, exported its tt"mber without a'!Y certification prvcedure.
In this paragraph the Panel raise the whole question of de facto control of
administration which thls Commission has dealt with under the heading of
["Illegality" at 10 above ].
It tried to approach some certification bodies /icensed by the Forest Stewardship
Council These bodies requeskd documentation and elements that the compa'!Y failed
to prvvide.
Mr. Kotiram has told this Commission that he wants to gain certification for
his concession in the Congo, for reasons which are to do with timbe~ for his
31
URAnnex68
processing factory at Namanve in Kampala which is yet to be built. It is
because certification has not yet been achieved that he has not eut any trees on
his concession
Yet VARA-Forest exported timber in violanon of a normal procedure general!J
required and accepted 1?J the international fores/ communi!J and graduai/y considered
to be international ''soft law'~ Companies importing this uncerti.fted timber from
VARA-Forest were essentialfy in majorind11slrialized co11ntries, intl11ding Belgiilm,
China, Venmark, Japan, Ket!Ja, Switzerland and the United States of America.
If companies so widely spread around the .developed world are prepared to
trade in uncertified timber, this paragraph lends weight to this Commission's
conclusion under the ride ["IDegality" at 10 above] that commercial practice is
to trade in tiinber whether certified or not, but at different prices. It again raises
the question of "soft law'' which this Commission has considered in Paragraph
.3 of 10/.5 above. Mr. Kotiram gave this Commission some interesting
information: he said that there is no other company certified in Africa except
one company in Gabon. This Commission does not know if that is true or not,
but bas no reason to doubt it. If so, then in Africa this cannot be said to be a
"procedure generally required".
The Panel also realized that VARA Great Lakes Indus/ries (DGU), of which
VARA-Forest is a s11bsidiary, along with a sister compat!J in Uganda, J:-{yota
Wood Industries, ÏJ in collusion with the Ministry of Water, L,nd and Fores/f of
Uganda in establishing a scheme to focilitale the certification of timber comingfrom
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
There are a number of matters here. First, DGLI is not a subsidiary of Dara
Forêt They are both subsidiaries of the Dara Group. Mr. Kotiram is managing
32
URAnnex68
director of both, and holds the controlling interest in both companies, either
personally, or by his interest în yet another company, Royal Star Holdings,
which while registered în Uganda, is a wholly Tuai owned Company. Sînce the
shareholding in Nyota Wood is much the same, presutnably it falls under the
same umbrella. This is the evidence of Mr. Kotiram, and probably in practice it
is ttue: but probably also these are not in law subsidiaries of Dara Group, (a
company registered in the Virgin Islands) since that company does not appear
to hold any interest in any of the companies.
Then it can be shown that there was no collusion between Nyota Wood and
the Ministry of Water, Land and Forests of Uganda, because one application
which was made to the Ministry, which, if the Panel is right, would have beert
essential to the alleged conspiracy, was refused by the Ministry.
In May 2000, DGU signed a con/rad for farest stewardship cerlljication with
SmartWood and the Rog11e InstilJ.lte far Ecology and Econom.J in Oregon, United
States of America.
This is not true. Smartwood is the certifyîng Agency: the Rogue Institute for
Ecology and Economy was an agency whom Mr. Kotiram contracted to advise
him on SmartWood's requirements for certification. Thereafter Dara contacted
another Company, UNIQUE, Wegerhâuser & Partner, who later gave a
presentation to the New UN Panel. UNIQUE were advising Dara on the way
to go about certification of their concessions in Democratic Republic of Congo
and in Uganda.
33
URAnnex68
On 21 March 2000, the Director of the DARA group, Pros!)' Balaba, setrt a letter
to the Commissioner asking him to allow an official of SmartWood to visit certain
forests, such as Budongo and J3ugoma,· he was due to visit the region in mid-April
Prossy Balaba was not "the director of the Dara Group". She was a director
and · n-Jnority shareholder of the Ugandan Company referred to above as
DGLI. In that regard it will be noted that _Mr. Kotiram set up hls companies
with himself in control, supported by the participation of local directors and
shareholders. This is quite normal, and indeed required in some countries .. In
any event, for a Tuai National whose languages are not that good, it is certainly
advisable.
It is ttue that the request above was made : this Commission has a copy of the
letter.
The vi.rit was meant to deceive the official.~ presenting those jorests as the ones for
which certification was sought and to convince SmOf'IWood to work for the
certification of their timber.
The evidence of Mr. Kotiram, and of the Forestry Commissioner is quite clear
and consistent. DGLI had applied and obtained an investment licence for a
factory to process finished and semi-finished timber in Kampala. The
specifications for the factory were that it wol.lld require an enormous amount
of timber, far more than it turned out that Uganda could supply once
investigations were made. It was therefore necessary for DGLI to turn to Dara
Forêt in the Democratic Republic of Congo for additional supplies. But Mr.
Kotiram was advised that, in addition to certification of the timber from
Uganda, he would have to show that timber from the Congo was also
34
URAnne:x:68
cettified ifit was to be processed in the factory, and sold as certified ptoduce.
This he was told would be a requirement of SmartWood, who would be
interested not only in the forests, but the whole operation. DGLI therefore
needed to start with certification in Uganda at least.
Indeed, when the visit tookplace,Jrom 14 to 16 April, the DARAuaup had not
even applied for the concession of the Budongo farest (Uganda). It was on!, on 5]ufy
2000 that John Kotiram of the DA.RA group wrote to the Commissioner to request
the concession on the Budongo forest
The visit never took place, because the concessions in Uganda had not been
granted by the suggested date. Prossy Balaba and Mr. Kotiram told this
Commission that to write this letter so early was a genuine mistake brought on
in the belief, based on discussions with the Forestry Commissioner that the
concessions were to be granted more quickly than they in fact were.
The idea behind this is to use Budongo farest as a mode/ of forests Jrom which limber
is haroested and which comp!J with the international requirements for certification, in
order to certify limber comingfrom the Democratic &public of the Congo for which
basic elements of certification do not exist Future plans for beating the internahonal
system are already in place. According to internai documents ofDGU, DARAForest
will import timber from the Democratic fupublic of the Congo into Uganda,
which will be processed far dijferent t,pes of products in .the new plant in Namanvefor
the sawmilling of hardwood, both imported from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and harvested in Uganda. DGU partners in this new scheme include
DARA Ellf'fJpe GmbH Germa1!Y, Shanton President Wood Supp!J Co. Ltd
China, President Wood Suppfy Co. Ltd Thailand, DAR.A Tropical Hardwood,
Portland, Oregon, United S tales of America.
The Panel's informant no doubt did not have, as this Commission has, DGLI's
application to the District Forestry Officers concerned for concessions in three
35
URAnnex68
Ugandan Forests, namely Budongo, Bugoma and Mahira dated 11 'hOctober
1999, and therefore have seen conspiracies where no conspiracies exist. Mr.
Kotiram has explained to this Commission what he planned to do: there is no
way that the conspiracy alleged would have fooled experts from SmartWood, as
the capacity of the factory would have been ohvious, as would the inability of
the Ugandan Forests to supply it. The fi.rst question would have been where
the balance was to corne from. Mr. Kotiram accepts the list of overseas
companies with whom his companies trade.
In a letter of 5th July 2000, what is alleged to have been recorded only in
internal documents is in fact publicly acknowledged.
The distribution of sales ojthe compa1!J is thought to remain the same, about JO per
cent to the Far East, China, Japan and Singapore, 40 percent to Europe and25
per cent to North America. DARA Goeat Lakes Industries shareholding and
management is between Thai and Ugandan nationals, among them John Supit
Kotiran and Pranee Cha1!Jullasarl ojThailand and Prosv Baiaba of Uganda.
These figures are accepted by Mr. Kotiram and Prossy Balaba. Pranee
Chanyuttasart is his wife, who is now unfortunately and lately deceased. Mr.
Kotiram retains firm control of DGLI, and is its managing Director
Some unconfirmedinfarmation indicates thatmembers ojPresident Museveni'sfami!J
are shaoeholders ojDGU, a/though mooe investigation is needed.
This Commission agrees that a great deal more investigation is needed before
such an allegation appears in a report to a United Nations body. Our own
investigations with the Companies Registry reveals nothing whatever of that
36
URAnnex68
nature, and the allegation is denied by Mr. Kotiram and Prossy Balaba, and for
himself by His Excellency the President.
The DARA group also established another scheme to carry out Jraudulent activities
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The objects of DGU range from Jogging to
jinandal .and indus/rial activities. Because of the confasion created between DARAForest,
which received a concession from RCD, and DGU, DARA-Forest bas allo
been dealing in diamonds, gold and coltan. The Panel bas received reports Jrom the
custom posts ofMpondwe, Kasindi and Bundib,gyo of the ~Tt Jrom the Democratic
&public of the Congo of minerais such as cassiteri'te and coltan in trnc/e.s. During the
Pane/'s visit to Bunia il was reported that other products were loaded in trnc/es which
are supposed to carry timber on/y; it is like!J that coltan and cassiterite were these
products. Moreover, the Jraud extends to the fazyjng of documents and declarati'ons
"originating" in Kinshasa.
The confusion between Dara Forêt and DGLI, on the basis of the evidence,
exists only in the mi.nd of the Panel These appear to this Commission to be
two separate Companies, registered in two separate countries. Mr. Kotiram
agrees that Dara Forêt has been exporting coltan for which be bas a licence,
which he has produced to this Commission. It does not appear to be forged.
The minera} has been sent in transit through Uganda. Mr. Kotiram has
produced before this Commission Customs documents which have been
verified for this Commission by URA.
The Panel is not specific as to the forgery alleged: but this Commission suspect
that the problem may arise from the use by rebels of original forms left by the
Kinshasa Government before the rehellion. In any event, this Commission
would be slow to accuse parties ofcriminal offences such as fraud and forgery
without being able to set out specific details with particulars
37
URAnnex68
The Jogging rate was alarming around Butembo, Beni, Boga and Mambassa. The
RCD-ML administration acknowledged its lack of control over the rate of extraction,
the &ollection of taxes on logging activities and the mstoms fees at the exit points. On
the basis of~ewitness accounts, satellite images, kry ac/ors' acknowledgements and the
Panel's own investigation, there is suffident evidence to prove that timber extraction is
di-rectfy related to the Ugandan presence in Orientale Province. This bas reached
alarming proportions and Ugandans (dvilians, soldiers and companies) are
extensive/y involved in these activities. ïn May 2000, RCD-ML attributed a
concession of 100, 000 hectares to VARA-Forest. Since September 1998, oJJerall
VARA-Forest bas been exporting approximatefy 48, 000 m1 of timber per year.
UPDF presence in Orientale Province provided the security and access to
overseas markets denied to the Congolese for so long. One would therefore
expect to see increased activity in the area, not only by Dara Forêt but by other
companies as well.
So far as Dara Forêt is concerned, while Mr. Kotiram agrees the figures quoted,
he tells ûL.ds Comrnission that in his concession he bas not eut even a single
tree, and he bas given this Commission good .and sufficient reason for this. The
source of his timber has been from individuals, in accordance with a practice
outlined to this Commission by another witness.
This Commission is e){tremely concemed at the approach of the Panel to this
subject. Nowhere in the whole of this passage is the reliability of sources
quoted, but, considering the emphasis put on these alleged events, the Panel
must have corne to the conclusion thatit was safe to rely on its undisclosed and
apparently un-evaluated sources. Y et the perception of those sources, and that
of the Panel, was quite clearly wrong. A short interview with Mr. Kotiram
would have established the truth, and he was never approached according to
bis evidence.
38
URAnnex68
From the evidence, this Commission bas come to the conclusion that the
investigation by the Panel of Dara Forêt was fundamentally flawed. What is
most unfortunate is that the publication of the report bas led to the arrest of24
Tuais working in the Democratic Republic of Congo for Dara Forêt by the
Mai"7Ma~ wbo publicly attributed the arrest to the UN Panel Report
19.2 Mining Sector
This Commîssion is not yet ready to deal with this subject which requires
further investigation
19.3 Wildlife.
Paragtaph 61 of the Panel Report states that between 1995 and 1999, 30% of
elephants were killed in Garamba National Park in areas controlled by Ugandan
troops and Sudanese rebels, and that there are similar problems in other parks.
lt is also said that RCD-ML temporarily seized about 3 tons of tusks in Isiro.
After strong pressure, it is said, from Uganda, .the cargo was released and
transferred to Kampala.
In Paragrapb 62, as an example of soldiers hunting with the consent of their
commander, it is alleged that in August 2000, UPDF Col Mugenyi and a crew
of his soldiers were discovered with 800 kg of elephant tusks in theit car near
Garamba Park. 'Ihe Government of Uganda received detailed notification of
this incident
39
URAnnex68
20 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF
UGANDA
In Paragraph 61, the implication is that RCD-ML seized about 3 tons of tusks
from Ugandans who are not named, and that strong pressure was exerted from
some unnamed people in Uganda to release these tusks so that they could
continue on theîr journey to an unnamed destination.
With the evidence at band, it is impossible to investigate this incident, or to
attribute it to the State of Uganda. Officers from the Wildlife Authority told
,,
this Commission on Oath that they had no information about this alleged
incident, and one would have expected them to have been the agency
informed.
In Paragraph 62, that the Govemment of Uganda received detailed notification
of the incident, and, by implication, did nothing.
This Commission is again in problems due to the failure of the new Panel to
assist. This Commission has no idea who found the Colonel, or where the
recovered tusks are. Nor does this Commission knùw to whom the report to
the Govemment of Uganda was made: an officer from Wildlife Authority
appeared before this Commission and told this Commission on oath that he
had not received any such report, nor did he know about the recovered tusks.
Col Mugenyi (who was not a particularly impressive witness) denied the whole
incident on oath, and there was no evidence to the contrary. It is therefore
impossible to attribute blame for this alleged incident to the Govemment of
Uganda.
40
URAnnex68
21 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIS EXCELLENCY THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS FAMILY
The Panel say :
S ome unconji17lled information indicates that members of President
Mt1S8veni's fami!J, are shareholders of DGU, although ?JOre investigation is
needed.
This Commission agrees that a great deal more investigation is needed before
such an allegation appears in a report to a United Nations body. Our own
investigations with the Companies Registry reveal nothing whatever of that
nature, and the allegation is denied by Mr. Kotiram, Prossy Balaba, Salim Saleh,
Jovial Akandawanaho, and, for himself, by His Excellency the President.
22 MONOPOLIES AND PRICE FIXING
In Paragraph 64 of the Panel Report, Ugandan Troops are alleged to have
abused commerce and the trade system by forcing unnamed locally owned and
foreign owned businesses to close down with a view of gaining conttol of local
commerce .. The Panel say that the result was unprecedented .conttol of the
economy of the Eastern and North Eastern Democratic Republic ofCongo .
As examples of that, the Panel refer to their field trips to Gbadolite and Bunia
in the Democratic Republic of Congo where they found consumer goods
which emanated from Uganda.
41
URAnnex68
23 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UGANDA
Uganda is only involved in this paragraph's allegations by implication.
However, this Commission has visited the border posts at Kasindi and Ariwara
in the Congo, and were particularly interested in the markets over on the
Congo sicle. This Com..-r..ission agrees that those markets are full of goods
imported from Kenya and Uganda, and indeed from even further afield.
However, this Commission does not agree with the Panel that this is
unprecedented control of the economy, nor that it is attributable to the actions
of Ugandan Troops, apart from the provision of overall security.
First, it is suggested that local and foreign companies have been forced out of
business due to trade from Uganda. These comparues have not been named,
and this Commission doubts whether sending merchandise from Uganda,
which is not available in the Democratic Republic of Congo would have the
effect of forcing a company in the Democratic Republic of Congo to close
down.
AU this Commission's investigations show that on each side of the borderline
there are similar or the same tribes. On each side of the border are close family
relationships, and cross border trade is only to be expected. The evidence
before this Commission shows quite clearly that cross border trade has been
there in one fonn or another since time immemorial. This Commission was
told that trade through the Western sicle of the Democratic Republic of Congo
has ne\Ter been practical due to the poor infrastructure and the comparative
level of economic development of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Bumndi as
against the Democratic Republic of Congo, and that the obvious markets for
Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo dwellers has always been
42
URAnnex68
Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, due to proximity and infrastructure.
Certainly Congolese goods can be found in quantity on the Ugandan sicle: this
Commission bas seen that ta be true. If the Pand's theoty is right, then it is
surprising that the Panel did not find significant trade in Kisangani in Ugandan
Goods, due to UPDF occupation there.
Further, the cross border markets are not some hole in the corner affair. There
are market days ari:anged by agreement from both sicles of the border, and
proper arrangements in the market places : the best market this Commission
saw was in Ariwari which was fully stocked with an array of goods for locàl
purchase. ln Mpondwe and Kasindi there were representatives on both sicles
for Chamber of Commerce, and proper arrangements for resolution of trade
disputes had been put in place. Every sign that this Commission .saw was the
OFIDA and Ugandan Customs were operative and visibly present.
The other levd of trade involves those who fly goods from Entebbe to places
in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and back from the Democratic Republic
of Congo, and also those (like Dara Forêt) who trade within the Democratic
Republic of Congo without using the markets, but using lorries.
It is clear that this was happening, and on a major scale. This Commission bas
dealt with the legality of .such trade at Paragraph .1 of 10/.2 above and bas
required manifests and import documents from some of the airlines and
comparues involved, and attached ta almost every transaction are papers from
the Congo showing payment of the relevant taxes. In the case of Dara Forêt,
this Commission has details of every cross border transaction the company
engaged in, and in each case, again, there is evidence that taxes were paid.
43
URAnnex68
This Commission wonders therefore whether the statement attributed to RCDML
about non"payment of taxes is correct. There is the possibility which
Ugandan traders have raised before this Commission, that there was an unusual
arrangement which rebel factions used to raise money quicldy. As this
Commission understands it, and there are documents in support, traders used
to pay a sum to a particular rebel faction in advance of importing goods, and
were given a rime within which to complete the import. The race then began to
get goods through the border before the expiry of the rime limit, which might,
for example, be three months. This practice has been confirmed in the
affidavits of rebel leaders. Sometimes this worked, but on other occasions
differences would arise within the rebel organisations which resulted in the
promise to allow import against the prepayment not being honow:çd.
In Paragraph 68 of the Panel Report, it is suggçsted that part of the taxçs
collected by RCD-ML and MLC were sent to Kampala, and individual colonels,
who are not named, would daim direct payment from RCD-ML. There is a
similar allegation in Paragraph 71 relating to Adele Lotsove. This Commission
have dealt with this in Paragraph 18 above
As to the allegation in relation to individual colonels, who are not named, this
is incapable of investigation, or of attribution to the State ofUganda.
24 CURRENT STRUCTURES OF ILLEGAL
EXPLOITATION
24.1.Administradve Structures.
This Commission is not yet ready to deal with this suhject, which requires
further investigation
44
URAnnex68
24.2 MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
In Paragtaph 72 and 73 with 74 of the Panel Report, the Panel criticise the
airlines, including the Ministry of Defen~e, who operated from the Military
Airport at Entebbe on the basis that illegal activities, that is transport of
products and anns into the Democratic Republic of Congo, .and vast quantiùes
of agricultural products and minerais out to Kampala, have benefited frotn the
increase in airline traffic, and in Paragraph 73 that existing airlines are put out
of business.
25 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UGANDA
What is criticised by the UN Panel Report here is the conducting of illegal
activities. While this Commission would leave open the question of the UPDF
being învolved in such activities, as under "Illegality" at 10 above, this
Commission cannot see that ordinary trade can be said to be an illegal activity,
and this strikes at the whole basis of these paragraphs. For this reason, this
Commission cannot see any basis for the criticism of Sabena contained in
Paragraph 76, particularly as the evidence is that Air France has taken over the
market Sabena bas voluntarily left.
This amounts to a criticistn of the Ministry of Defence who are credited with
using aircraft leased by the UPDF for commercial and non-military functions.
This Commission has already dealt with the mis-perception which this involves
under "Background and Pre-existing structures" at 12 above . There clearly
were two operations at the tnilitary airport, military and civilian, and the major
operation was civilian.
45
URAnnex68
It is odd that the Panel starts Paragraph 72 by saying that prior to the second
war the major forms of transport were by road and by smuggling across the
lakes: and thereafter in Paragraph 73, allege that the new means of transport by
air put existing air operators out ofbusiness. The argument does not seem to
be consistent. No doubt in any business opportunîty, it is open to any company
to develop where there is an opportunity to do so. 'This Commission cannot
see how Uganda as a State can be blamed if Congolese Airlines failed to react
to the changing circumstances.
It is alleged that the airlines involved are owned or controlled by "relatives and
friends of generals colonels and Presidents". This Commission has on every
opportunity to do so, investigated connections with such people. Leaving aside
Air Alexander and Take Air for the moment, there is nothing in this allegation.
Air Navette which is specifically mentioned is owned by Shiraz Hudanî, and the
other directors and shareholders are Mrs. Hamida Hudanî, and one Abu
Mukasa, according to Mr. Hudani1s evidence. Modeste Makabuza who is
mentioned in Paragraph 75 as a major shareholder is not and never has been a
shareholder of Air Navette,
Mr. Hudani specifically denied having any connect:ion with Salim Saleh or any
of his comparues. He adroits however dealing with Jean Pierre Bernba
commercially.
25.1 PRIVATE COMPANIES
In Paragraph 85 The involvement of Uganda was treated differently from
Rwanda. Effectively the Uganda Government was acquitted of the charge of
Systemic and Systematic exploitation by govemment, and the blame was put on
to individuals, rnainly top Army Commanders. This is said to be known by the
46
URAnnex68
political establishment in Kampala.
26 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UGANDA
There are two bases upon which the Govenunent of Uganda could be said to
be involved. First that the amount of trade, especially in items where statistics
are kept, signalled whatwas going on in the.Democratic Republic of Congo.
Second, that there is a specific allegation that the political establishment knew.
There are only very few examples given in the Panel Report where knowledge
can be imputed to the Government of Uganda as such, and in each case this
Commission does not have sufficient details to be able t~ investigate, or to
attribute knowledge to the Government ofUganda
As to whether top army commandets are the main illegal exploiters of the
Democratic Republic of Congo, this Commission runs into a problem. This
being an interim report, at a time when this Commission has yet to complete
the investigation into UPDF involvement, this Commission is not in a position
to corne to a conclusion on this point. However, looking at the CAA statistics
and the relationship between flights of the Ministty of Defence airplanes and
priva te airplanes, and the manif ests available to this Commission, this
Commission would think that, if the Ministry of Defence airplanes were being
used for transport by senior officers, then it would not have been for the
majority of the resources alleged to have been exploited. Further most of the
resources flown or driven out of the Democratic Republic .of Congo appear to
have transitted Uganda, rather than to have been exported to Uganda: and in
such case, this Commission cannot see that a message would necessarily be
transmitted to the Government of Uganda .
47
UR.Annex68
26.1 lndividual Actors
There are allegations against Salim Saleh,Jovial Akandwanaho, and General
Kazini in the Panel Report. This Commission is not yet ready to report on
these matters which require further investigation.
27 ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMATION OF THE
ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION OF THE NATURAL
RESOURCES Of THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
CONGO
In Paragraphs 94 to 108 economic data is set out in the report.
28 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UGANDA
The Conclusion the Panel attempts to draw from the data is that other
allegations made elsewhere in the report are confirmed by this data.
This Commission has called evidence to evaluate this data and is still in the
process of analysing the data, and it is unable to report on it at this time.
29 LlNKS BETWEEN THE EXPLOITATION OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE CONTINUATION
OF THE CONFLICT.
29.1 BUDGETS COMPARED TO MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
In paragraph 115 of the Panel Report the Uganda budget is set out, with one
error by which it is assumed that the military budget pays for the pension of
retired soldiers. It has been explained to this Commission, as it would have
been to the Panel had they asked, that the budget which they quote covers
programme 2 (Land Forces) and programme 3 (Air Forces) only. There is an
additional programme 1 which provides for Headquarters, out of whlch
48
URAnnex68
pensions are paid.
ln paragraphs 116 and 117 calculations are made, based on various
assumptions and directed to show that the budget was overspent by about $16
million. Particularly the calculation relating to the cost of air transport is based
upon fantastic and unrealistic figures. The correct figures could have been
obtained by the Panel from Ministry of Defence.
Life bas been made rather more simple for this Commission . This
Commission have not had to make any assumptions or do any calculations,
because the actual figures have been availed to this Commission .
Overexpenditures during the years 1998 to 2001 were:
98/99 47 billion Ushs
99 /00 6 billion Ushs
00/01 14 billion Ushs
Evidence before this Commission was that these overexp.enditures were
necessary for various reasons, not all of which r_elated to Operation Safe
Haven: they were covered by supplementary budgets, and the money provided
by Ministry of Defence from funds obtained from Ministry of Finance.
Therefore, in the case of Uganda, the link between exploitation of natural
resources of the Democra.tic Republic of Congo and the continuation of the
conflict, based upon the suggestion that such exploitation was swelling the
funds of Uganda's treasury in order to pay for the war is tenuous, to say the
least.
Indeed in paragraph 135 of the report, the Panel say:
49
URAnnex68
'Vgqnda unlike Rwanda did no! set np an extrabudgetary [}Stem to .finance
its prgsence in the Oemocratû Republic of the Congo. The regular deftnce
budget is used and broadfy the deftcit is handled by the treasury. "
This is followed by a complicated computation relating to what the Panel call
the "re-exportation economy" . This Commission shall consider thls in due
course, but here only says that the Panel neither say, nor ,supply evidence that
the Govemment of Uganda was aware of, or encouraged the tricks referred to
in the Panel's exposition of the "re-exportation economy". This Commission
has no evidence leading to that conclusion.
29.2 FINANCING THE WAR
In Paragraphs 136 - 142 the Panel attempt to make a case for saying that
Uganda was able to pay for the war out of what they call a "re-exportation
economy". They summarise the case in the following way:-
50
URAnnex68
"142. The Ugandan situation can be mmmariZfJd as follows: the reexportation
economy has helped increase tax revenues, atlowing the h'easu,y to
have more cash. Businesses related to the conjlict and managed by Ugandans
have contnüuted to an extent to generate activities in the economy in a sec/or
Juch as mining (!.old and diamonds). The growth in these sectors bas had a
trickle-down e.ffect on the economy and permitttd Uganda to improve ils GDP
in 1998 and maintain il 1omewhatin 1999. The improve,nent in GDP has
permitted, according to Ugandan officiais, anincrease in absolute terms of the
milita,y budget white keeping the Jevet of the milita,y budget al the agreed 2
percent of GDP. The apparent strength of the Ugandan economy bas given
more confidence to investors and -bilateral and multilateral donors who, by
111aintaining their Jevel of cooperation and assiltance to Uganda, gave the
Government room to spend more on security malters white other sectors, mch
as educati'on, health and governance, are being taken care of by the bilateral
and multilateral aid. "
Specifically in Paragraph 136/7, the Panel explain the re-exportation economy
to imply · that natural resources imported froro the Democratic Republic of
Congo are re-packaged or sealed as Ugandan Natural resources or products and
re-exported. They say that that is the case for gold, diamonds coltan and coffee
exported by Uganda. Examples given of the impact of the re-exportation
economy on the financing of the war are:~
■ Increase of incarne of businessmen.
■ Illegal exploitation of gold improving balance of payments,
leading to improving donor tonfidence in the economy
■ Theoretically leading to higher tax collection.
In Paragraph 139, examples are given of road transit ofgoods through Uganda.
This example is irrelevant, because transit goods do not pay duty or taxes in
Uganda.
51
\
URAnnex68
As to the question of collection of taxes in the Congo, that is a matter for the
Congolese authorities, and as this Commission bas examined elsewhere at
Paragraph 18 above, the allegation that taxes were not paid is doubtful. Tuen
there appears to be a suggestion that if customs duties were to have been paid
on items in transit, then that would bring in $5 million per month: but in the
context of the subject being discussed, that $5 million would neither be income
to Uganda from transit goods, nor income to the Democratic Republic of
Congo, as customs duties are not payable in the Democratic Republic of
Congo for export or transit
In the affidavit of Ateenye Tibasima, he doubts that the figure of $5 million is
realistic in any event.
In Paragraph 140 the Panel suggest that Uganda was financing the war by
buying military supplies, specifically petrol, on credit.
ït seems to this Commission that these are normai commerciai transactions,
and are matters between, for instance, the petrol companies and Goverrunent.
This Commission have no doubt that if the credit extended gets too great, the
petrol companies would neither extend further credit nor be able to.
In Paragraph 141, the Panel talle of official bonuses. This Commission has the
clearest evidence that no official bonuses were paid to soldiers in the
Democratic Republic of Congo . There was a payment in lieu of rations to
enable soldiers to buy food, which was cheaper for the UPDF than flying food
over from Uganda.
If individual soldiers were lining their pockets, with or without the approval of
their commanders, this cannot be connected to the alleged re-exportation
52
URAnnex68
economy: and this is an inappropriate place to consider this matter.
'l'o assist the verbatim evidence is set out :-
"Justin Zake: ljustin Zake is a Depu!J Commissifmer General with
Uganda Revenue ANthority) Yeah. I saw in the. report 15 million, re-
1xportation went to the treasmy and "!Y r,a.tion was to laugh because ifit
was re-exportation, and re-txportati.on does nof btne.ftt th, Govern1111nt of
Uganda, unkss the company doin.r, the re-export is resident and registmd in
Uganda. In other words, we 111011/d not go far incom, taxes Jrom them btea11se
thm are transit items, I mean, Jrom ont plact passing through Uganda, so
that would not bene.ftt the Governmmt of Uganda. And 1 begyour indulgence
my l..Prds, I talked about contribution of the top 200 taxpayers and as I said
the top 20 contribute about 50%. Now a'!J of these companies that were
mentioned in the report are not in the top 20 and .50% of about a trillion
shillings, and that is a lot of trillions. IS million, and I think that is the
captured value, the mere captured value, but not tax out of that value, and not
a tariff attached on a particular item off what th'!) tho11ght maybe ends tp in
Uganda. S o I would like to tender as wefl the top taxpayers in Uganda, these
art 200 far both 1997-1998 and 1999-2000 j11st to give you a ftel ofwhat
it is. So the issue of dramatic menue ansing 0111 of Democratic Republic of
Con.r,o and signiftcant contributions to the treasury, the data that I have
doesn 't bear that out.
Justice J.P. Berko: Actualfy the UN were not concerned with the
legitimate trading between the two countries and that is what would be
reflected inyour documents. But th'!) were real!J worried about the illégal trade
betwe,n the two countries.
Justin Zake:My l..Prd I do 11nderstand that.
JusticeJ.P. Berko: And that one would no/ rejlect, in treasury accounts.
53
URAnnex68
And
fusiin Zake:It wouldn't re.flect in /reas11ry accounts, notas far as we are
capt11ring. Maybe after having read the report and thr, were ta/king of reexportation,
there are no taxes on exports, so somebody reiident in Uganda,
and registered in Uganda con take 011I whatellèr they 1110111, there will be no
fax 011 the export, however, he 111ill be fiable to the profit tax if he makes
profits. If a compa'!Y is non-resident in Uganda and consigns direct/y fivm the
Democratic Republic of Congo fo where11er and it is j11st lran!iting Uganda I
cannot fax them beca11se they are not resident i11 Uganda. Yes, the Income
Tax Act 1997 talks abo11t the concept of global income, b11t that is far a
compa'!Y that is nsident in Uganda and it isearningfivm t,lobal so11rces, that
is taxablè. And of co11rse where thm is a do11ble taxation a!,f?emenl there is
a sel off, so that is fi(} submission. •~
''Micheal Atingi-Ego: (Micheal Atingi-Ego is Actint, Director of
&searrh at Bank of Uganda) MJ Lords, I would not want to entirefy
believe that re-exports haw benefited the Ugandan econo17!J as s11ch, if there
were benejits to Ut,anda econofl(Y they sho11/d be clear!J spelt 011t. First of ail
re-exports art not taxedj11st like a'!Y exports art not taxed so I do not know
how benefits would haw come in there and if there are re-exports that are
going 011/ throut,h Uganda the beneftciaries of these might be the non residenls
may be the fareigners gfven the good infrarlrNchlre that they are usîngfar reexporting
the receipts they get fivm those re-exportsgo direct to the econo":}, so
how /JIÏ/1 it benefit Uganda?
Assistant Lead Counsel: So you are St!Jing that a'!Y re-exportalion
111011/d not benefit?
54
URAnnex68
Micheal Atingi-Ego: I cannot say that there is no benefit al al~ for
example, ifyou havt tnJcks coming.from R.wanda or Sudan or Congo going
through Uganda may be re-exporting, there are indirect efficts that you haw
e.g. business might boom for sma/1 owners of restaurants, lodges, eatingplam
ek. Il can gel an indirect benefit jilst like you have Ugandan traders who are
bringing oilfrom Mombasa, 111e bl!J this Commission's oil from there and il is
a re-export of Ke1!Ja and it comes to Uganda and as the tnJck drivers go to
Ke'!Ja to pick the ()il they may stop in Kisumu for a night, spend some monry
there so the 0111ners of such business benefit If that is the kind of benefit that
you are ta/king about
Assistant Lead Counsel: No I am ta/king in the terms of benefit to the
treasury in terms of taxes or custom duties. P/ease look al paragraph 138
where thry make that allegation that there 111ere tnJcks carrying timber, coffee,
minerais etc
Micheal Atingi-Ego: Paragraph 138, the wry ftrst sentence reads:
"Secondly, illegal exploitation of gold in the Democratic Republic
of Congo brought a significant improvement in the balance of
payments of Uganda
Thal statement is wrong because this Commission's current account balance
has been deteriorating so much, this Commission 's exports are Jar less than
this Commission's imp()rts so I do not know how it is improving and the
improvement in the overallbalance of payment is large/y as a result of donor in
Jlows coming lo this country not as a result of exports became these are far kss
compared to this Commission's imports even the tables I haw here sh()w that
the ci1TTent account has been deteriorating for a long lime and this is being
ftnanced .I?, donors to the extent that exports, leaw a/one the re-exports are
not taxed I do not see how the treasmy benefits from this
Assistant Lead Counsel: Because you are saying that e11stoms 111011/dn't
be paid on transit and re-exports. Cusloms dulies wou/dn't be paid on .rèexports
so the treasmy 111011/dn't benefit?
Micbeal Atingi-Ego: No thry do not tax exports, a'!Y exports in
Uganda are not taxed
55
URAnnex68
Assistant Lead Counsel: The statement that the Ugandan treasury got
at kast 5 million dollars every month ....... .
Micheal Atingi-Ego: To the best of my know/edge that is not the case
becarm export.s are not taxed so how wou/d the treamry benefit
Assistant Lead Counsel: I want to make thisjinal question, is there a
signijicant relationship between the polit, of liberalization and the volume of
trade that Uganda has enjqyed in those years?
Micheal Atingi-Ego: Af.y Lord th.ere is a strong significant relationship
between überal policies p11rs11ed by the government of Uganda and the volume
of trade in lhal d11ring the period of controls farmers were paid farm gate
prices far the prod11cts an amo1111t which was not competilive to make them
recover the costs of production so what happened was that in most cases the
cost of prod11cing an item lhat is so/d to a state owned çnterprise e.g. Prod11ce
Marketing Board, Coffee Marketing Board, the formers cou/d not recover
some of the costs they were incurring so as a remit they abandoned growing of
these cash crops and morted to mbsistence. Evidence shows that non monetary
economy pickeJ rp àl or drmng the lime of contro/s, however, when the
government of Uganda liberalized ils economic environment the incentives far
formers prod11r:e picked rp so much became a former was now free to sel/
his/ her prod11cts at a price that wo11/d cover the prod11ction costs. Ever since
the gowmment of Uganda began liberalizjng production has picked rp and
then we also liberalized ~oth the cumnt and capital accounts and so the
border trade has also picked rp, e.g. the Jrade between UgandQ and Kef!Ya,
Uganda and Rwanda and the trade between Uganda Qnd the Democralic
&public of Congo parlicular/y when West Nife gui some Jegrre of pear:e as a
res11/t that there are some items which are produced in Uganda that may not
be produced in other countn'es. We are we/1 known far srppfying food to
Kef!YQ and in return agents get manufactured goods parlicu/Qr/y when we had
this Commission's manlljaduring ,ector here not working. It WQJ Q normal
border Jrade but what is happening is that when we liberaliZfdproduction
picked rp and therefare the vo/11111e of /rade has picked rp"
56
URAnnex68
30 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UGANDA
We thlnk therefore that the attempt of the Panel to show that Uganda was
financing the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo through the reexportation
economy fails.
ln Paragraph 180 the Panel raise the question of the Hema-Lendu and Nia-Nia
conflicts: elsewhere the question of the Kisangani confrontations is also raised.
And it is suggested that these conflicts were strategies used to sustain the
vicious circle of war and exploitation. We do not feel at the moment that thls
Commission's inquiries have gone far enough to corne to a conclusion on these
issues, and are therefore not prepared to report at thls rime.
31 FACILITATORS OR PASSIVE ACCOMPLICES
31.1 PRESIDENT MUSEVENI
The Panel in Paragraph 201 accuse President Yoweri Museveni of complicity in
the exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo
and the continuation of the war in that country on three grounds, namely his
alleged policy towards the rebel movements, his attitude towards the Uganda
army and the protection provided to illegal activities and their perpetrators. On
his alleged policy towards the rebel movements, The Panel alleged in Paragraph
202 that President Museveni has shaped the rebellion in the area controlled by
Uganda according to his own political philosophy and agenda of a more
centralised authority and preparing to intervene only when major problems
arise, even though he has a good knowledge of the situation on the ground.
57
URAnnex68
We think that matters pertaining to the President's political philosophy and
agenda are beyond this Commission's tenns of reference and not suitable for
the enquiries this Commission has been asked to conduct. We hasten however
to point out that President Museveni has publicly declared on many occasîons
that the internai administration of the Democratic Republic of Congo is for
Congolese themselves, .sû long as die security concems of Uganda are
addressed.
It was for this reason the Gen Kazini was reprimanded for meddling in the
local administration in the Democratic Republic of Congo .
President Museveni has been accused in para 203 of not taking action against
Nyamwesi and Tibasima for alleged embezzlements of $10 million and $3
million respectively. We think the accusation is misconceived as the President
of Uganda has no jurisdiction over Congolese Nationals and rebels leaders for
that matter.
In the same paragraph 203 President Museveni was accused for not taking
action about an alleged collusion between Trinity Group and Tibasima and its
impact on collection of customs duties. Here again this Commission wishes to
point out that the Panel was ill advised to accuse President Museveni as he has
no jurisdiction over the actors alleged in the collusion.
President Museveni has again been accused in Para 205 for having allowed
members of his family namely Gen Salim Saleh and his wife who are alleged to
be shareholders in Victoria Group and 'I'rinity to carry on business activities in
the occupied zones of the Republic of Congo undisturbed.
We have evidence on oath that Victoria Group does not exist. Therefore Gen
58
URAnnex68
Salim Saleh and his wife could not have been shareholders in that Company.
We also have evidence on oath that Trinity is a fictitious company established
by the rebels in the Eastern the Democratic Republic of Congo to generate
fonds to organise their campaign against the Kinshasa Government. General
Salim Saleh and his wife have said that they have no interest in that company.
Consequently it was wrong for the Panel to accuse President Museveni for
allowing the two companies to opera te in the Democratic Republic of Congo
undisturbed.
Therefore the Panels conclusion in Para 206 is misconceived and unwarranted.
59
URAnnex68
NO.
1.
2.
ANNEX I EXHIBITS
THE REPUBLJC OF UGANDA
THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, CAP. 56
THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (ALLEGATIONS INTO
ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
OTHER FORMS OF WEALTH IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
OF CONGO), 2001
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
MARKE SUBJECT TENDEREDBY
DAS
BKB/1/1 Minutes of Good CW/01 /01 Bernadette
Neighbourliness Kyomugisha Bigirwa
Meeting between
Uganda/Zaire officiais
held at Rukungiri
District H/Q on 9-
10/6/1990.
BKBl//2 Minutes of Border Il
Meeting held at
Kasindi on 16/6/1993.
URAnnex68
3. SKB/J/3 Protocol between CW/Ol/02Steven B.
DRC/Uganda on Kavuma
Security along
common border in
April 1998.
4. SBK/1/4 Radio Message by HE n
President to Chief of
Staff banning trading
in DRC by UPDF
Officers/Men on
15/12/1998.
5. SBK/1/5 Press report of Il
interview with Mr.
Steven Kavwna, the
then Minister of State
for Defence: New
Vision, 24/11/1998.
2
URAnnex68
6. SBK/1/6 Press reports on
refutation by the arm.y
of Congo daims of
UPDF forces' presence
in the DRC territory:
New Vision, 12 Aug.
1998.
7. SBI</1/7 Press reports of
continued plane
flights from DRC into
Old airport, Entebbe
in spite of CAA
directive: New Vision,
16/08/1999.
8. SBK/1/8 Agreement for a
Ceasefire in DRC
(Lusaka Peace
Agreement), 1999.
Il
Il
3
URAnnex68
9. JK/1/9 Photocopy of CW/01/03 Brig. James
document from one Kazini
Embaba, a FAC
officer, to an ADF
officer (captured doc.
on 15/2,198).
10. JK/1/10 Letterfrom Il
Intellegence Officer,
Capt. Kasule to the
Chief of Staff on
allegations against
Col.Kerim
(interference with
customs) dated
14/3/1999.
11. JK/1/11 Letter of appointment Il
by Brig. Kazini of Ms.
Adele Lostove as a
provisional
administrator of Ituri
province in DRC
dated 18/6/99.
4
URAnnex68
12. KBqJ./12 Brief to H.E President CW/01/04 Dr. Kamanda
Y.K. Museveni by Bataringaya Cos
Uganda's Ambassador
to DRC (Dr. Kamanda
Bataringaya Cos) on
the insurgency in
Rwenzori Mountains
along Common
Border.
13. KBqJ./13 Press Article Titled, " Il
Uganda is in Congo
Legally", Sunday
Vision, 13/09/1998,
pg.9.
14. KBC/1/14 Joint Communique Il
Between DRC and
Uganda of 1/6/1999.
15. BM/1/15 Ministry of Defence CW/01/05 Ben Mbonye
Approved Estimates
of Revenue and
expenditure (Recurent
and Development)
1998/99.
5
URAnnex68
16 BM/1/16 Ministry of Defence Il
Proposed Estimates
1998/99, Financial
Analysis of
Programme 02 and 03
as at 30/06/99.
17 BM/1/17 Ministry of Defence Il
Approved estimates
of revenue and
expenditure
(Recurrent and
Development)
1999/2000.
18 BM/1/18 Ministry of Defence Il
Proposed Estimates
1999/2000, Financial
Analysis of
Programme 02 and 03
as at 30/06/2000.
6
UR.Annex 68
19 BM/1/19 Ministry of Defence Il
Draft Estimates of
Revenue and
expenditure
(Recurrent and
development) 2000/01.
20 RO/1/20 Peace (SIRTE) CW/01/06 Ralph Ochan
Agreement Between
Uganda, Eritrea, Chad
and DRC (18/04/1999).
21 RO/1/21 UN Security Council Il
Resolution 1258 (1999)
dated 6 August 1999.
22 RO/1/22 UN Security Council Il
Resolution 1291 (2000)
dated 24 February
2000.
23 RO/1/23 UN Security Council Il
Resolution 1304 (2000)
dated 16 June 2000.
24 RO/1/24 UN Security Council Il
Resolution 1323 (2000)
dated 13 October 2000.
7
URAnnex68
25 R0/1/25 UN Security Council JI
Resolution 1332 (2000)
dated 14 December
2000.
26 R0/1/26 UN Security Coundl JI
Resolution 1341 (2001)
dated 22 February
2001.
27 R0/1/27 Letter by Uganda' s Il
Charge d' Affaires
(Fred Beyendeza),
Permanent UN
Mission, New York,
18/08/1999. - to PS,
Min. of Foreign
affairs, Ugancla.
Attached:- Statement
to the UN by DRC
Permanent Rep. to UN
and the Rep.'s letter to
UN seurity Council.
8
URAnnex68
28 RO/1/28 Letter dated.4 may Il
2001by UN Sec. Gen.
Kofi A. Annan to H.E.
, Y.K.Museveni,
appealing to Uganda
not to withdraw from
the Lusaka Peace
Process.
29 RON29 Govt. Response to UN Il
Panel Report
30 KT/1/30 Certificate of CW/0'1/01 Ketrah
Incorporation, Tukuratire
Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for
TRINITY(U)
LIMITED.
9
URAnnex:68
31 KT/2/31 Certificate of Il
Incorporation,
Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for DARA
GREATLAKES
(INDUSTRIES)
LIMITED.
32 KT/2/32 Certificate of Il
Incorporation,
Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for
NYOTAWOOD
INDUSTRIES (U)
LIMITED.
33 KT/2/33 Certificate of IJ
Incorporation,
Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for
ROYAL STAR
HOLDING LIMITED.
10
URAnnex68
34 PB/2/34 Application for CW/0'1/03 Prossy Balaba
CERTIFICAION
authority in respect of
Budongo and Bugoma
forests, dated 21st
march 2000 by Prossy
Balaba of DARA
GREATLAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD.,
to the Commissioner,
Forestry.
35 PB/'J/35 Application for u
CONCESSION in
respect of Budongo,
Bugoma and Mabira
forests, dated 21 st
march 2000 by Prossy
Balaba of DARA
GREATLAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD.,
to the Conunissioner,
Forestry.
11
URAnnex68
36 PB/2/36 3 PROVISIONAL Il
LICENCES No 149,
150 & 351 ail dated
18/09/2000 for DARA
GREATLAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD.,
to Harvest and
Process Forestry
Produce in Budongo,
Bugoma and Mabira
Forests.
37 DNB/2/3 3 LICENCES No 149, CW/02/04 Deogratius
6A 150 & 351 ail dated Nkeija Byarugaba
18/09/2000 for DARA
GREATLAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD.,
to Take Forest
Produce from
Budongo, Bugoma
and Mabira Forests.
12
URAnnex68
38 KT/'1/37 Certificate of CW/0'1/01 Ketrah
Incorporation, Tukuratire
Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for M/S
DARA EXPRESS
(UGANDA).
LIMITED.
39 KT/2/38 Certificate of Il
Incorporation,
Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for
TRINITY
INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED.
13
URAnnex68
40 KT/1/39 Letter dated March 27, Il
1996 by MAYANJA ...
NKANGI, EDWARD
ELUE & CO, to the
Regisrarof
Companies, inquiring
whether the name
TRINITY
HOLDINGS
[UGANDA]
LIMITED, was
available for
registation as a
Company. Plus
attachments including
the Certificate of
Incorporation.
41 KT/2/40 Certificate of Il
Incorporation,
Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for
TRINITY 2000
LIMITED.
14
URAnnex68
42 PB/2/41 Application for a CW/02/03 Prossy Balaba
Permit to Harvest
Hard
Wood(Cynometra
Alexandria., Celtis and
Pirinari) from
Budongo forest, dated
11th October 1999, by
Prossy Balaba of
DARAGREAT
LAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD.,
to the Commissioner,
Forestry.
43 PB/2/42 Letter dated July 5, Il
2000 by John Kotiram
of DARA GREAT
LAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD.,
to the Commissioner,
Forestry as a follow
up of the subject in
PB/2/41 above.
15
URAnnex68
44 DNB/2/4 SI 56/1987 The CW/02/04 Deogratius
3 Externat Trade (Export Nkeija Byarugaba
Restricted Goods)
Order, 1987. Prohibits
the Export of
TIMBER.
45 DNB/2/4 Letter dated 25th July Il
1 4 2000 by Jacques Chan
of NYOTA WOOD
INDUSTRIES (U)
LTO, to the
Commissioner of
Forestry, seeking
clearence for transit
timber traded by their
sister company, 1\.1/S
DARA FOREST of
Beni, Congo.
46 GMD/J/4 (UPDF) 2000/2001 CW/CW/01/07 Gabindade
5 Proposed Budget Musoke David
Financial Analysis of
Programme 02 and 03
as at 30/06/2001.
16
URAnnex68
47 GDM/l/4 UPDFSalary Il
6 Payments to units
Under operation Safe
Haven for:- August -
December 1998;
January - December
1999; January-
December 2000;
January - june 2001.
48 GDM/1/4 UPDF RCA Payments Il
7 to Units Under
Operation Safe Haven
for:- August -
December 1998;
January - December
1999; July 1999 - June
2000; July 2000 - June
2001.
49 GMD/1/4 UPDF Aeroplane Il
8 Charter Payments for
1998/1999; 1999/2000;
2000/2001.
17
URAnnex68
50 GDM/1/4 Agreement for Lease ,,
9 and Charter Services
Betweenthe
Government of the
Republic of Uganda
and Uganda Air Cargo
Corporation, dated
26lb July 2000.
51 GDMf.1/5 Amendment to and
,,
0 Renewal of the
Agreement in
GDM/1/49 above.
52 JSK/2/51 French Version of CW/02/06 John Supit
Articles and Kotiram.
Memorandum. of
Association for DARA
FORET.
18
URAnnex68
53 AM/1/52 Joint Communique of CW/01/08 Amama
26/04/1998 Between Mbabazi
Ugartda and DRC, on
Security along
Common Border,
Police Training and
refugees.
54 AM/1/53 Agreed Minutes of Il
the Ministerial
Meeting on Security
and Refugee Matters
Between the Uganda
and the DRC held in
Kampala on April 7,
1998.
55 AM/1/54 Statement of "
23/03/1999 by Hon.
Amama Mbabazi to
the 53rd Resumed
Session of the UN
General Assembly.
19
URAnnex68
56 AM/1/55 Statement of Il
27/10/1998 by Hon.
Amama Mbabazi to
the Lusaka
Ministerial Meeting
on the Conflict in
DRC.
57 AM/1/56 DRAFT SECURITY Il
COUNCIL
PRESIDENTIAL
STATEMENT dated
January 26, 2000 by
Hon.Amama
Mbabazi to UN
Security Council
President.
58 AM/1/56 Uganda's Reaction Il
(b) (Hon.Amama
Mbabazi) of 30
January, 2000 to 1/27
SECURITY
COUNCIL DRAFT
RESOLUTION ON
DRC.
20
URAnnex68
59 AM/l/57 GoU Response to UN Il
Panel Report dated 3rd
April 2001.
60 KT/2/58 Memorandum and CW/01/01 Ketrah
Articles of Tukutatiire
Association of
VICTORIA
BIOTECHNOLOGY
LID.
21
URAnnex68
61 NM/1/59 1. Photographs CW/01/11 Lt. Col. Noble
Depicting Scenes Mayombo
of and Attrocities
by Rebels Fighting
Uganda
Government.
2. Statements made to
CMI by Lt. Soko
Lutaya, Lt. Col.
Fenekas Mugyenyi,
Lt. Col.John
Waswa and Col.
Sula Semakula
following
allegations against
UPDFand
individual
Officers, contained
in the UN Panel
report.
22
URAnnex68
62 JN/2/60 Volume of Timber CW/0'J/07 James
Production in Uganda Ndimukulaga
in Cubic Metres From
Mid 1997 to 2000 as
Per Forestry
Department
Computerized Data
Bank.
63 JN/2/61 Two Copies of Letters Il
dated 11th October
1999 from DARA
GREATLAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD
by Prossy Balaba,
being Applications
for Permits to Harvest
timber from Bugoma
and Mabira Forests
Respectively.
23
URAnnex68
64 JN/2/62 Letter dated 18th Il
September 2000 from
Ag. Conunissioner of
Forestry to M/S
NYOTAWOOD
INDUSTRIES (U)
LTD., being a reply to
theirs, seeking a
permit or special
clearance for their
transit timber from
DRC.
65 WLA/1/6 Contract dated 19th CW/01/12 William
3 Otober1998Between Luwemba Apuuli
GoU and KNIGHT
AVIATION.
66 MJK/1/64 Summary of troops CW/1/13 Maj. Musinguzi
and Logistics Sent Jones Kafiire
and withdrawn From
DRC Between 1998
and 2000.
24
URAnnex68
67 MJK/1/65 UPDF Loading Il
Shedules for Goods
Originating From
Entebbe MHitary Air
Base (Old AirPort)
Destined for the DRC,
Contained in a File
Opened on 05/04/2000
and Closed on
31/12/2000.
68 JJN66 RESPONSE BYUPDF CW/01/14 Maj. Gen. J.J.
TO THE REPORT OF Odongo
THE PANEL OF
EXPERTS ON THE
ILLEGAL
EXPLOITATION OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES AND
OTHER FORMS OF
WEALTHOFTHE
DRC.
25
URAnnex68
69 JSK/67 Customs Doçuments CW/02/06 John Supit
Relating to Impol'ts Kotiram
and Exports of Timber
and Minerais From
the DRC by DARA
GREATLAKES
(INDUSTRIES) LTD.
70 DLK/2A/ UPDF Loading CW/02A/01 Lt. David
68 Shedules for Goods Livingstone Komurubuga
Originating From
Entebbe Military Air
Base (Old AirPort)
Destined for the DRC
for 1998 and 1999.
26
URAnnex68
71 DLK/2A/ UPDF Loading Il
69 Shedules for Goods
Originating From
Entebbe Military Air
Base (Old AirPort)
Destined for the DRC
for: Odober -
November 19981
January and February
1999, March 1999,
April 1999.
72 RB/2A/70 UPDF Loading CW/2.A/02 Capt. Richard
Shedules for Goods Badogo
Originating From
Entebbe Military Air
Base (Old AirPort)
Destined for the DRC
for June 1999.
73 AKA/2A/ Map (Lay out) of the CW/02Af04 Ambrose
71 Entebbe International Akandonda Kashaya
AirPort and Military
Air Base.
27
URAnnex68
74 AKA/2A/ Revenues Billed and u
72 Received in Respect
of Operations at Old
AirPort: Sept. 1998 -
June 2001.
75 AKA/2A/ Flight Schedules, Il
73 Operations and ICAO
Desination in DRC.
76 AKA/2A/ Spedmen of Flight Il
74 Plan Form to be filled
by Aircraft.
77 AKA/2A/ Correspondence Il
75 Between CAA and
MOD on Knight
Aviation (Letter dated
13/07/1999).
78 AKA/2A/ Documents on Air Il
76 Navette from UPDF to
CAA (Letter of
7/8/1999).
28
URAnnex:68
79 AKA/2A/ Air Service Licence Il
77 Air Alexander, for
Operatinga
Helicopter dated
16/6/1999.
80 AKA/2A/ Air Service Licence Il
78 for Bogol Air Services
(U) Ltd. Dated
21/6/1999.
81 AKA/2A/ Letter from URAto Il
79 CAA dated 8/8/2001
relating to request by
CAAonTimber
Imports/fransit.
82 WB/03/80 Map of Uganda CW/03/01 Watuwa Bwobi
Detailing Concessions
and Licences for
Prospecting/Explorati
on of Minerais Plus
Details of Concession
Holders.
29
URAnnex68
83 WB/03/81 List of Companies "
Licenced to Trade in
Minerais.
84 WB/03/82 Statistics of "
Production and Export
of Minerais - 1992-
1995,
85 BK/02A/ Video Tape Recording CW/02A/05 Bart Kakooza
83 in DRC, Showing
Among Others an
Interview With
Ugandan Rebels of
WNBF.
30
URAnnex.68
86 YKM/01/ DOCUMENTS
84 TENDEREDBY
PRESIDENT
YOWERIKAGUTA
MUSEVENl:-
1. A bound file of
photo .copies of
news paper
cuttings with
articles on ADF
atrocities;
2. Another file
similarto 1
aboveonthe
MPONDWE
attack by ADF
on 13/11/1996;
3. The President' s
Statement on -
Background to
the situatîon in
the Great Lakes
Region;
4. The Presidents
Statement on
Confl.icts in the
GreatLakes
Region,
CW/01/lS President
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
31
URAnnex68
87 Rqo3/85 Documents Relating CW/03/02 Roger Carion
to Minerais
Transported out of
Entebbe AirPort by
SABENA Airways,
1998, 1999 & 2000.
88 MA/03/8 BOU Data on Inter:nal CW/03/03 Michael Atingi -
6 Oebt and Uganda's Ego
Trading Partners, 1995
-2000.
89 JZ/3/87 Table of Revenue CW/03/04 Justin Zake
Collections and
Growth-1990/1991 -
2000/2001.
90 JZ/3/88 Annual Report for Il
URA 1999/2000.
91 JZ/3/89 List of the Top 200 Il
Tax Payers in uganda
-1999/2000 ..
92 AK/2/90 Importation and CW/01./05 Allen Kagina
Transit of Timber
32
URAnnex68
93 AK/'2/90 Re-arranged exhibit Il
A AK/'2/90 plus
additional material on
export, transit
minerais, timber,
coffee, hippo teeth.
94 AK/2191 Transit Timber From u
DRC by Grace Majoro
(GCK Enterprises),
via Air Navette.
95 AK/1/92 Transit Timber From Il
DRC by GraceMajoro
(GCK Enterprises), '
via Air Navette and
later sold to MS.
BIT AN GARO & CO.
ADVOCATES.
96 AK/2/93 Transit Timber from "
DRC via Malaba,
brought by Sodhi
Tonny aboard air
Navette.
33
URAnnex68
97 AK/2/94 Import of 105 pieces
of Timber for Grand
Imperia! Hotel via Air
Navette.
98 AK/2/95 Graph of Transit
Timber from DRC -
1993-2001.
99 AK/2/96 DARA FOREST
Transit Exports
(Tantalite) from DRC
-2001.
100 AK/2/97 Transit Gold via
Entebbe Airport -
1999-2001.
Il
Il
Il
Il
101 HAN/4/9 Coffee Exports during CW/04/01 Henry Agyenda
8 the coffee years Ngabirano
1995/1996 - 1999/2000
in 60 KG bags and
corresponding values
as prepared by
UCDA.
34
URAnnex68
102 JKT/4/99 1. Map showing CW/04/02 Justus
Wildlife and forestry Kashagire Tindigarukayo
protected areas in
Uganda.
2. Summary of
Wildlife specimen
seizures and court
cases, 1994-June 2001.
3. Report on 'Trade in
Ivory in Uganda'
dated 18 Nov. 2000.
4. Wildlife Statute,
No. 14/1996.
103 SS/J/100 Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for AIR
ALEXANDER.
104 SS/7/101 Memorandum and
Articles of
Association for T AKE
AIR.
Cw/07/01 Hon. Maj. Gen.
Caleb Akandwanaho alias
SalimSaleh
Il
35
URAnnex68
105 FM/7/102 Statement (and CW/07/03 Lt. Col
attachments) to CMI Fenekasi Mugyenyi
by Lt. Col. Fenekasi
Mugyenyi in response
to allegations of
illegal possession of
ivory by himself and
gold mining by the
members of UPDF,
contained in the UN
Panel report.
106 KM/3/10 A Sample of a minerai CW/03/05 Kasule
3 from DRC, called Mohamed
Coltan.
36
URAnnex68
107 TM/3/104 Documents Tendered CW/03/06 Twinomujuni
by Capital Finance Julius
Corporation relating
to Gold Trade -
trading licences 1995
to 1997; register of
gold dealings 1995 to
1997; customs
documents for the last
exportin 1998, of 20
KG via Sabena
Aidines; BOU letter
stopping the
Company's gold trade
on grounds of non
viability.
108 EK/5/105 Statistics on Stolen / CW/05/01 Elizabeth
Robbed Motor Kutesa
Vehides 1994 - 2000.
37
URAnnex68
109 FKM/3/1 Documents pertaining CW/03/07 Farouq Kigozi
06 to trade in Coltan Makubya
fromDRCand
Prospecting for Coltan
in Uganda, by
UGANDA MARINE
PRODUCTS LTD.
110 SM/3/107 Documents relating to CW/03/08 Songa Museme
trade in DRC in
Collan between one
Songa Museme
(Congolese) and John
Sopit Kotiram of
DARA FOREST.
111 GM/2/10 Documents relating to CW/02/08 Grace Majoro
8 trade in timber from
DRC by Grace Majoro
of G.C.K.
ENTERPRISES.
38
URAnnex68
112 Sf/5/109
113 PK/5/110
114 SH/'lA/1
11
Documents relating to
trade in general
merchandise between
Uganda and DRC by
SAMENGOLA.
1. Letter dated
17/12/1999 by Col.
Peter Kerbn to
President Museveni
on ethnie fighting in
Ituri Province.
2. Letter dated
26/2/2000 by Gen
Kazini appointing col.
Peter Kerim to
streamline liaison
duties in Bunia, DRC.
Documents relating to
AIR NAVETTE and
its trading activities
between Uganda and
DRC.
CW/05/03 Sam Engola
CW/05/05 Col. Peter
Kerim
CW/02A/06 Shiraz Hudani
39
URAnnex68
115
116
GAW/8/1 1. Message by Col. CW/08/10 George Ambe
12 Katumba William
Wamala (as he
then was} to
Zaïre authorities
and
Businessmen at
the height of
West Nile bank
Front (WNBF)
insurgency.
2. Tape recording.
EA/08/11 Forestry Statistks CW/08/12 Edison Adiribo
3 relating to Timber
Movement from
Congo and Uganda
(Arua) - 11/9/97 -
15/5/2000.
ANNEX 2 WITNESSES
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRYACT, CAP. 56
THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (ALLEGATIONS INTO
40
URAnnex68
11 Lt. Col. Noble Mayombo CW/01/11
12 William Luwemba Apuuli CW/01/12
13 Maj. Musinguzi Jones Kafiire CW/01/13
14 Maj. Gen. J. J. 0dongo CW/01/14
15 President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni CW/01/15
16 Lt. Col. Andrew Lutaaya CW/01/16
17 Dr. Cripus Kiyonga CW/01/17
BRIEF2
Ex»loitation Allegations Pertaining to Timber - DARA Case and 0ther
Timber Related Allegations
NO. FULLNAMES REFERREDAS
01 131.1.1 .. 2Ketrah Tukuratiire CW/02/01
02 JosephOiea CW/02/02
03 Pross Balaba CW/02/03
04 Deogratius Nkeija Byarugaba CW/02/04
3 URAnnex68
05 Allen Kagina
06 John Supit Kotiram
07 James Ndimukulaga
08 Grace Majoro
BRIEF2(A)
TRANSPORT
NO. FULLNAMES
01 131.1.1 .. 3Lt. David Livingstone
Komurubu2a
02 Capt. Richard Badogo
03 Lt. Col. John Kasaija Araali
04 Ambrose Kashaya Akandonda
05 Bart Kakooza
06 Shiraz hudani
URAnnex68 4
CW/02/05
CW/02/06
CW/02/07
CW/02/08
REFERREDAS
CW/02A/01
CW/02A/02
CW/02A/03
CW/02A/04
CW/02A/05
CW/02Af06
BRIEF3
EXPLOITATION ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO MINERALS,
DIAMONDS, GOLD, CASSITERITE, OTHER MINERALS AND
ECONOMIC DATA
NO. FULLNAMES REFERREDAS
01 131.1.1 . .4Watuwa Bwobi CW/03/01
02 Roger Carion CW/03/02
03 Michael Atingi - Ego CW/03/03
04 JustinZake CW/03/04
05 Kasule Mohamed CW/03/05
06 Twinomujuni julious CW/03/06
07 Farouq Kigozi Makubya CW/03/07
08 Songa Museme CW/03/08
BRIEF4
EXPLOITATION ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO COFFEE,
LIVESTOCK, WILDLIFE, IVOR-Y: MONEY AND OTHER PROPERTY
1 NO. , FULL NAMES
5
URAnnex68
01 131.1.1 .. 5Henry Agyenda Ngabirano CW/04/01
02 Justus Kashagire Tindigarukayo CW/04/02
BRIEF5
EXPLOITATION .ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO MASS SCALE
WOTING, SYSTEMIC AND SYSTEMATIC EXPLOITATION
NO. FULLNAMES REFERREDAS
01 1,31.1.1..6Elizabeth Kuteesa CW/05/01
02 Lt. Col. Joseph Arocha CW/05/02
03 Sam Engola C"W/05/03
04 Col. I<ahinda Otafiire CW/05/04
05 Col. Peter Kerim CW/05/05
BRIEF7
ALLEGED EXPLOITATION BY INDIVIDUALS AND TOP UPDF
OFFICERS
1 NO. 1 FULL NAMES 1 REFERRED AS .1
URAnnex68 6
01 13t1.1 .. 7Maj. Gen. Caleb CW/07/01
Akandwanaho Salim Saleh
02 Lt. Muhoozi Keinerugaba CW/07/02
03 Lt. Col. Fenekasi Mugyenyi CW/07/03
04 Lt. David Livingstone Okumu CW/07/04
05 Jovial Akandwanaho CW/07/05
BRIEF8
BORDER ARBAS {KASESE, BWERA, FORTPORTAL, ARUA)
NO. FULLNAMES REFERREDAS
01 131.1.1 .. STushabe Christopher. alias CW/08/01
Benz
02 131.1.t..9Masereka Ibrahim CW/08/02
03 Ramadhan Kalihod CW/08/03
04 Ezekiel Mwehga CW/08/04
05 James Burolerro CW/08/05
06 MaishoFred CW/08/06
07 Moseslkagobya CW/08/07
7 URAnnex68
08 JohnMasoro CW/08/08
09 Kasoro Williams CW/08/09
10 George Ambe william CW/08/J.0
11 Milton Rahuka CW/08/11
12 Edison Adiribo CW/08/12
13 Alex Angundru CW/08/13
URAnnex68 8
ANNEX 3 PAPER ON ILLEGALITY
The Concept of 'lllegality' in International Law; Theoretical and
Doctrinal Analysis vis-à-vis Allegations of Illegal Exploitation of
Natural Resources and other forms of Wealth in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo
I. Introduction.
1.1 The concept of illegality in international law has been subject of
theoretical analysis and controversy in legal scholarship,
international relations as well as doctrinal pronouncements by courts.
The earliest post-19th century statement of the concept is traceable to
the Manchuria question and the Stimson doctrine of non-recognition of a
puppet statal entity created in the a:ftermath of Japan' s invasion of
China. The non-recognition policy urged by the then US Secretary of
State was premised on the perceived illegality of Japan's action as
being in violation of the prohibition on the use of force in
international relations.1 Since then the concept of illegality and the
doctrine of non-recognition have corne to underpin conduct of states in
international law.2 This has been the case in the respect of the
1 The position taken at the League of Nationswas that Japan's actionwas a violation
of the prohibition on non-use of force contained in the Covenant and the Pact of Paris:
LNOJ Special Supp. No. 101/1, 81, llMar.1932.
2 See, e.g. illegality (and voidness) of treaties concluded under coercion in violation of
the principles of the UN Charter: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art.
52.
9
URAnnex68
unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia; conduct of South
Africa after termination of its mandate over South West Africa;
creation of bantustans in South Africa; Israel-occupied territories in
the Middle East; Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus; and the
Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.
1.2. Traditionally, the consequence of an illegality is non-recognition
of acts or conduct of the illegal entity or authority with respect to
territory. However, this concerns acts or conduct that pertains to a
daim or alteration in status of a territory. Thus, for instance, conduct
on the part of South Africa that tended to confirm its continued daim
to administer South West Africa as a mandatory power after the
termination of the mandate by the UN Security Council was regarded
as invalid.3 Or for that matter conduct on part of the then a-partheid
South Africa that confirmed the segregation policy in creation of
bantustans as separate statal entities.4 Or the case of Israel1s policy of
settlements which was seen as intended to alter the Arab-character of
its occupied territories and give an impression of disguised
annexation.5 Thus if Uganda (and Rwanda) purported to annex the
3 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in South West
Africa notwithstanding Security Council resolution 667(1970), adv. op. [1971} ICJ Rep. 6
(here-inafter Namibia case)
• See e.g. Resolution on the so-c:alled Independent Transkei and other Bantustans, GA
Res. 31/6, 26 Oct. 1976.
SSee è.g. GA Res. 32/5, 1 Nov. 1977;SCRes. 446 (1979), 22 Mar.1979.
URAnnex68 10
eastern part of the DRC territory, this would in effect amount to an
alteration of the status of that part of territory, and would prima fade
be an illegal act or conduct.1>
II. The Concept of 'Illegality' and the DRC Expert Panel's
Interpretation.
2.1 A significant concern has been the conceptualisation of illegality in
respect of the 'illegal' exploitation of natural resources and other
forms of wealth in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The
Panel of Experts established by the United Nations7 saw it necessary
as a starting point to give a definition or interpretation of illegality as
a key concept. The Panel admits that it was the 'most contentious
concept in [its] mandate'.8 Further, it states that: 'almost all actors in
the con.flict and observers requested a clear definition of illegality'.9
In the finality, the Panel adopted what it saw as a wish of the Security
6 The illegality would inure from the existing condemnation contained in the
numerous Security Council resolutions, but generally on the principle of international
law on the non-recognition of acquisition of territory by the use or threat of force. This
intention is apparently denied by Uganda (and Rwanda) according to press reports on
the matter: E. Allio, 'Uganda, Rwanda dismiss plotto annex Congo', The New Vision, 5
Dec.2000.
1 The Expert Panel was constituted by the UN Secretary-General on 31st July 2000
(letter to the President of the Security Council: S/2000/796) in response to a request by
the Security Council (letter by President of the Security Council to the Secretary General:
S/PRST/2000/ 20), 2 June 2000). The Expert Panel submitted its report through the
Secretary-General on 12 April 2001: S/2001/357.
8 Expert Panel report, para. 15.
URAnnex68
11
Council for a broad interpretation of the concept, and in this regard it
understood it to be underpinned by four elements (related to the rule
of law), vi.z.: (a) violation of sovereignty; (b) respect of existing
regulatory framework for conduct of activities; (c) accepted practices
in trade vis-à-vis those obtaining in the DRC and (d) violations of
international Iaw (including 'soft law').1°
2.2. L-1 respect of violation of sovereignty, the Panel states:
The first element is based on the Security Council's understanding of
illegality as described in the Panel's mandate. This posits that all activities -
extraction, production, commercialfaation and exports - taking place in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo without the consent of the Iegitimate
gove.rnment are illegal. This interpretation suggested that only non-invited
forces and nationals are carrying out illegal activities in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.11
This should essentially be the fundamental starting point of
determining that a particular act or conduct is an illegality. In this
case, the presumption is that the United Nations having condemned
the presence (and continued presence) of Uganda (and Rwanda) in
DRC territory as a violation of territorial integrity and political
independence of the DRC,12 this particular conduct on the part .of
9 1d.
io Id.
11 Ibid., para. 15(a). The Panel refers for this element to the statement of the President
of the Security Council of 2 June 2000.
12see, e.g. Security Council resolutions:
URAnnex68
12
Uganda is in itself an illegality. This in itself however does not
dispose off the question of whether ail the activities involving
exploitation of resources in the territory of another State are to be
considered illegal. This probably explains the Panel' s contention that
it employs the four elements it identified as a basis of its definition of
illegality in a complementary manner.13 But this in itself has a
shortfall in that it presumes in the corollary that activities of the (socalled
legitîmate) Kinshasa regime (and its allies) are legal. This may
not necessarily be the case.
2.3. With regards to the second element, the Panel expressed thus:
. ... if authorities exerting effective power and control over their
sovereign area recognise or .set up a regulatory framework to govern
the use or exploitation of resources, this framework should be
respected. Failure to do so may lead to the infringement of law and,
therefore, activities considered illegal and unlawful. In this case the
Panel deems illegality to be the carrying out of an activity in violation
of an existing body of regulations.14
This is a rather vague recognition that activities in rebel-held areas of
the DRC territory may be legal if they are carried out in accordance
13
13 Expert Panel report, para. 15.
1◄ Ibid., para. 15(b).
URAnnex68
with a regulatory framework. The authorities exerting effective power in
this case must be taken to mean the rebel groups (and their backers).
One may assume that this is an implied recognition that in a situation
in which the legitimate gQvemment has lost effective control over part
of its territory (to rebels or a foreign occupier), those exercising
effective authority must ensure continuity of civil life in its various
manifestations. This tends to be in contradiction with the Panel' s
view in their first element that 'non-invited forces and nationals are
carrying out illegal activities in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo'.'
2.4. It is to be admitted that those in effective conttol must not allow society to
degenerate into lawlessness and anarchy. This is perhaps crucial in the Panel's
concems about an existing regulatory framework for exploitation and trading in
natural resources. What exactly the existing regulatory framework for that
purpose is or was, either in the DRC generally or the rebel-held parts, is not
stated or outlined by the Panel, although this may imply regulations on, for
instance, concessions, reforestation, etc. The crucial questions are thus:
(a) who was or were the authorities in effective power; and
(b) was or has there been in existence a viable regulatory framework
prior to or after exerting of effective control by such authorities
intheDRC?
These concems were not adequately addressed and one is left to infer
from particular incidents in the report. Are the authorities in effective
URAnne:x:68 14
power the rebel groups clothed with administrative authority by the
Lusaka agreement of 1999? Further, it is contended that the history of
DRC shows harvesting of timber and mining of minerais permitted to
individuals outside the realm of state control - is this the regulatory
framework to bear in mind?
2.5. The third element identified by th(:! Panel was:
The discrepancy between widely accepted practices in trade and
business and the way business is carried in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo . . . [T]he Panel considered the use and the abuse of
power by some actors fall in the category of illegality. This includes
forced monopoly in trading, the unilateral fixing of prices of products
by the buyer, the confiscation or looting of products from farmers
and the use of military forces in various zones to protect some
interests or to create a situation of monopoly.1s
This element largely ties in with the second. Similarly, inferences can
only be read into particular incidents documented in the report.
Here, it also begs the question of what is accepted practices of trade
and business, given that in the DRC for decades in the Mobutu era,
the exploitation of and trading in natural resources might not have
followed the so-called 'accepted practices'. In any event, incidents of
15 Ibid., para. 15(c).
15
URAnnex68
looting, confiscation, forced monopolies are perhaps better
conceptualised in relation to the functioning of the de facto
authorities.
2.6. The fourth and final element of illegality identified by the Panel
is stated as:
The violation of international law including 'soft law'. The Panel
considers that business activities carried out in violation of
intemational law are illega.l.16
What the international law in question is (including the so-called 'soft
law') is not stated or outlined. Incidents such as those alleged to
involve exploitation of wildlife (e.g .. elephant tusks) in violation of
CITES can be considered to be in this category-these acts would
prima facie be illegal irrespective of whether undertaken by the
Kinshasa govemment or authorities in rebel-held parts if they were
in violation of OTES. 1s the certification of timber, for instance, an
instance of' soft law' and would the failure to do so entail an illegality
in real terms?
2.7. However, what is perhaps more crucial and was not dealt with
by the Panel is the principle in international Iaw on permanent
t6 Ibid., para. 15(d).
URAnnex68
16
sovereignty of States and peoples over their natural resourcesP In this
regard1 the exploitation of natural resources by either side or all
parties to the conflict that would not benefit ( or is inimical to the
interests of) the Congolese peoples would be in violation of
international law and1 therefore1 inherently illegal.
32 III. THEORETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
POSTULATIONS ON ILLEGALITY - CONCEPT
and its Application
3.1 A .concept of illegality has in application in international law been
founded on the desire to proscribe certain conduct on part of States.
This is particularly so where the conduct offends the so-called values
in the realm of order public of the international community1 e.g. nonuse
pf force1 self-determination1 non-discrimination (apartheid).
Traditionally, theory and doctrine was concemed with the illegality
and non-recognition of entities or territorial acquisitions in violation
of international law such as Manchuria and the Iraqi occupation of
Kuwait respectively. In the past century1 theory and doctrine came to
11 This principle is stated in several resolutions of the United Nations dating as far
back as 1%0s: e.g. Resolution on Pe11Mnent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, GA
Res. 1803 (XVII) (1962); Charter on the Economie Rights and Duties of States, GA Res.
3281 (XXIX) (1974). The principle as right of peoples is eoneeived in humanrights treaties:
e.g. International Covenant on Civil and Politîcal Rights (ICCPR) (1966), art 47;
International Covenant on Economie, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR} (1966), arts.
1(2) and 25; Afriean Charter on Hum.an and Peoples' Rights, 1981, art. 21.
17 URAnnex68
embrace humanistic elements in situations such as Rhodesia, Namibia,
bantustans, Israel-occupied territories. The emphasis was placed on
the human character of the illegal statal entities or acquisitions in the
nature of peoples deprived of rights to self-determination or
sovereignty over natural resûurces. The state or territory thus ceased
to be an abstraction.
3.2 The very transcendence of abstractions of state or territory and
recognition of the 'human element' in those erstwhile abstractions
was also to be the premise for exempting certain acts or conduct of
the otherwise illegal statal entity or authorities from the realm of
illegality. Doctrine and state practice has sought to except certain acts
or conduct of an other illegal statal entity or authority in effective
power if the acts or conduct, while they do not affect the status of
territory, are nonetheless beneficial to the soci~ ordering of human
existence in that territory. Therefore the illegality would exdude
activities that support the social fabric and livelihood of
inhabitants/people in the particular territory.
3.3 Illegality (and non-recognition) would .concern with the external
aspects of territory - and a duty would thus be placed on states to
refrain from dealings that otherwise legitimise or entrench an
illegality. This has been distinguished from acts or conduct that are
benefidal to the internai ordering of society. This distinction was
made by the International Court of Justice with regards to South
URAnnex68 18
West Africa in the wake of termination of South Africa's mandate.
The Court observed that the duty imposed was to abstain from
diplomatie relations and economic and other forms of relationships or
dealings with South Africa in respect of the territory18 - in effect,
relations that would affirm South Africa's continued exercîse of
mandatory powers over Namibia. The Court nonetheless recognised
the fact that the 'injured entity is a people',19 and that:
... In general, the non-recognition of South Africa's administration of
the Territory should not result in depriving the people of Namibia of
any advantages from international co-operation. In particular while
official acts performed by the govemment of South Africa on behalf or
conceming Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal
and invalid, this invalidity shall not extend to those acts, such as, for
instance, the registration of births and deaths, marriages, the effects
of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the
Territory.20
3.4 Sîmilarpositions were taken in respect of the non-recognition of
statehood with regards to Rhodesia (1965-1980) and the Bantustans
(197Os-1994) where acts and conduct affecting private lives and social
19
11 Namibia case, supra, note 3, paras.123-4.
19 Ibid., para. 127.
20 Ibid., para. 125.
URAnnex68
ordering of peoples were to be excepted from the .realm of illegality.21
What is admîtted is that certain acts and conduct are excepted from
illegality if it ensu.res survival of inhabitants or peoples in the
territory - whether it is a situation of rebel-controlled areas (e.g.
eastem DRC), territo.ry occupied by a foreign power (e.g. Israeloccupied
territories in the Middle East and Turkish-occupied
Northem Cyprus) or even illegal entities in violation of selfdetermination
(e.g. the Bantustans).
3.5. The acts or conduct that is to be regarded as beneficial to
inhabitants .are wide-ranging as long as it is nota disguised attempt
at legitimising status of the illegal entity,22 Thus apart from
registration of births and deaths and of rnarriages, it can encompass
21 In any event, international law has in fact taken analogies from municipal law -
with the most prominent example often given being the ye,1rs of the American civil war
(1862-70), whereby after the conclusion of the civil war, the courts recognised the
legality .and validity of the acts and conduct of the renegade (rebel) southem smtes on
the premise of the doctrine of 'necessity'. The C!lses pertaining to the American civil war
are largely referred to in the case of Uganda v. Commissioner of Prisons, ex parte Matovu
[1966] EA 514.
22 Thus in respect of Rhodesia, issuanoe of passport was included in the 'illegal' ,1cts,
as it tended to lend legitimacy to Ian Smith's UDI as a mark of statehood (only astate
can confer nationality and citizenship). It w,1s then still taken that Rhodesians were
British protected persons.
URAnnex68 20
the 'maintenance of law and order', 'provision of social services
(education, health)', 'economic policy', commercial activities etc.23
3.6. What has perhaps been a critical concern has related to the
exploitation of natural resources by an illegal entity or authority in
effective power. The position has generally been that the illegal entity
and occupier cannot exploit resources in the territory in question, and
any act or conduct in that regard is manifestly illegal.
(a) in Namibia, after the termination of its mandate, South Africa
had no power to enter into agreements for the exploitation of
natural resources in Namibian territory;24
(b) in the occupied territories, the United Nations generally treated
Israel' s exploitation of resources as illegal and unlawful;25
" Detention of an individual under preventive detention laws: Madzimbamuto v. LadnerBurke
(1969) Ac 645 (Rhodesia), Of course, concerns were expressed over the nonusurpation
of .the authority of the lawful sovereign: per Lord Pearc:e. See also trial of an
individual for treasonable offences: Binga v. The Administer-General for South West Africa
& Ors (1984) 82 ILR 464 (Namibia). The eçonomic policy (e.g. market-orientation,
taX;ltion, currency) should not however seem a disguised attempt to unify the economy
of the occupier state with that of the occupied territbry - this was apparent in the
criticism of the tax policies of Israel with respect of the occupied territories. See also on
export/ import trade with Northem Cyprus: R v. Minis ter of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food,
ex parte SP Anastasiru (Pissouri) Ltd. & Ors (1994) 100 ILR 244.
24 Namibia case, supra, note 16. In fact, the United Nations established the United
Nations Council for Namibia. The Council adopted Decree No. 1 for the Protection of
the Natural Resources ofNamibia, 27 Sept 1974 which was endorsed by the UN General
Assembly: GA Res. 3295 (XXIX), 13 Dec. 1974.
25 See e.g. GAR.es. 317.1 (XXVIII), 17 Oec. 1973.
URAnnex68
21
(c) in respect of Rhodesia during Ian Smith's regime, concem was
expressed by the United Nations over chrome ore;26
(d) in respect of East Timor, Portugal did institute proceedings
before the International Court against Australia in respect of a
· treaty conduded by the iatter and lndonesia to exploit resources
in the 'Timor Gap; P
3.7. The concem over natural resources has thus been a pivotai one in
some of the problematic situations in the post-United Nations period.
Nonetheless, it is notable that these situations did entail an official
policy of the illegal entity or authority in effective control in illegal
exploitation of resources. Further, there has not been a specific
excepting of acts of inhabitants in the exploitation of resources
especially as is asserted that right of individuals to harvest timber or
mine minerais has traditionally existed in the DRC, and that such
activities (and related trading or commercial activities in such
resources) have been the mainstay of the livelihood of its peoples .
. 26 See e.g. concems expressed over import of chrome from Rhodesia by the United
States: SC Res. 232 (1966)
'P East Timor case (Portugal v. Australia) [1992] Iq Reports. The essence of the
Portuguese daim was that the treaty would violate the right of the East Timorese people
to permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
URAnnex68 22
32.1 IV. CONCEPT AND PARAMETERS OF 'ILLEGALITY'
REVISITED
The conceptual definition of illegality remains crucial in determining
which exploitation or trading in DRC natural resources is to be
considered or treated as illegal. One may vouch a number of
positions:
1. that all exploitation that deprives the Congolese peoples of their
right to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources is
illegal. This is a general exposition· of the principle of
international law recognised in GA Resns. 1803 and 3218. ln
effect, if the resources are being systematically exploited to
detriment of the Congolese peoples (and not their benefit) -
whether by the Kinshasa govemment and its allies (Zimbabwe,
Angola, etc); Uganda (and Rwanda) or by any other non-state
entities ( e.g. rebel groups, foreign companies) - then it is illegal_
exploitation;28
2. that exploitation of resources by occupier of territory exercising
effective power, where the presence of armed forces in territory
of another State has been condemned, is prima facie illegal. This is
however dependent upon:
URAnnex68
23
(a) proof that the exploitation is part of official policy of the
occupier state or that acts of its army officers are attributable
to the state;
(b) demonstration that the state is indeed in a situation of
occupation and thus international law rules on occupation
apply to proscribe any exploitation of resources;
3. that certain activities involving the exploitation - extraction,
production, trading - in natural resources of a terri tory not in the
de facto control of the legitimate state is to be excepted from the
realm of illegality if such exploitation is beneficial to inhabitants
(e.g. allow for provision of social services - education, health,
infrastructure) or that it is part and parcel of the normal and daily
lift, wage-earning employment or activities of the inhabitants of the
territory. In effect, even activities that are taking place without
the èonsent of the legitimate government may be legal if they
meet this criterion. In effect, the Panel' s definition of illegality in
its first element can be taken as only partially correct, with the
second part of that definition being not entirely correct in light of
the practical realities of societal existence (requiring that
21 One can draw reference to the exploitation of phosphate by the administering
powers, New Zealand, Australia and United Kingdom in Nauru: Phosphates in Nauru
case (Nauru v. Ausl:ralia) [1991) ICJ Reports.
URAnnex68
24
activities that support livelihood of a people should continue
being carried out) and more so in the specific peculiarities of the
DRC
4. that exploitation of resources must in the .event that it meets
element 3 above must be undertaken under a dear regulatory
framework put in place by occupier state or other authority in
effective power (e.g. rebel groups). The existence of a regulatory
framework established and put in place by groups such as RCD,
MLC, etc. must be ascertained. Otherwise, an absence of such a
framework permits for lawless and arbitrary acts in exploitation
of resources. If there are regulations requiring exploitation of
timber with licence, then harvesting and extraction of timber
without a licence or one granted by one who has no authority to
grant it should be regarded as unlawful and th.us illegal. In the
finality, such acts would revert to element 1 above.
32.2 V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
What amounts to illegality remains problematic given the implications (!f the
various United Nations resolutions and the Lusaka Agreement. The Security
Council has consistently condemned the presence of Uganda (and Rwanda)
armed forces in DRC. On the other band, the Lusaka agreement supposedly
vests administrative authority in the rebel groups signatory to the .agreement In
this regard, the Uganda govemment has remained insistent that it has no
administrative role in the DRC (at least after Lusaka agreement) while its
conduct remains at least ambivalent in that regard. Uganda thus escapçs the
25 URAnnex68
status of an occupier state, as is traditionally the case of a state whose forces
occupy another state's territory (e.g. Israel). Nonetheless, in-fighting between
rebel groups (and factions within groups) has left a very fluid situationwhkh in
itself poses the question of existence of effective adminis'trative slrllctures in
several parts of eastern ORC. This seems to have left a vacuum of authority in
whlch lawlessness and arbitrary acts in the exploitation of DRC resources
thrives, and thus left any concept of illegaliry highly fluid in itself.
URAnnex68
26
URAnnex69
URANNEX69
NATIONS UNIES • ~
UNITED NATIONS
UNITED NA TI ONS MISSION
IN THE DEMOCRA TIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
(MONUC KAMPALA)
FAX: + 256-41 -232690
îl;LE: + 256 • 41 - 2307 47 f 259897
256 077221439 (Cell)
Maj Gen James Kazini
Acting Army Commander
General Headquarters
Kampala
REF: OPS -2001
Military Observer Team
MONUC, CIO lJNDP
15 B, Clement Hill Road
PO Box No 7184
Kampala, Uganda / 7' November 2001
;~_' ..t·;:,::0:r J:j.~Ml ,,.,_,;ts ~ t.,_ 11-
C-~.u-w( ~ ;h}J ~ ~ rvi-
• . . ()\A 4--{.IJ. ~ -~ ~ .. ~ -~
. . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ I d-;/le<!J
SUBJ,ECT: COMPUANCE TO.TIIESECURITY COUNCIL (SC) RESOLUTIONS: ~-. ·. .
WITHDRAWAL FROMTHE DRC . . 7
1. Attached find an extract (Refer to par l2i) frotn the SC Resolution 1376 on the UN
mission in the DRC (MONUC), for your infonnation.
2. The Resolution calls for certain infonnation and plans for compliance to the Lusaka and
subsequent resolutions. The attached form resembles the detail as requested.
3. Can you please complete the form or provide the requested infonnation in any other
format. I am available to assist in any matter.
With best regards,
~
OTG E .
RMll, Y LIAISON OFFICER: CAPT (NA VY)
Enclosure: Extract from the SC Resolution 1376 dated 9 November 2001
Exa.z:iple of Form
15 B Clement Hill Road, PO Box No 7184, Kampala. Tel 256 41 230747/259897.Fax 256 41 232690
E mail [email protected] Page 1 of 1
1 \
United Nations SIRES/1376 (2001)
(~) Security Council
~
Distr.: Genernl
9 November 2001
01-63131 (E}
Resolutfon 1376 (2001)
Adopted by the Securîty Council at its 4412th meeting, on
9 November 2001
The Security Counci/,
Recalling its previous resolutions and statements by its President,
Reafftrming the obligation of all States to refrain from the use of force against
the territorial integrity and political independence of any State, or in any .other
manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and reaffirming also
the potitical independence, the .territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, including over its natural resources,
Taking note of the Secretary-General's report of 16 October 200 l (S/200 l /970)
and its recommendations,
We/coming the participation of the Political Committee for the implernentation
of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement (S/1999/818) in joint meetings held on 9
November 2001, ·
Derermining that tb.e situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
continues to pose a threat to international peace and security in the region,
1. Welcomes the general respect for the ceasefire among the parties to the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, expresses nonetheless its concem at the hostiliti.es in
areas of the eastem Democratic Republic of the Congo and ca/{s on the parties to
cease any form of support to the armed groups, particularly in the east of the
country;
2. Welcomes the withdrawal of some foreign forces from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, including the full Namibian contingent, as a positive scep
towards the full withdrawal of all forcign forces., and requests ail States thal have
not yet donc so to begin to implement, without delay, their full withdrawal in
accordanee with resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June 2000;
3. Demands once again that Kisangani be demilitarized rapidly and
unconditionally in accordance with Security Council resolution 1304 (2000), takes
note of the. pledge by .the RCD-Goma during the 4411 th meeting of 9 November
200 I fully' to demilitarize the city, welcomes the decision of the Seeretary-General 10
further deploy MONUC personnel in this city, notably to contribllte to the training
of police, stl'"esses that, once demilitarized, no party will be pctmitted to rcoccupy
11111 HW 111111 Il 1111 ml III IID
URAnnex69
"1U:Slll76 (lOOl)
..'
..
the city militarily and welcomes in this regard tht pledge by the Government of.the
DRC, during .the same meeting, to tespect this provision;
4. Expresses its support for the inter-Congolese d'ialogue, one of the key
elements of the peace process, and for ail efforts to promote this process, colis 011
the Congolese parties to work together for the sucfess of the dialogue, and expresses
its support for the Facilitator and bis call on the.parties to make the dialogue fully
inclusive;
S. Expresses its grave concem at the repeated human rights violations
throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo in particular in the territories
under the contrai of the rebel groups party to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, and
calls on ail parties to put an end to such violations;
6. Expresses its serious concern with regard 10 the humanitarian situation in
the DRC and calls on the intemational community to increase, without delay, its
support for humanitarian activities; · ·
7. Expresses its serious concem with regard to .the economic difficulties
facing the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stresses that progress in the peace
process and the economic recovery and development of the country are
interdependent, .and in .this regard underlines• the urgent need for increased
international economic assistance in support of the peace prQcess;
8. R.eiterates its condemnation of ail illegal .exploitation of the natural
res<>urces of the Democratic Republic of the CongÔ, demands that such exploitation
cease and stresses lhat the natural resources of _the Democratic Republic of the
Congo should not be exploited to finance the confüct in that country;
9. Emphasizes that there are link$ between the peace processes in .Burundi
and in the Democratic Republic of the· Congo and, welcoming the recent progress in
the Burundi process, fovites the parties to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement to work
with the Burundian authorities to advance these two processes:_
1 O. Supports the launching of phase Ill ~f the deployment of the United
Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
on the basis of the concept of operations detailed in paragraphs 59 to 87- of the
Secretary-General's report (S/2001/970) and stresses, in this regard, the importance
it attaches to the deployment of MONUC in the east of the Pemocratic Republic of
the Congo, in conformity with the new concept of operation and within the overal.1
ceiling, including in the cit.ies of Kindu and Kisangani;
11. Notes with concem the joint communiqué issued on 4 November 2001 by
the Secretarics General of the Mouvement de Libération du Congo and of the
Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocr-.ttie couéeming the deploy:nent of a joint
special force in Kindu, and stresses that appropriate conditions will be necessary to
allow MONUC to fulfil its role in Kindu and to ensure tha.t discussions Ôn the
voluntary disarmament and demobilization of concemed armed groups take place in
a neutral environment;
12. Affirms that the implementation of phase III of the deployment of
MONUC requires the following steps from the parties and requests the Secretary.
Oeneral to report on progress lhereon:
URAnnex69
S/R.ES/1376 (2001)
(i) The transmission to MONUC. as soon as possible and in accordance with
its resolulion 135S (2001) of 15 June 2001, of the necessary operational
information for the planning of MONUC suppon for the· process of total
withdrawal of foreign troops present in the territory of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, incl!lding the number of foreign military personnel in
the territory of .the DRC. their equipment and armament. their exil routes, and
a precise timetable for implementation;
(ii) The transmission to MONUC, as soon as possible and in accordance wi,h
ils reso!ution 1355 (200î}, of the necessary ôperational information for the
planning of MONUC's .mandated role in the process . of d.isannament,
demobilization, repatriation, reset1lement and reintegration (DORRR)
programme for the armed groups referred to in annex A, chapter 9, 1 of the
Lusaka Ceasetire Agreement, includiog the numbèr ofpersons concemed, their
equipment and armament, their location, their intentions, as well as a precise
timetable for implementation;
(îii) The establishment of a direct dialogue betwi::en the govemments of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda leading to confidence building
and a joint mecbanism for coordination, and e11:changes oî information
regarding the DDRRR process;
(iv) The ·estabÜshment by the govemments of the coantries .concemcd, in
particular Rwanda, and noting steps taken so far, o( conditions conducive to
voluntary DDR.RR of the members of the armed groups concemed, in
particular, by assuring the protection of the perso.nal safety of the members of
these armcd groups, their civil righ.ts and their economic reintegration
including with the assistance of the donor commuoity;
(v) The demilitariz.ation of Kisnngani;
(vi) The full restoration of freedom of movement for persans nnd goods
betwcen Kinshasa and Kisangani and throughout Ille country;
(vii) The full cooperation by the panics with MONUC l!lÎlitary and togistical
operations, as well as its humanitarian, human rights, and child protection
activities, inclucling by permitting uorestricted access to ports and airports, and
by refraining fr0l!l introducing administrative and other impediments;
13. Expresses its satisfaction al the partnership established with the parties to
the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, strengthened by regular contacts between the
Politica1 Committee (or the implementation of .that Agreement and the Council, and
reiterates its firm determinatîon to continue to provide assistance to the parties in
their efforts to achieve peace;
14. Commends the outstanding work of MONUC personnel in challenging
conditions, and pays tri/Jute in particülar to tbe efforts of the Special Representative
of the Sectetary,General;
1 S. Decides to remain actively seized of the malter.
URAnnex69
UPDF/OSH/S9
The Chief of Staff
UPDF-.GHQS
BOMBO
UPDF WITHDRA WAL FROM DRC
Reference:
Liaison Office
OSI-I
BOM80
i)-Dec O l
A. OPS - 200 l dated 19 Nov 200 l from Senior military Liabon officer. (nttached
with your comments ).
I. Attached is a sun1mary ofwithdrawal timetablc ofUPDF from DRC.
2. A total of6655 officers/men have so far been withdrmvn.
3. All ammo stores in the locations where UPDF withdre",. '-V1.:'re also returncd to
IGME.
4. The number of troops includes attached personnel.
URAnnex69
·~
t = ~
$
UPDF withdrawal froni the DRC
Ser Noof Name of Unit Wherefrom Equipment& Timetable
No Troops Armament
Certif y correct: ............. , ................... .. Date:
Mnj Gcn J. Kazini
Acting Army Commander
.,
Exit Route:~ Comments
..
-
Novem ber 1.00 l
;
=~ ~
$
.'DF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE DRC
5/NO No. of Troops Names of Uni \Vherc from
1 587 3BN l<ISANGANI - 2 565 SBN KIS,\NGANI - ?, 606 9 BN KISANGANI
" :m 67 BN (MAIN) KISANGANI
5 533 75BN KISANGANI
6 780 31 BN BUTA
7 687 7BN UBENGE
8 237 67 BN (REAR) ANGO
9 658 77BN KANYABAYONGA
10 580 71 BN BASANKUSU
11 551 738N DONGO
12 500 65 BN BAFWABOLI
BAFWASENDE
TOTAL 6655 11 UNITS -
Equipment & Arm, Tilne Tal: Exit Route Commcnts
ALI. WPNSORGANlC
TOUNIT 29-_lul-OO BUTA
" "
" "
" "
" s~•p-oo"
28- FEB-01 TANKS V\'ERE
03 TANKS & WPNS UPTO 19- AIRLIFI'ED IN
ORGANIC TO UNIT MAR-01 BUTA APROI
21 MAR 01 REAR PARTY
UPTO27 LEFT
107MM-01 PC MAR0l GEMENA GEMENAIN
l20MM-01 PC
02 TANKS & ALL 22 MAY01 TANKS
WPNS ORGANIC TO UPTO06 AIRLIFTED ON
UNIT JUN 01 lSIRO 21/22MAY01
WITI-IDRAW
ORGANIC WEAPONS 16-Apr-01 BENI & MPONDW BYROAD
17 JUN 01
ALL ORGANIC WPNS UPTO03
&01 TANK JUL01 GBADOLITE
28JUN UP
ORGANIC WEAPONS TO11 JUL
02TANKS 01 GEMENA
0STANKSOl TANK 02JUL01
RECOVERY UPTO28 WITHDRAW
ORGANIC WEAPONS SEPT01 BENI & MPONDW BYROAD
14TANKS - - -
Pagel
d
,i:,
~ = ~
~
NOTES: A. Organic weapons are:-
82 MM MOR
82MM REC
60MMMOR
40MM RPG
12.7MMAAC
GPMG
G2
MMG
B. Support weapons withdrawn at different dates:
100 MM AAC- 03 PCS
37 MM AAC - 05 PCS
23 MM AAC - 01 PCS
14.5 MM AAC ~ 07 PCS
IGLA MISSILES- 09 PCS with firing mechanism
SAM 7 24 PCS with firing mechanisms.
STRELLA 2 - 02 PCS with firing mechanisrns.
URAnnex70
United Nations
URANNEX70
S12001mo1
Security Council Distr.: General
26 November 2001
Original: English
Letter dated 21 November 2001 from the Permanent Representative
of Uganda to the United Nations to the President of the
Security Council
On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to attach the text of a
statement issued on 20 November 2001 by the Government of Uganda (see annex)
on .the recently published addendum to the report of the Panel of Experts on the
Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other Fonns of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (see S/2001/1072).
I should be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex
circulatedas a document of the Security Council.
Ol-65899(E). 261101
IIIIWIIII IIIWIIIIHIHII
(Signed) Semakula Kiwanuka
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary/
Permanent Representative ofUganda to the United Nations
S/2001/1107
2
Annex to the letter dated 26 November 2001 front the Permanent
Representative ofUganda to the United Nations to the President of
the Security Council
Statement issued on 20 November 2001 by the Government of the
Republic of Uganda on the addendum to the report of the Panel of
Experts on the Iliegal Exploitation of N atural Resources and other
Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Government ofUganda welcomes the release on 19 November 2001 of the
addendum to the report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation ofNatural
Resources and Other Forms ofWealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see
S/200 Ill 072).
The Government of Uganda bas noted that the addendum to the report bas
some positive aspects:
(a) First, it recognizes the fundamental issue regarding Uganda's legitimate
security concerns in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a result of .the threat
from the negative forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including the
Allied .Democratic Forces (ADF), WNBF, UNRF and more recently from the
People 's Redemption Army (PRA). The addendum to the report also appreciates the
fact that the intervention by Uganda in pursuit of the perpetrators of terrorist
activities was based on a bilateral protocol signed between the Government of
U ganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1998;
(b) Second, the addendum to the report states that neither the Government of
Uganda nor any of its companies are involved in the illegal exploitation in .the
Democratic Republic of the Congo;
(c) Third, the addendum to the report recognizes that Uganda is complying
with the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and relevant Security Council resolutions.
Specifically, it notes that Uganda has made significant withdrawal of its troops from
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It also notes that Uganda has complied with
the Security Council presidential statement S/PRST/2001/13 by establishing the
Judicial Commission of Inquiry on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
(d) Fourth, the addendum to the report recognizes what President Yoweri K.
Museveni has repeatedly said, namely, that the significance of the implementation of
the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, including the inter-Congolese dialogue, is the only
guarantee to (a) guard against illegal exploitation and (b) ensure the security of
neighbouring countries;
(e) Fifth, the addendum to the report remedies the earlier anomaly and
introduces balanced .coverage of ail the countries involved in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo itself,
Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia.
Key areas of concern
The Government of Uganda, however, wishes to express its disappointment
with the addendum to the report as follows:
URAnnex70
(a) The addendum to the report accuses senior military officers of continuing
to have commercial networks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and it
quotes as examples the Trinity and Victorîa Companies, which are still involved in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
(b) Preliminary findings, however, indicate that Trinity and Victoria
Companies are not Ugandan owned. Thus, Uganda cannot determîne which
companies operate in the Oemocratic Republic of the Congo or where their products
end. It would, therefore, be very helpful for the Panel to provide evidence to
Uganda's Porter Commission of Inquiry so that it can finalize învestigations
involving senior UPDF Officers. The Uganda Government is committed to the
implementation of the recommendations of the P9rter Commission oflnquiry;
(c) We also note a number of factual errors. For example, in paragraph 48,
the addendum to the report alleges that the Government of Uganda denies that
timber from the Democratic Republic of the Congo transits through Uganda. This is
not tme. The detailed facts and data regarding transit carg9 from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo were given to the Panel in November 2000 and August 2001.
Comments on the recommendations
1. On the convening of an international conference on peace and development in the
Great Lakes region: Uganda believes that such a conference should take place after the
implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement on the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and the Arusha Peace Process on Burundi. The conference would then focus on
reconstruction of the region and take advantage of the peace dividend.
2. On the recommendation that the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo accelerate the disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration of the negative forces present in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo: U ganda supports the recommendation and believes this is the key to the
complete withdrawal of foreign forces and the full implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement.
3. On the evaluation of donor assistance to countries in the region: U ganda bas
nothing to bide. Our budgeting process bas been transparent and has been worked
out with our development partners, including the Internatiom1l Monetary Fund and
the World Bank. Uganda's military expenditure remains within the agreed spending
limits. Also, Uganda bas withdrawn 12 out of 14 battalions, and has requested the
Security Council to deploy the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Bunia .and Buta areas so that Uganda can
withdraw its r.emaining troops.
4. On the issue of a moratorium: Uganda bas always stated that a moratorium
could be put on the commercial exploitation of minerais, but not on smallholders
who eam their living through the traditional cross-border trade.
5. On the issue of sanctions: Uganda believes that sanctions should be aimed at
those who violate the împlementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement The
implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the establishment of the
new political dispensation are the only guarantee against the illegal exploitation of
natural resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
URAnnex70
S/lOOl/1107
3
URAnnex71
URANNEX71
United Nations
• Security Council Distr.: General
5 Deèember 2001
English
Original: French
Letter dated 5 December 2001 from the Permanent Representative
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the United Nations
addressed to the President of the Securi.ty Co un cil
On instructions fr.om my Government, I have the honour to trans_mit herewith
the note of the Govemment on the report and the addendum to the report of the
United Nations Panel of Experts on the lllegal Exploitation ofthe Natural Resources
and Other Forms ofWealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in violation of
its national sovereignty (sec annex•).
I should be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex
circulated as a document of the Security Council.
• The annex is being circ1.dated in the language of submission only.
0Hi8224 (E) 101201 101201
1 ■ umm1m11m1n11u1ram
(Signed') Atoki lleka
Ambassador
Permanent Representative
812001111s6
S/ZOl)l/Jlsti
URAnnex71
Annex to the letter dated S December 2001 from the Permanent
Representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the
United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council
Note of the Government on the report of the United Nations Panel
of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and
Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Permanent Mission of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo to the United Nations
November 2001
. REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO
t
MEMOIRE DU GOUVERNEMENT
RELATIF AU RAPPORT DU GROUPE D'EXPERTS DES
NATIONS UNIES SUR LE PILLAGE ET L'EXPLOITATION
ILLEGALE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET AUTRES
RICHESSES DE LA R.D.C.
/VUVE.WHRE JI/Ill
S/2001/1156
L INTRODIJCTION
Objet da miQloire
1. A sa séance 0du 3 niai 2001, le Conseil de Sécurité a examiné la question
relative à. la situation de la République Démocratique du Congo. A cette
occasion. il a demandé au Secrétaire Général de proroger, pour une durée de
trois mois, le mandat du Groupe d'Experts sur l'exploitation illégale des
· ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la République Démocratique du
Congo.
2. Dans sa déclaration, le Président du Conseil a noté que le rapport du
Oroupe d'Experts contient des informations pié'occupantes au sujet de
· l'exploitation illégale des ressources conge>laises par des particuliers, des
Ge>uvcmemcnts et des groupes armés impliqués dans le conflit et au sujet des
liens existants entre l'exploitation des ressources naturelles et autres richesses de
la République Démocratique du Congo et la poursuite de la guerre.
IJ. CONSIDERATIONS DU GOUVERNEMENT SUR LE RAPPORT
DU PANEL DES NATIONS UNIES
3. Le Gouvernement de la République Démocratique du Congo, tout en
faisant siennes les définitions du Panel sur l' entendeni.ent des concepts tels que
« ligalité », « pillage », et « exploitation », considère que :
Primo, la légalité s'apprécie par rapport :
0168225'.doc
• à la date du 30 juin 1960 à laquelle la ROC est devenue un Etat souverain
et indépendant et non par rapport au statut des groupes dirigeants ;
• à la loi existante. Il s'agit de celle qui existait avant la guerre d'agression
et non par rapport à l'effectivité du pouvoir des groupes gouven_iants; ·
• à la confonnité des pratiques commerciales et à la législation existante sur -
le plan national et sur le plan international.
• Et plus particulièrement pàr rapport au respect :
a de la souveraineté nationale,
b. de la législation nationale ,
c. des pratiques commerciales normalement acceptées et des
méthodes pratiquées en République Démocratique du Congo,
d, d~~droit international y compris des instruments non contraignants.
URAnnex71
3
S/2801/11$6
4
Secundo, 1a- définition extensive de l'exploitation dépa.sse les opératiQns
~'extraction, de production, de commercialisation et d'exportation des
ressourçes naturelles. Bile intègre les activités connexes telles que les services de
transpo~ d'assurances, les transactions financières, les taxes douanières,
ûscales. domamales, etc.
4. En ce qui concerne les prérogadves de souv~raineté, le Gouvernement
prend la position suivante au sujet des ressources naturelles et autres richesses
delaRDC:.
• Dans son argumentaire relatif au Rapport du Pauel des Nations Unies, le
RCD se décrit comme : « un mouvement formé exclusivement des fils et
filles du Congo, qui combattent contre la dictature fùt-elle naissante et
pour l'instauration d'un Etat de droit, gage de paix, de justice et de
stabilité et dans la Sous-Région des Grands Lacs ».
• Le MLC et le RCD-ML se définissent de la même façon en ce qui
conceme leur composition, leurs objeptifs et leur vision des institutions de
laRDC.-
• Dans le D16me ordre d'idées. les trois mouvements de libération sont
soutenUS: âans leur entreprise subversive par trois Etats voisins, à savoir le
Rwanda. l'Ouganda et le Bunmdi.
• Sur la base de cette définition, les Mouvements rebelles déduisent et
concluent que les termes d'exploitation illégale et de pillage des
ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la ROC utilisés par les Experts
de l'ONU dans leur rapport ne doivent, en aucun cas, s'appliquer à eux.
• Dans ce contexte, ils les rejettent et les récusent au motif que ces termes
s'analysent par rapport à une exploitation ou à une récupération des
ressources qui appartiennent à autrui, sans l'autorisation du propriétaire et
sans contrepartie pour celui-ci. Or, pour eux tel ne serait pas leur cas.
• Les mouvements rebelles et leurs commanditaires se présentent · ainsi
comme les propriétaires du sol et du sous-sol congolais. Mais à quel
· _titre peuvent-ils soutenir une telle prétention ?
• Ils n'ignorent cependant pas qu'ils ne sont ni la nation congolaise ni ses
représentants attitrés, ni non plus que ces ressources appartiennent à l'Etat
congolais dont la direction se trouve à Kinshasa.
• Conûlentcles mouvements rebelles et leurs parrains comptent-ils opérer
pour s·affianchir ·de l'autorisation préalable du Gouvernement central
préwe par le.s lois congolaises auxquellés ils prétendent pourtant vouloir
0J6822Sf.doc
URAnnex71
016822Sf.dac
S/2001/1156
so réféfëf? Ici interviennent particulièrement les dispositions pertinentes
du Code JPÎDÏet et du Q>de foncier qui déterminent clairement l'autorité
· minière et l'autorité foncière compétente pour agir au nom de l'Etat au
niveau national, provincial ou local.
• Quelle est la contrepartie que l'on peut attendre de l'exploitation des
ressources naturelles de la RDC dans les tenitoires occupés ? Les E~
envahisseurs et les mouvement.s rebelles congolais répondent à cette
interrogation par raffirmation qu'ils perçoivent régulièrement les •es et
redevances prévues par la loi. Et ils ajoutent : « En eff'e~ l'exploitation
. n'est pas exercée par les mouvements rebelles comme institutions mais
· plutôt par les exploitants congolais eux-mêmes lorsqu'ils marchandent
avec les comptoirs. Ceux-ci exportent après paiement des re~evances et
•es».
• De toutes ces opérations, les mouvements rebelles prétendent ne recevoir
que. «ctes taxes et redevances au titre d'institutions exerçant ·1es
prérogati.veside l'Eta& ». « Dès lors que les exploitants congolais et le
Trésor pu}>jïc perçoivent pour les uns la contrepartie financière et pour les
autres 165 taxes dues, on ne peut parler ni d'exploitation illégale ni de
pillage».
• Les mouvements rebelles n'ignorent pourtant pas que les redevances et
taxes versées au Trésor public appartiennent à. rEtat dont ils ne sont pas
des mandataires. A quel tire peuvent-ils exiger leur versement, les faire
percevoir .et se les attribuer? Et pour quel usage ?
• Les mouvement rebelles se définissent comme des institutions. e>.terçant
des prérogatives de l'Etat. ~e quel Etat s'agit-il ? Car, la RDC ne leur a
conféré aucun mandat, aucun pouvoir pour gérer une quelconqùe partie de
son territoire ou de sa population ou de ses services:· En outre, ils ne
peuvent pas être à la fois des mouvements rebelles contre les institutions
légalement établies, détentrices de la souveraineté nationale et des entités
exerçant les prérogatives de cette même souveraineté.
• Par leurs écrits et leurs actes, les mouvements rebelles confirment la
réalité de l'exploitation et de lâ récupération des ressources naturelles et
autres richesses de la RDC. Que cette exploitation soit réalisée par euxmêmes,
par leurs alliés ou qu'ils en pef9oivent les taxes et les redevances,
cette activité constitue manifestement une exploitation illégale et un
pill~stématique des ressources de la ROC.
URAnnex71
5
SllOOl/115'
• Cette-exploitation est illégale du fait qu'elle est faite en violation des lois
et règlements en vigueur. ll y a pillage par le fait de la récupération des
· ressources et des richesses de la RDC contre la volonté du peuple qui en
est le propri6taire ét sans contrepartie pour celui-ci de la part de, pays·
agresseurs et des mouvements rebelles.
• Le RCD, le MLC et le RCD-ML cherchent désespérément à tirer de
l' Accord de Lusaka des prérogatives imaginaires pour tenter de çouvrir
· l'illégalité de leurs actes. A cet effet, il suftU de lire Ie ·point 1S erticle 3
de cet Accord pour comprendre. Il stipule : « Rien dans cet Accord ne
devra d'aucune manière nuire à la souveraineté ni à l'intégrité territoriale
de IaRDC». . .
• Cette disposition complète utilement celle de l'article 3 de la Charte de
l'OUA garantissant à tous les Etats membres le droit à leur souveraineté et
à leur intégrité territoriale ainsi que celle de l'article 2 de la Charte des
droits et doyoirs économiques des &ats sur leurs ressources naturelles et
leurs rich~s nationales sans oublier ,la Déclaration des Nations Unies
suda so~y~ permanente des Etats sur leurs ressources naturelles.
• La souveraineté est un droit étatique. Elle ne peut être attribuée qu'à un
Etat et ne peut en conséquence être exercée que par un Etat, c'est-à-dire
une entité politique possédant un territoire, une population, des
. institutions ~ dotée de la personnalité juridique internationale et de la
reconnai$Silllce des autres Etats.
Or, le RCD, le MLC et le RCD-ML ne le sont pas. Us ne peuvent en
conséquence aeèOmplir des actes de souvenrineté.
Ce qu'ils considèrent à tort comme prérogatives de l'Etat constitue
justement les inftactions de rébellion, de pillage et d • exploitation illégale· _ :-des
re.aurces naturelles et autres richesses de la RDC.
• Ces faits infracûonnels sont prévus et punis gravement par le Code pénal
congolais et par le Code congolais de justice militaire. Tandis que les
Etats complices engagent leur responsabilité internationale par la violation
des· instruments juridiques internationaux dont la Charte des Nations
Unies, la Charte de l'OUA, la Charte de l'Union Africaine, les
Déçlarations et Résolutions pertinentes de l'Assemblée Générale et du
Conseil de Sécurité des Nations-Unies.
• Toutes· éès violations constituent des fautes graves dans leur chef en droit
interûtional. · Les- préjudices . causés ·au peuple congolais sont
incommensurables : plus de trois millions de morts, des millions de
blessés, de mutilés, de malades, de déplacés de guerre, de réfugiés, une
6 0l6822Sf.doc
URAnnex 71
S/l00l/1156
pauvrcl6 .exponmtielle, une grande vulnénlbilité à l'égard des. maladies
émclgentes en ·tete desquelles trône le Sida qui iavage et décime la
population active. Une juste indemnisation est indispensable pour réparer
tous ces torts et pour rét:ablir le peuple congolais dans sa dignité.
• L'accord de Lusaka n'organise pas la partition de la ROC entre deux ou
plusieurs Etats issus . du démembrement de l'Empire congolais. U -
n'autorise aucun mouvement iebelle à poser des actes de Gouvemement.
Le droit international· ne réserve · cette prérogative qu'a~ Etats.
L'administration assurée par les dirigeants rebdlles dans les territoires
qu'ils occupent est une institution illégale mise en place et gérée par des
hors la loi pour piller la population et le pays. C'est une turpitude dontles
rebelles ne peuvent se prévaloir.
• Les actes d'administration comme ceux de législation et de juridiction
sont des actes de souveraineté. Ils relèvent de la compétence exclusive du
Gouvemement légal et légitime de la ROC. Celui-ci n'oublie ni · la
population m. les fonctionnaires ni les magistrats . ni les enseignants ni
d'autres~~ de l'Etat se trouvant dans les territoires occupés.
• La preuve est que le Gouvernement organise les examens d'Etat à faire
pasger dans les. tenitoires occupés pour que les enfants congolais arrivés
en tenninale ne puissent .pas .sacrifier leur avenir en pe~dant toute chance
d'accéder à l'enseignement supérieur et universitaire. Le concours de la
MONUC a été précieux pour le transport des copies et des examinateurs
en toute sécurité et toute confidentialité.
• La campagne de vaccination est menée par les services gouvernementaux
avec la collaboraûon de l'OMS et de l'UNICEF sur l'ensemble du pays et
ce y compris les tenitoircs occupés pour prévenir la poliomyélite qui ..
risquerait d'invalider une partie de la jeunesse congolaise. D'ilnportants
moyens ont été débloqués pour ta réussite périodique de cette opération de
salubrité publique. Les personnes qui en sont chargées assument des
graves risques pour accéder aux enfants à vacciner.
• Le Gouvernement a décidé de verser à tous les fonctionnaires et agents de
l'Etat des territoires occupés les arriérês de salaire pour trente-six mois.
Une mission gouvernementale s'est rendue à Obadolite pour une
concertation avec le MLC en we de procéder au paiement desdits
-arriérés.
• Le Gèmvemement de la République .Démocratique du. Congo ne peut
s'empêcher de faire remarquer que des mouven1ents qui prétendent
016822Sf.doc URAnnex71 7
S/J801/1156
•
exercei des prérogatives étatiques puissent laisser pendant 36 mois les
fonctionnaires et agents de l'Etat sans salaire.
• Plus grave est la répression exercée par le RCD, entraînant mort
d'hommes, contre les fonctionnaires et agents de l'Etat qui ont voulu
manifester leur approbation de la décision gouvernementale de leur verser
leurs salaires wur qu'ils puissent fàire étudier leurs enfants ou faire
soigner les membres de leur famille. Plu.sieurs arrestations ont été opérées
et ce-.ix consi.dér6s ç0mme inc.u.eurs ont été transférés en d'autres lieux où
on ip.ore le sort qui leur est réservé.
• L'accord de Lusaka reconnaît l'état de belligérance et les parties
belligérantes mais ne reconnaît qu'un Gouvernement qui assure la
continuité des institutions de l'Etat et qui n'a été contesté par personne. Il
n"existe pas non plus de Gouvernement congolais en exil. Le
Gouvernement congolais est une réalité objective, incontestable et
incontournable.
• Le pays . doit colltinuer à être gouverné. Le Gouvernement
0
de la
R6publiquc Démocratique du Congo est connu et reconnu par tops les
Congolais y compris ceux des· mouvements rebelles . ainsi quo par la
Communauté internationale, prise dans son ensemble et au niveau de
chaque Etat.
• Les membres du Corps diplomatique et les· Représentants des
Organisations Internationales sont accrédités à Kinshasa, siège des
institutions de la République.
• En posant des actes de gouvernement, les mouvements rebelles pillent les
ressources naturelles ou financières de la ROC. Car ils violent ainsi les
nonnes impératives du droit congolais et la souveraineté nationale.
• n est réel que le sol et le sous-sol congolais sont la propriété exclusive,
inaliénable et imprescriptible de l'Etat congolais. Mais le RCD, le MLC et
le RCD-ML ne sont pas des Etats et moins encore l'Etat congolais.
L • Accord de Lusalca n'a pas créé sur le territoire congolais un Etat appelé
RCD, MLC ou RCD-ML.
• Lors d~la signature de l' Accord de Lusaka, la ROC a été représentée par
Son ~xçellence feu Laurent Désiré KABILA, agissant en tant que
Président de la République. Tandis· que les autres Congolais ont signé
ledit Accord comme Repr:ésentants des Mouvements rebelles .
URAnnex71 0168225f.doc
S/2001/1156
• Les Rlénipotentiaires de Lusaka n'avaient pas 1~ mandat de démembrer la
ROC. Leur mission se limitait à rechercher la cessation des hostilités par
un cessoe~e-feu effectif et la réconciliation nationale par la tenue du
Dialogue lntercongolais. S'il y avait un Etat MLC, ou RCD ou RCD-ML
il aurait eu besoin de la reconnaissance internstionale. Or jusqu'à
aujourd'hui aucun de ces mouvements ne s'est jamais proclamé_ comme
un Etat indépendant et souverain et aucun autre Etat ne l'a jamais reconnu
COlllIIlC tel Même pas les Etats qui soutiennent leur rébellion et qui leur
serveni de commanditaires.
• L'ambition des mouvements rebelles de se prendre pour des Etats n • est
qu'une illusion. I;>'ailleurs ils sont pris dans leurs propres contradictions
de vouloir être des Etats · et de continuer à se mouvoir en même temps
dans la souveraineté congolaise unique et indivisible. Les Congolais,
toutes tendances confondues. aiment à définir la RDC co,mne un Etat
indépendant et souverain, uni et indivisible, social et laie, démocratique et
libéral ..
• Dans ce contexte où serait la place de l'Etat RCD-ML, de l'Etat MLC ou
de l'EtafRCD ?
.
En ce qui conceme le rôle de la Banque Mondiale, du Fonds Monétaire
International et d'un certain nombre de gouvememenfs spécialement ceux
des nations industrielles :
S. Selon le Rapport du Panel des Nations Unies sur l'exploitation illégale
des ressources minières de la ROC, le Rwanda et l'Ouganda, bénéficient d'un
soutien financier quasi inconditionnel tant pour l'accès au programme
d'ajustement structurel que pour l'aide· budgétaire, l'aide à la balance de
paiement et la remise de la dette .
6. Il va sans dire que l'accès à ce · programme structurel conditionne
également un nombre important de flux d•aide et entraîne quasiautomatiquement
!"appui financier d'autres institutions· au plan tant multilatéral
. que bilatéral.
7. En ce qui concerne la Communauté Internationale, les nations
industrielles continuent d•apporter au Rwanda et à l'Ouga,nda d'importants
fonds destinés à soutem. leurs budgets respectifs et d'organiser des montages
financiers en faveur des entreprises appartenant à leurs citoyens installées dans
les territoirêf-tfccupés et dans les pays agresseurs, entreprises engagées dans le
pillage ct-rexploitation illégale des ressource~ de la ROC .
016822Sf.doc URAnnex71
S/ZOOJ/1156
10
8. Le Ooüvernement consi~ère que cette générosité de la part de certains
gouvernements des nations industrielles et des institutions de Bretton Woods
offre de larges possibilités de manoeuvre au Rwanda et à l'Ouganda pom le
financement d'une partie des dépenses militaires à travers l'aide budgétaire et
l'aide à la balance des paiements dont ils sont bénéficiaires.
9. Moralement les Gouvernements des nations industrielles, la Ban.que
Mondiale et le Fonds Monétaire International ne devraient pas accorder le
soutj.en fi.na.ticier aux pays qui font la guerre, qui exploitent illégalement les
richesses d'un autre pays et qui sont à la base de pratiques maffieuses dont le
trafic d'annes. le blanchiment de l'argent sale, la fabrication de la fausse
monnaie et qui criminalisent ainsi les économies.
En ce qui concerne la coôpération de la .RDC avec .ses alliés :
1 O. Le Rapport du Panel fait mention de' la responsabilité du Gouvernement
de la République Démocratique du Congo essentiellement au sujet des contrats
signés dans · le cadre de l'exploitation du diamant du Kasaï. du cuivre et du
cobalt au Katanaâ avec les opérateurs économiques originaires des pays alliés.
11. A ce sujet le Panel des Experts des Nations Unies a ciblé les sociétés
suivantes : COMOEX, COSLEO1 BCD1 SENGAMINES, SONANGOL,
SOCEBO, et différentes autres conventions de partenariat entre la ROC et ses
alliés, structures quàlifiées de supports de pillage.
12. Pour le Gouvernement, les contrats signés en bonne et due forme et qui
s'inscrivent dans le cadt:c d~une convention économique globale entre la RDC et
ses alliés ne peuvent pas être assimilés à des actes de pillage et d'exploitation
illégale qui se déroulent dans les territoires contrôlés par le Rwanda, l'Ouganda ..
et le Burundi.
13. D'ailleurs, la convention économique globale signée entre la République
Démocratique du Congo et le Zimbabwe dépasse le contexté:: de la guerre et vise
le développement de deux paf!. L • exemple de la Scmgamines et celui des
accords de partenariat entre les Lignes Aériennes Congolaises (LAC) et Air
Zimbabwe, en sont wie illustration.
14. En ce qui concerne la Sengamines, un projet d'investissement pour
l'exploitation du diamant dans la Province du Kasaï Oriental · évalué .à
64.000.000,()_(kUSD a été agrée. De janvier à .août 2001, elle a exporté
183.401,38 - ..;.,.·carats .·de diamant vers Anvers pour une valeur de
2.420.25~00 USD. Il convient de signaler ·que la S~ngamines a déjà créé 700
URAnnex71 0 J 6822Sf.doc
S/2001/1156
emplois staèles et construit 300 Km de route en terre battue et des écoles. Par
ces réalisations la Seogamines est impliquée dans la reconstruction nationale.
15. Cette coopération n'a rien de comparable avec le pillage et l'~xploitation
de ressources naturelles et autres de la RDC effectués par les Ougandais, les
Rwandais et les Burundais dont les comptoirs ont déjà exporté 12.967.047,83
. carats de diamant· de joaillerie d'une valeur de 427.046.578,39 USD,
3.962.126,28 kg de coltan pour une valeur de 792.425 .256 USD et de 6.308.330
kg de cassitérite pour une valeur de 24 .393.116,85 USD. de 1998 en mai 2001
sans contrepartie en faveur de la population congolaise.
16. Dans le cadre de la convention économique signée entre la RDC et
l'Angola, la SONANOOL importe' et distribue les produits pé~oliers en assurant
ainsi l'approvisionnement régulier de ses produits stratégiques pour l'économie
_ congolaise. En plus. elle consttuit des stations services et crée des emplois.
17. Par contre la Société DARA-FÔREST exploite pour le compte de
l'Ouganda une concession de 100.000 hectares qui lui a été octroyée par l'Arrêté
Interdépartementàl RCD/DPT/EPIC/FIN/003/2000 du 11/03/2000 ~t dont la
production lut a déjà rapporté, au bas mot, environ 43 millions de dollars
américains. Cette exploitation intensive et excessive des forêts congolaises a fini
par révolter les populations lQCales et c'est probablement ce qui a justifié la prise
en otage, au mois de mai 2001, d'une dizaine des ressortissants thaïlandais,
suédois, ougandais et kenyans oeuvrant dans la Société Dara-Forest par des
résistants Mai-Mat
18. Confrontée à une agression sauvage de la part du Rwanda, de l'Ouganda
et du Burundi_dans une situation de l'~enuisement de ses moyens financiers et
de l'embargo financier le frappant sur le plan international, la République
Démocratique du Congo n' a pu offiir aux alliés venus à son secours pour l'aider
à sauvegarder sa souveraineté meoac-ée, que des possibilités de compensation de
leurs dépenses militaires à travers des joints-ventures.
19. Le Gouvernement considère que condamner une initiative qui lui a permis
de défendre la souveraineté nationale ne peut être perçu que comme une
invitation à la trahison du devoir fondamental auquel est tenu tout gouvernement
à savoir défendre par tous les moyens possibles la souveraineté et l'intégrité de
son pays
20. Qu• ~rtains des conua.ts de partenariat entre la RDC et ses alliés
comportent des clauses controversées mais imputables au contexte de guelTe où
sont inte~~s leurs signatures, le Gouvernement en est conscient. En effet. il
n'a pas d'afffeurs attendu la visite du Panel de l'ONU pour amorcer une action
d'évacuation des dispositions contractuelles au demeurant non confonn.es aux
016122Sf.doc
URAnnex71
11
S/2001/1156
12
lois régissaaf les sociétés commerciales et à l'équité inhérente aux jointsventures.
parce que pas assez explicites.
ID. : L'AMPLEUll DU PILLAGE ET DE L'EXPLOITATION
ILLEGALE DES RESSOURCES DE LA REPUBLIQUE
DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO
21. Quels que soient les oeproches que le Rwan~ l'Ouganda, le Bu..rundi et
leurs conunanditaires puissent faîre au Rapport du Panel de l'ONU, le
Gouvernement, quant à lutp considère que le pillage et l'exploitation illégale des
ressources de la RDC ont atteint une ampleur .qui dépasse de l9in le constat
établi par ledit Panel ; car ce phénomène porte sur i'ensemble des ressources
qu'eilles soient minérales, écologiques. agro-pastomles. financières,
énergétiqu\'S, .industriolles et surtout humaines.
Bn effet le pays déplore aujourd'hui plus de 3.000.000 de morts, des millions de
déplacés, des téfugiés et de centaine des milliers de mutilés.
22. Le R.appqjt des Nations Unies établit, de façon objective, la réalité du
trafic et de l'exploitation illégale par l'Ouganda, le Rwanda et par le Burundi,
des ridiesses · naturelles · de la République Démocratique du Congo,
essentiellement le coltan, le diamant. l'or, là cassitérite, le pyrochlooe (le
niobium), le bois, le café, etc.
23. En ce qui concerne le diamant. l'ampleur du trafic est confirmée par les
faits et chiffres incontestables. Des sources indépendantes crédibles évaluent des
exportations rwandaises, ougandaises et burundaises des diamants de joaillerie à
12.967.047,83 carats pour une valeur de 427.046.S78,39 dollars américains de
1998 à mai 2001.
24. L'estimation faite par le Groupe d'Experts des Nations Unies selon
laquelle le coltan a déjà rapporté au Rwanda environ 250 millions de dollars est
sous - évaluée au regard du montant relevé par le Commission des Experts
Nationaux Indépendants pour la période allant de 1998 à mai 2001 qui est de
774.Sll.256,00 dollars.
25. Le Rapport du Panel d'Experts des Nations Unies sur l'exploitation
illégale des ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la République
Démocratique, _du Congo s'est limité à décrire le pillage systématique des
ressources. Lè Gouvernement. quant à lui, a procédé à une première évaluation
sommaire pourchiffier !'~pleur de ce pillage.
016822Sf.doc
URAnnex71
S/2001/1156
26. Sans prendre en compte l'évaluation du coût humain de la guerre, les
préjudices subis pir l'Etat congolais sont estimés provisoirement à 10 ~
de dollars américains. Toutefois, le dossier reste ouvert jusqu'au moment où
toutes les personnes victimes de la guerre présenteront lems réclamations et les
organismes spécialisés évalueront le coO.t de la réinsertion des déplacés de
guerre et ainsi que le coût de la reconstitution des Parcs nationaμx et aires
protégées.
· 27. L'évaluation faite concerne les ressources minières pour 1.510.331.115,59
dollars, les ressources agto-pas.tomles et écologiques pour 1.737.407.196,42
dollan, les ressources financières pour 6.247.963.961,45 dollars et les
ressources matérielles y compris les inftastructures. sanitaires pour
622.565.026,00 (cft tableau de synthèse ci-après).
Evaluation du préjudice financier subi. par la RDC suite au pillage et à
l'exploitatioll fflf&ale des ressources naNrelles et autres richesses à cause de
la guerre d'agr~ion .
-
NO - NATUU DES RESSOURCES MONTANT
A Bamr.m ■llla ·
l .Coltan ( 3.962.126,280 Kgs) 792.42S.2S6,00
:Z. Diamant( 12.96S.047.B3 ICgs) 427.046.S78,39
3.0r ( 30.037,409 Kp) :Z6S.104.164,3S
4. Cassitmtc ( 6.308.330 Kp) 24.393.116,BS
S.Niobium 1.362.000,00
strOTAL J.510.331,115.59
B B■a•m1 11oe111liml11 d écolotrigm
6.Scclellr"bois 164.:229.039,00
7. Plll'CS nationaux et aires protég6es 91.398.300,00
8. Secteur do l'6levagc 1.430.729.932,00
9 .Pro4uits urioeles industrii:1s Sl. lS0.92S.42
Sfl'OTAL 1.737.407.19'-42
C
Res101u·ca Ranclèra
10.BanqQCS 16.2:ZB.334,49
11.Régics (UlllllCims l.43S.991.660,00
12.Entrepriacs de la FBC llS.344.461,00
13.Entrepriacs Publiques 199.47l.17S,:Z4
14.Enltemi-J,DÙI~ 4A70,932.:Z30.00
Sll'OTAL 6.:Z47.963.961,45
D BmgYcBI m1ddlllll
l S.Jntiastructures sanitaüa 622.S6S.0:Z6,00
,· 10. l18.2'7.:Z99,46
1 TfWAL GENERAL A +B +C +D
-
016122Sf.doc 13
URAnnex71
S/2001/1156
14
28. Les ~ons - Unies devront rester saisies de· la question jusqu'à
l'indemnisation intégrale de toutes les victimes (personnes physiques et morales}
à l'instar des dommages subis pendantla guerre de Koweït.
2!>. Le Rapport du Panel fait ressortir, également avec des pre-.aves,
témoignages et faits à l'appui. la responsabilité des Etats ougandais, rwandais,
burundais d'une part' et des sociétés privées et des hommes d'affaires
appartenant à ces pays, d'autre part.
30. De même, il établit la responsabilité politique et morale des Présidents de
ces pays à travers l'implication des membres de leurs familles et les chefs
militaires qui leur sont liés hiérarchiquement.
Tous les noms cités dans le Rapport du Panel sont confirmés par diverses
sources fiables et par de nombreux témoignages.
31. La responsabilité d'~ certain nombre de sociétés privées européennes,
américaines et. asiatiques est également établie. Certaines Banques occidentales
sont citées, mêm~ si on peut regretter qu'une Banque belge de renom
international n'ait été citée que d'une manière incidentielle alors qu'elle finance
notoin;ment cc-êommerce illicite à travers la Banque de Kigali (BK), la Banque
Commerciale du Rwanda (BCR), la Banque de Commerce, de Développement et
d'industrie (BCDI) et l'Union des Banques Congolaises (UBC) par son siège de
Kisangani aujourd'hui transféré à Kigali.
32. Le Rapport relève la présence, aussi bien dans la filière ougandaise que
dans la filière rwandaise, des citoyens libanais, juifs, thai1andais, pakistanais qui
jouent un rôle de premier plan dans ce trafic illégal.
33. Il convient de signaler par exemple que ces Libanais sont en réalité les
anciens de la filière Khanafer et Abdul Karim ttès connue en République
Démocratique du Congo dans le trafic du diamant angolais et dans celui de la
fabrication de la fausse monnaie.
34. La connexion entre les marchands d'amu;~ et l'exploitation illicite des
richesses fàit ressortir suffisamment le rôle des personnages notoirement connus
dans la criminalisation de l'économie congolaise telle que Madame Gulamali
dans le pillage des ressources et la pomsuite de la guerre.
URAnnex71
016.822Sf.doç
S/2001/1156
- 35. De ce qui pr6cèdc. le Gouvernement ,e la RDC est en droit d"affirmer que
les probloncs liés à l*insécurité aux frontières et à l'instabilité de 1a Région des
Grands Lacs, invoqués par rOugan- le Rwanda et le Burundi ne peuvent plus
justifier l'occupation actuelle de près de la moitié du tenitoire congolais par les
Années coalis6es de ces pays dont les lignes de :front se trouvent en profondeur
de laRDC à plus de 2.000 kilomètres de·tcursftontiêres.
36. • De màme, les questions liées à 1a démocratie et au respect des droits de
l'hoînme ne sont pas au programme des mouvements rebelles dans lès territoiJes
sous ~ntralo des arm6es du Rwanda ,de l"Ouganda eJ du Burundi pour justifier
une quelconque rébellion qui constitue aujourd'hui un alibi pour masquer
l'invasio11- puis i'oeçupation étrangère de la République Démocratique· du
Congo. ·
37. n est désonnais clair que parallèlement à cette guerre et à l"ombre de
celle-ci, il est. entrain de s'opérer l"une de plus grandes entrepri~ de pillage .
économique que ~.continent a&i.cain ait jamais connue. ·
38. -~ eft'et;-Il suffit de consulter la cartè de la guerre pour constater aisément
que l"Ougan- le Rwanda e~ dans une certaine mesure· 1e Burundi, contrôlent
dans les régions quirils occupent 70 à 75 % des richesses minièrcS et agro- ·
industrielles de 1a·RDc •. C'est ainsi que toutes les zones de production aurifère
. de la Province Orientale, du Maniema. du Sud Kivu. du Nord Kivu et du Nord
Katanga, qui regorgent à elles seules l'essentiel de toutes les réserves d'or
connues du pays, sont totalement sous leur contrôle.
Ces mêmes pays occupent également toutes les zones diamantifères de la
Province Orientale. du Maniema. de l'Equateur (Yakoma) et d'une partie non
négligeable du KasaI (Lodja et Kabinda).
39. Par ailleurs. le Rwanda. l'Ouganda et le Burundi contrôlent pratiquement
toutes les zones de production agro-indUSlrielle et forestière du pays (Equateur.
Nord et Sud Kivu, ManiCll18, Province Orientale).
ll en résulte que le gros de la production du èafé de la RDC estimée à enviro11
60.000 T de café robusta et 8.000 T de café arabica ainsi que toutes les
plantations de thé, de quinquina du Nord-Kivu et . du Sud-Kivu ainsi que
l'exploitation de paparne du Nord-Kivu se trouvent sous leur contrôle.
01612l5f.doc: 15
URAnnex71
S/2001/1156
40. Il coavient de faire remarquer que toutes ces opénltions d' exploitati~n
illicite des ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la. ROC se réalisent
d•~t plus facilement que le Rwanda. l'Ouganda et le Burundi sont parvenus
à avoir la main - mise sur un certain nombre d'aéroports, dont quatre sont
d'impQrtance internationale (Kisangani, Goma, Gbadolite et Kindu). et des ports
importants comme ceux de Kalundù. Kalemie, Moba, Bukavu, Kisangani et
Goma. En plus, la quasi totalité des compagnies aériennes qui opèrent dans çes
régions appartiennent aux hommes d'affimes originaires de ces pays.
41. Cette main - mise a favorisé les activités des réseaux des entreprises et de
co~ts rwandais et ougandais qui. parallèlement à la guerre, occupent
tout le marché des biens, des produits et des services, et se livrent à des
opérations de spéçulation. Il s'ensuit une exploitation intense de tout ce qui a de
la valeur et qui peut rapporter des bénéfices substantiels à court terme.
42. Des secteurs entiers de l'économie des territoires occupés, des villes et des
villages sont spus le joug des seigneurs: de la guerre qui ont des ramifications
insoupçonnêcs a,a,c des narco-trafiquants et des groupes maffieux soutenus par
des ofticiets supérieurs des armées ougandaise, rwandaise et burundaise qui font
régner la loi de-fa jungle sans le moindre respect des principes humanitaires.
43. Cet 6fllt de choses est, à n'en point dquter, à la base de la forte tension qui
prévaut · de façon permanente dans . les Provinces occupées et plus
particulièrement dans le Sud-Kivu où l'exploitation illégale et le pillage des
ressoùrces renforcent là où elle existe, ou la crée là où elle n • existe pas encore,
la résistance année et non année des populations locales. Ce qui risque donc de
perpétuer l'instabilité et l'insécurité que le Rwanda, l'Ouganda et le Burundi
prétendent combattre ·
44. C'est ainsi que la résistance de la population contre les CX;actions, le
pillage et l'exploitation dont elle se sent victime explique des massacres
périodiques des populations autochtones par les pays envahisseurs. Ces ·
massacres se déroulent, comme par hasard, toujours dans les zones minières
telles que K.asika, Kamituga dans la Province du Sud-Kivu ou encore Djugu,
Mongbalu, Watsa dans la Province Orientale.
· 45. Dès lors, la question que l'on est en droit de se poser est celle de savoir à
qui profite le crime ? le Gouvernement cible principalement le groupe militaropolitique
qui est au pouvoir au Rwanda, en Ouganda et au Burundi et des
hommes d'afflires de ces deux pays; ensuite. les criminels du blanchiment de
l'argent sale à trave~ les trafics de la drogue. de l'or, du diamant, du coltan et
desannes. ·
16
URAnnex71
o 1,a22St.doc
S/2001/1156
46. La qpnïoaUsation de l'économie · congolai$c a permis de mettre en
évidence l'existence d'un réseau de trafiquants d'or, de diamant et de coltan qui
emprunte la filière de la fabrication de la fausse monnaie, de la vente des armes
et du blanchiment des narco-dollars. Cela est d'autant plus intrigant que
personne ne peutjustifier la provenance de ces millions,de dollars qui servent à
l'achat des matières précieuses et dont une partie assez importante ne passe pâs
par les circuits bancaires classiques.
IV. LE PILLAGE ET L'EXPLOITATION ILLEGALE DF.S RESSOURCES
DE LA RDC ET L'AMPLEUR DE LA CATASTROPHE HUMANITAIRE
47. Le Panel de Nations-Unies n' a pas fait-allusion &\l coût humain de la
guerrc. Pourtant, toutes les infonnations füumies par les organisations
humanitaires tant nationales qu'intemationales (Agence catholique MISNA,
Amnesty International, HU11181l Right Watcli, International Crisis group,
Collectif des organisations et Associations des 1eunes du Sud-Kivu, Fondation
Congolaise pour1a Promotion des droits humains et de pàix.) confirment ·que la
guerre en RDC est d'abord une catastrophe Jmmanïtaïre.
48. En ~et, le pillage et l'exploitation illégate·de la ROC s'accompagnent
des massacres, des déplacements de la population ainsi que de l'exploitation des
enfants et des prisonniers, etc.
· 49. Un des rapports de Human Right Watch établit à plus de 3.000.000 de
personnes qui sont mortes directement ou indirectement des· effets de la
guerre tandis que International Crisis estime à 2.000.000 le nombre de personnes
déplacées à l'intérieur du pays et à 300.000 le nombre de personnes réfugiées à
l'extérieur.
50. Dans son rapport présenté au Conseil de sécurité le 28 novembre 2000,
Mme Mac Askie, Coordinatrice des Secours dès Urgences. a précisé que
16.000.000 de personnes sont menacées pat la famine du fait de ta·guerre, ce
qui représente environ plus du tiers de la population congolaise.
St. Un récent rapport de l'OMS, quant à lua, indique que le taux de
prévalence du VIH/SIDA a connu une augmentation significative ces dernières
années en RDÇ! Panni les raisons qui expliquent cette expansion, on note le fait
que les miliiàû-es alliés des belligérants proviennent des pays où le taux de
prévalence du VIH/SIDA est le plus élevé de r Afrique subsaharienne.
0Ui822~f.doc 17
URAnnex7l
S/2001/11S6
18
52. Parallçrement à l'exploitation des ressources naturelles et autres richesses
de la RDC, les officiers militaires ougandais se sont employés à attiser les
conflits ethniques en Ituri notamment dans la Province Orientale où les _l,endu
et Hem.a se sont massivement entretués entre, juin 1999 et octobre- 2000
provoquant des milliers de morts et des déplacés.
53. La course e~énée vers des profits de plus en plus ûnportants a, plus
d'une fois, amené le Rwanda et l'Ouganda aux affi"ontemcnts saoglants à
Kisangani .dans la Province Orientale, affi"ontements dénoncés par le
Gouvemement de la RDC, par la population congolaise dans son ensemble et
par la CoDIDlunauté Internationale.
54. Il s'agit là d'un fait unique dans l'histoire des relations internationales où
on n'avait jamais vu deux armées étrangères traverser leurs frontières
respectives pour s'affi"onter sur le tenitoirc d'un pays voisin en se disputant les
aires d'influence et d'exploitation des richesses relevant du pillage.
5S. Suite aux révélations faites par le Panel des Experts des Nations Unies
dénonçant dans ·son Rapport l 'utilisalion abusive des enfants dans les carrières
lllinières, le Q.aû"vemement de la ROC ne peut que s'indigner et s'insurger
contre cette pratiq~e criminelle violant les droits des enfants.
V. ACTEURS DU PILLAGE ET DE L'EXPLOITATION il.LEGALE DES
RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET AUTRES RICHESSES DE LA ROC
56. Le pillage IUDSÏ que l'exploitation illégale des ressources naturelles et
autres richesses de la République Démocratique du Congo sont l'oeuvre des
prédateurs bien connus qui agissent avec la complicité de certains milieux
d'affaires et financiers internationaux.
S7. Au regard de ce qui précède, trois filières de pillage et d'exploitation illégale
des ressources naturelles et autres richesses se dégagent à savoir :
la filière burundaise ;
- la filière ougandaise ;
- · la filière rwandaise.
A. la f"alière burundaise
58. Si la fùière burundaise n'a pas fait l'objet d'investigations poussées,.
comme c'est 1.-. tas pour les filières .ougandaise et rwandaise, une somme de
témoignages mettent le Burundi en cause dans le pillage de la Sucrerie de Kiliba,
de la société EST AGRICO ainsi que du bétail.
016ll225f.doc
URAnnex71
S/2001/1156
11. Filière ou1andalse ·
· 59. L'Ouganda s'est généralement intéte~ aux mines de la Provin.ce
Orientale. Salim Saleb. demi-frère et Conseiller militiûre du Président Museveni
a joué un très grand rôle dans l'exploitation illégale des richesses minières
congolaises par le biais de sa Compagnie·« Kalcd Intcmational ».
60. n cr6c en collaboration avec Khanafer et Abdul Karim notamment le
<< Victoria 0ro'!IP » dans lequel ils sont en contact avec :
- la génération des anciens combattants de la guerre contre le régime
d'Obote. Ces per$0Jl1l8geS ont acquis un statut de quasi-intouchables et
ce sont eux qui prennent des décisions importantes concernant la politique
de la gestion des teni.toires congolais occupés. ·
- les généraux ex-FAZ de Mobutu Messieurs BARAMOTO et NZIMBI qui
font partie du réseau. eonunercial de l'UNIT A.
61. . Principau: pènollllages impliqua :
- le Oénéiaf Salim Sah.eh. proche parent dll Président Museveni ;
- le Général James Kazini, ancien chef d'Etat Major de la Légion en
République Démocratique du Congo ; ·
Monsieur Khalil, sujet libanais installé à K.$.npala. lié à Madame
Akandwanaho pour r exploitation du diamant ;
- Messieurs Muhamed Gassan et Talal (libanais collaborateurs de Khalil),
respectivement installés à Gbadolite et à Kisangani ;
- Monsieur Nahim Khanafîer, sujet libanais, très bien connu dans le milieu
de Kinshasa dans les magouilles financières et monétaires avec.la Banque
Centrale à l'époque du Gouvernement Birindwa ;
- Monsieur Abdul Karim, sujet libanais ;
- Monsieur Agnon David, Général israélien en retrait ;
- Messieurs Abuki, Ali, Idi Tabani et Jogo, hommes d'affaires congolais
autochtones de Bunia ; ·
- Monsieur Tibasima. commissaire général adjoint du MLCJFLC.
62. Principales sociétés impliquées dans d'exploitation :
0161Z2Sf.doo
• RRG (Russels Ressources Goldfield) qui contrôle l'or de KiloMoto
;·
• 'Nkw.ano Friends Ship, Société alimentaire in1tallée à Kampala.
Eftê s'occupe. aussi de toutes les transactions des ex-Généraux
8aramoto et Nzimbi, pour l'achat de l'or et du diamant;
l!I
UR.Annex 71
S/200)/11511
• :be Groupe « Victoria» se livre aussi au bradage du Franc
_,,Congolais contre le Dollar utilisé pour l'achat de l'or et du diamant
. congolais ;
• ldi Tabani associé aux hommes d'affaires ougandais et congolais
pour les mêmes fins.
• Le Groupe Trinity dirigé par Tibasima exploite l'or, le café et le
bois sans acquitter aucune taxe .
C. Filière rwandaise
63. L'exploitation des matières premières en provenance de l'Est de la
République Démocratique du Congo est mise sous contrôle d'Officiers de
l' Année JWandaise.
64. Ils en font la commercialisation avec la collaboration des commerçants
lib8Q8Ïs et rwandais.
Tout comme pour l'Ouganda avec << Victoria Group ». il y a également au
Rwanda « le Groupe de Kigali » qui est engagé dans le trafic des substances
préoieuses de la RDC. .
65. Le responsable des Mines du RCO/Goma, Kamaozi, est l'homme de
confiance de ce Groupè de Kigali.
66. Le diamant reste au Rwanda sous le contrôle d' Abdul Karim associé à
Khanafer.
67. Le coltan, l'or et la cassitérite sont pratiquement du domaine de Madame
Gulamali.
· 68. Un autre membre important de cette filière, c'est l'homme d'affaires
rwandais, Monsieur Rujiguro, proche de l'ancien Président du Burundi,
Monsieur Bagua et du Président Kagame. il contrôle entre autres choses le
commerce des matières premières dans la Région Est de la République
Démocratique du Congo.
69. Prinçipaux penonnages impliqués :
- Paul Kagamc, Président du Rwanda, qui est passé aux aveux lors de son
discours du 07/04/2001, cité par le journal le Monde. un journal fiançais
du 20/0.8/2001, dans lequel il déclare : "Le pillagq du Congo a commencé
il y a Ùn siècle. Ceux de pays occidentaux qui nous importunent à présent
avec r:és questions sont ceux qui ont commencé. S'ils ~e plaignent, c'est
parce que nous faisons maintenant ce qu 'ils ont toujours fait". Ali
.10
URAnnex71
016B22Sf.doc
S/2001/1156
Hussein. frère d' Abdul Karim chargé de l'achat de t• or et du diamant pour
le compte du çoeiptoir Sit Combine de Khanaffer.
- Madame Gulamali (née Aziza Kalsum), propriétaire de la soci~té
Uzabuco. spéçialisée dans la vente des cigarettes de marque sports-man et
best à Bukavu.
Elle comrôlc Somigl. société de monopole de l'exploitation de la quasi-
. totalité de l'or, du coltan et de la cassitérite dans les territoires occupés par
les rwandais avec le concoun de. Monsieur Al Haj Omar basé à Kigali et
proche du Président Kagame.
Monsieur Chirubagala Chinja assure la· coordination de la Somigl à
Shabunda, Walungu, Kamisimbi. Mugogo et Mwenga ;
- Monsieur Rujugiro, ancien associé. du Président Bagat.a aujourd•hui
proche du Président I<agame à travers la Société Master Trading
Company (M.T.C.), spécialisée dans la marque des cigarettes Super
Mamh èt Y~ également associé à Mo~eur Ascna Paul dans le trafic
illicite des-matières pr~ieuses.
- l'année patriotique rwandaise (AP.R) dans l'exploiûûion des gisements
de Kampene, Punia, Salatnabila, Kalehe, Walikalc; etc. avec la main
d'oeuvre pénitentiaire des hutu. ·
- : les officiers de l'A.P .R. :
1. Commandant Bahati
2. Commandant Sebera
3. Commandant Kazungu
4. Commandant Musoni
S. Capitaine Oatete
6. MajorDan
7. Capitaine Ignace
8. Lieutenant Emmanuel.
- Victor Ngezayo : homme d'affaire rwandais qui contrôle la Sominki.
- Kamanzi : Responsable des mines du RCD/Goma. homme de confiance
de Kigali.
- Le :frè.fQ aè Abdoul Karim. ·associé à Kanaffer du réseau ougandais.
016822Sf.doc 21
URAnnex71
S/2001/1156
22
70. Princ!pales sociétés impliquées dans l'exploitation :
- Little Rock Mining do Sanjivan Ruprah, sujet indo-tmmmien exploitant le
dùunant de Kisangani et de l'Equateur ;
Cabot Performance Material (Broyer Town, USA) ;
- HC Straoek (Allemagne - USA) ;
- Sogemi (Société rwandaise .créée après la prise du Pouvoir par lo Front
Patriotique Rwandais (F.P.R.) et s'occupe de la vente du Tantale) ;
- La Somigi. société constitüée P• la fbsion de 3 autres scci6tés: >fnc-om,
Promëco et èogccom. lesquelles exploitaient déjà le Colian avec le RCD
comme actionnaire principal selon les propres t6moigoeges do Monsieur
Rubetwa;
- Jambo Safari dirig6o par Modeste Mabboea. prochè du Plésident
Kagame associé à Monsieur Kassam et la société Hashi Empex ;
- Etablissement Habier, spécilaisé dans la distribution du carburant au Nord
et Sud - Kiw appartcmant à Mcmsieur Emest Hab.imana, proche du
ç0mrnaudaot- ·Karasira chargé de la logistique au sein de l' APR et de
Monsieur Gàkwera:e. · ·
- Etablisseoi.Clit OR dirig6 par Egide.Gakuba .
- STIP AU.dirigé par Monsieur Mbuguje, proche du Président Buyoya et le
Commaodant Kazura du renseignement militaire rwandais avec· Gatete,
ancien commandant dU. bataillon rwandais à Bukavu.
VI : INSTRUMENTS JURIDIQUES VIOLF.S PAR LES.ACTEURS
DU PILLAGE ET DE L'EXPLOITATION ILLEGALE DES
RESSOURCD NATURELLFS ET AUTRES RICHESSES DE
LARDC
71. L'intégrité tenitotialc et la souveraineté· do la ROC sur ses ressourçes
naturelles sont garanties par des instruments juridiques internlltionaux et
nationaux qui consacrent la primauté du droit sur le droit de la force.
Aussi le Gouvemement a-t- il jugé néces.,airc de répertorier le maximum
d'instruments juridiques qui ont été violés par les difî6tents actes de pillage et
d'exploitation ill6galo des ressources naturelles et autres de la RDC par les pays
étrangers notamment le Rwanda, l'Ouganda_ et le Burundi en complicité avec les
rebelles congolais.
Instruments uni.v enels et autres actes
72. La Charte de l'ONU: article 1•, relatif aux buts de l'ONU, alinéa 2:
« Développet .. CPctre ·1es nations des relations amicales fondées sur le respect du
principe de l'égalité des droits des peuples et de leur droit à disposer d'e~-
URAnnex71
016822Sf.doç
S/l00l/1156
m6mes, •.. ; article 2 relatif aux principes de l'ONU dont le respect de l'intégrité
et de la souveraineté territoriale 4c l'Etat ».
73. Le Pacte International relaûf aux droits économiques, sociaux et cdl.turels
de 1966 : article 1er, alinéa 2 : « Pour atteindre .leurs fins, tous les peuples
peuvent disposer libnment de leurs richesses et de leurs ressources naturelles
( ... ). :En aucun cas un peuple ne .pourra être privé· de ses propres moyens de
subsistance »:
74. Le Pacte International relatif aux droits civils et politiques : idem.
75. . Là résolution 1803 (XVII) de l'Assemblée Génémle des Nations Unies du
14 décombre ·1962: « Souveraineté permanen,te sur les ressources naturelles»:
§7 : « La violation des droits souverains des peuples et des· nations sur leurs
richesses et leurs ressources naturelles va à l'encontre de l'esprit et de la lettre
des principes de la Charte des Nations Unies et empêche le développement de la
coopération internationale et le majntien de la paix ».
76. La Charte dês droits et devoirs des Etats : article 2 : « Chaque Etat détient
et exerce uno 1011veraineté entière sur toutes ses richesses, ressources naturelles
et activités économiques y compris la possession et le droit de les utiliset et d'en
disposer.». •
77. Les Résolutions du Conseil de Sécurité relatives à la guerre en·RDC, surtout
la Résolution 1291 du 24 février 2000 ; la Résolution· 1304 du 16 juin 2000 ; la
Résolution 1332 du 24 décembre 2000 et la Résolution 1341 du 22 février 200 l,
par lesquelles le Conseil de Sécurité réaffirme la souveraine~ de la RDC Sl1f ses
ressources naturelles et prend note avec préoccupation des informations faisant
état de l'exploitation illégale des ressources du pays et des conséquences que
peuvent avoir ces activités sur la sécurité et la poursuite des hostilités.
78. Les Conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949 et leurs protocoles additionnels ·.
du 8 juin 1977 : article 33, alinéa 2 de la Convention de Genève IV relative à la
protection de la population civile en cas de conflits annés : « Le . pillage est
interdit ... » ; article 52 alinéa l du Protocole I additionnel aux conventions de
Genève du 12 aoiit 1949 relatif à la protection des biens .de caractère civil : « les
biens de caractère civil ne doivent être robjet ni d'attaques ni des représailles».
79. La Convention sur le commerce international des espèces sauvages
menacées d'extinction de 1973 (CITES): article 2 §2: « Les Parties ne
permettent le oômmerce des spécimens des espèces inscrites aux annexes I, II et
III qu'en confo!fDÏté avec les dispositions de la présente convention».·
016822S f.doc: URAnnex71 23
S/2001/1156
24
80. La Convention de l'UNESCO pour -la protection du patrimoine culturel et
naturel du 73 novembre 1972 : article 6 : _ « . .. chacun des Etats parties à la
présente convention s'engage à ne prendre délibérément auèune mesure
susceptible d'endommagér dh'ectement ou indirectement le pakimoine culturel
et naturel qui est situé sur le territoire d'antres Etats parties à cette convention·».
81. La Résolution 46 (III) de la CNUCED qualifiant de « violation flagrante, les
principes des Nations Uni.es, toute.mesure de pression politique ou économique
de nature à porter atteinte aux droits de tout pays de dispo5ÇJ;" librement de ses
ressources naturelles ».
82. Convention relative aux droits. de l'enfant : article 22 : « les Etats parties
s'engagent à respecter et à faire respecter les règles du droit humanitaire
intemationQ} qui leur sont applicables en cas de conflits armés et dont la
protection s'étend aux enfimts >>.
Les Instruments rigionaux
. 83. La Charte de· roUA : article III relatif aux principes de l'organisation,
notamment le ftSPCCl de la souveraineté et de l'intégrité tenitoriale de chaque
Etat et de son droit inaliénable à une existence indépendante.
84. La Charte Africaine des _droits de l'homme et des peuples : article 21 : « Les
peuplès ont la libre disposition de leurs _ richesses et de leurs ressources
naturelles. En aucun cas, un peuple ne peut en être privé. En cas de spoliation,
le peup•e spolié a droit à la légitime récupération de ses biens ainsi qu'à une
indemnisation adéquate ..• ».
85. La Convention Africaine pour la conservation de la nature et des
ressources naturelles du 15 septembre 1968, article W.b.iii: « le Parc national
désigne une aire.dans laquelle l'abattage, la chasse et la capture d'animaux. et la
destruction ou la collecte de plantes sont interdits ... ».
86. L' Accord de cessez-le-feu de Lusaka du 10 juillet 1999: article III principe
15 : « Rien dans cet Accord ne peut porter atteinte à la souveraineté et à
l'intégrité de la République Démocratique du Congo. »
016822Sf.doc
URAnnex71
S/2001/1156
La Lêgislatioa nadoaale
Dispositions environnementales
87. Ordonnance n° 52/119 de 1951 sur les règles à suivre dans les coupes de
bois autorisés. ·
88. La Loi n° 82-002 du 28 mai 1982 portant réglementation de Ja chasse :
article 3 « nul n'a le droit d'exploiter la faune par la chasse ou par tout autre
mode d'exploitation ~ être muni d'une autorisation de l'autorité
compétente >>.
Article 13 :· à l'intérieur des réserves de faune, il est interdit. sauf autorisation de
l'autorité locale : « . . . de poursuivre, chasser, capturer, détruire, cffi:ayer ou
troubler,· de quelques manière que ce soit, toute espèce animal sauvage. même
-les animaux réput6s nuisibles ... ».
Dispositioas lldnQ.-es en RDC
89. Ordonnance-,loi n° 81 du 2 avril 1984 po~t législation générale sur les
mines et les hydrocarbures: article 4, alinéa 1er << nul ne peut se livrer à des
investigations du sous-sol quel qu•~n soit la finalité sans l'autorisation du
Ministère ayant les mines dans ses attributions. Nul ne peut se livrer à 1~
prospection, à la recherche et à l'exploitation minière, si ce n'est en vertu des
droits accordés par l'Etat, via le Ministère des Mines, aux personnes physiques
ou morales de son choix ».
90. Ordonnance-Loi n° 66-343 du 7 juin 1967, dite « Loi BAK..AJIKA »
octroyant à l'Etat congolais la plénitude de son droit de propriété et sa
souveraineté dans les concessions foncièl'es, forestières et minières de toute
l'étendue du territoire de la ROC. :
91. Fort de ce qui précède, et partant du caractère objectif et impartial reconnu
au rapport du Groupe d'Bxperts des Nations Unies sur l'exploitation illégale des
ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la République Démocratique du
Congo, P.on ne peut .s'empêcher· de relever des atteintes graves portées· aux
dispositions pertinentes des instruments juridiques susmentionnés.
A titre d'exemple: les Rwandais, les Ougandais et les Burundais ainsi que les
mouvements rebelles exploitent illicitement les minerais de la ROC par les
soldats pour leur compte personnel ; par des villageois organis6s par des
Commandants . .rwandais et ougandais. et par des étrangers pour le compte de
l'armée ou des Commandants.
016822Sf.doc 25
URAnnex71
S/2001/1156
92. L'exploitation illégale des ressources minières de la ROC par les Etats
agresseurs viole :
93. Le droit du peuple congolais à disposer de lui-même (article 1• de
la Charte de l'ONU) et le principe de l'intégrité territoriale et de la souveraineté
de la RDC (arti.cte·2 de la Charte de l'ONU);
94~ Le droit du peuple congolais à disposer librement de ses richesses et de ne
pas être priv6 de ses moyens de subsisoencc (a.rt.ic!e 1 • commun aux Pactes
internationam( relatifs aux droits économiques, sociaux t.'l culturels, d'une part
et, aux droits civils et politiques, d'autre pait ; article 2 de la Charte des droits et
. devoirs des Etats ; le paragraphe 7 de la Résolution 1803 (XVII) de l'Assemblée
Oénéra1e des Nations Unies du 14 décembre 1962 considère ia violation des
droits souverains des peuples sur leurs ressources naturelles comme un obstacle
au développement dé la coopération internationale et au maintien de la paix ;
95. Le principe de la souveraineté de la RDC sur ses ressources naturelles (les
Résolutions 1291_. 1304 et 1341 du Conseil de Sécurité relatives à la guerre en
ROC). . .
96. Lé prinèipe de l'autorisation préalable reconnue au Ministre ayant les
Mines dans ses aUributions quant à · roctroi de permis de recherche et
exploitation minière (article 4 de l'Ordonnance-Loi n° 81 du 2 avril 1984).
Législation forestière et ~onomique
97. Par l'abattage d'arbres destinés à la production et l'exportation de bois
d'oeuvrè de la R.DC sans autorisation préalable du Gouvernement légitime de
Kinshasa. les Etats agrçsseurs violent ainsi l'article III.b.iii de la Convention
africaine pour la conservation de la nature et des ressources naturelles qui
interdit l'abattage des arbres; l'article 6 de la Convention de l'Unesco pour la
protection du patrimoine culturel et naturel du 23 novembre 1972 qui interdit
d • endommager directement ou indirectement le patrimoine naturel des Etats
partis. ·
98. Le fait que les forces ougandaises et rwandaîses aient tué près de 4.000
éléphants sur une population de 12.000 éléphants dans le Parc de Garamba aux
fins de se livrer au trafic illicite de leurs défenses (ivoires), constitue une atteinte
grave à l'article m sur la réglementation du commerce des spécimens des
espèces inscritt -à l'annexe I des Conventions CITES : « Tout commerce des
spécimens d'une esp~ inscrite à l'Annexe I doit se conformer aux dispositions .
du présent:anicle » ainsi que la loi congolaise qui protège les· espèces dans les
parcs.
26
URAnnex71
016822Sf.doc
$/2001/1156
99. Le reCO'liïS à la main-d'oeuvre infantile pour extraire de l'or dans les mines
de Kilo-Môto de la Province Orientale et · du diamant dans la Province de .
l'Equateur pour le compte respectivement du Rwanda et du~. constitue une
atteinte grave à la Convention Internationale relative aux droits des en1ànts et à
la Convention n° 182 de l'OIT sur l"interdiction des pÎre$ formes de travail sur
les enfants; de même qu'une violation grave de l'article 22 de la Charte
afticaine des droits et du bien-être des enfants. ·
VH: CONCLUSION
100. Le Gouvernement de la RDC est convaincu que, si la Communauté
Internationale ne se décide pas à prendre des mesures contraignantes et
conséquentes pour. arrêter la dérive maffieuse des gouvernements Ougandais,
Rwandais et Burundais et celle encouragée par eux dans les teITitoires occupés,
aucune paix durable ne sera possible en République Démocratique du Congo-et
dans toute la régio' ,des Otands Lacs. ·
101. Le Gou:Ji:66,~t Ost convaincu que seules ·des sanctions exemplaires
contre les actes délictueux perpétrés par le · Burundi, l'Ouganda et le Rwan~
les mouvements rebelles et leurs dirigeants constituent les seule~ digues contre
ces actes inaffi.eux posés par ces pays, ces mouvements et lçurs dirigeants pour
éviter une émergence des Etats - bandits, dans la Régio_n,.
· 102. Le Oouvemcment exhorte le Conseil de Sécurité à redoubler de vigilance
pour ne pas se fàire distraioe par l'argumentairé du Rwanda, de l'Ouganda, du
Burundi et des mouvements rebelles que ces Etats soutiennent et qui leur servent
dê paravent dans leurs entreprises criminelles, argumentaire· consistant en un
acharnement à ~ttre sur un même pied d'égalité le Gouvernement légal de la
République Démocratique du Congo et les mouvements rebelles au risque de
légitimer le recours à la force comme mode d'accéder au pouvoir et de trahir
ainsi l'espo,ir que nourrit le peuple congolais de paraçheve_r le processus de
démocratisation afin de mettre en place un nouvel ordre politique.
103. Le Gouvemement est convaincu que le Conseil de Sécurité détient la clé
de la cessation des hostilités, du pillage et de l'exploitation illégale des
ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la ROC et de Ja restauration par ce
pays de son intégrité territoriale.
0168225[doc 27
URAnnex71
$12!)01/1156
28
104. De QA. -qui précède, vu la gravité de la situation et l'urgence. le
Gouvemcmènt de .la RDC appuie globalement toutes les conclusions et
tecommaodations du 1• Rapport du Panel des Nations - Unies du 12 avriUOOl
et d'une manière particulière invite le C~il de Sécurité à :
• mettte en place un tribunal international ad hoc chargé de
poursuivre, de juger et condamner éventuellement les auteurs des
cr;ùnes économiques et des crimes perpétrés· par des individus en
remontant ia filière jusqu'au sommet des Etais iigu;sseüi-S ;
• ·exiger le gel des avoirs des mouvements rebelles. de leurs
dirigeants. des sociétés et individus impliqués dans les actes illicites
de pillage et d'exploitation illégale. des ressources congolaises ;
• demander aux pays membres de l'ONU de cesser de soutenir
financièrement des pays qui sont à la base du pillage et de
l'cx:ploiCation illégale des ressowces de la ROC ;
• demander au FMI et à la Banque Mondiale de suspendre leur
coopération avec les pays agresseurs en cas de persi~ de
pillage et de la guerre ;
• .demander aux pays limitrophes de la RDC .ou de transit de
·s'abstenir de fa.voriser les actîvités économiques et financières
menées sur leurs territoires respectifs en rapport avec la guerre en
RDC·
'
• en fonction du préjudice financier, moral et en termes de régression
. économique, appuyer la ROC dans la défense de son droit légitime
d'exiger une compensation financière de la part des pays et
individus coupables de pillage soit directement soit indirectement.
105. Enfin, le Gouvernement prend l'engagement de mettre tout en ~uvre pour
accélérer l'avènement d'une société démocratique en permettant au peuple
congolais d'aller dans un délai raisonnable, aux élecûons libres et transparentes
afin de se choisir ses propres dirigeants en tant que souverain primaire . ·
106. Concernant la gestion courante de l'Etat, le Gouvernement de la
République Démocratique du Gongo sous la direction de Son Excellence Joseph
KABlLA opte résolument pour l'instauration de la bonne gouvernance dans
l'intérêt bien-.Gompris de l'ensemble du peuple congolais.
URAnnex71
01682251'.doc
URAnnex72
URANNEX72
United Nations
- Security Council Distr.: General
10 December 2001
Original: English
Letter dated 10 December 2001 from the Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations addressed
to the President of the Security Co11ncil
On instructions frorn my Govemment, I have the honour to attach herewith the
response of the Government .of the Republic of Uganda to the addendum to the
report of the Panel of Experts on thJ lllegal Exploitation of Natural Reso.urces and
Other Forms of Wealth of the Democr.tic Republic of the Congo (see annex").
1 should be grateful if you would have th~ present lener and its annex
circulated .as a document of the Security Council.
(Signer!) Prof. Semakula Kiwan11ka, Ph.D
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Perm•nent Representative
• l'he annex is being circulatc:d in the language ofsubmission only.
01-68908 (E) 121201
IIIIIHIIIIIIIUHIIIIHI 11111
S12oou1163
Annex t<a the letter dated 10 December 2001 from the Permanent
Representative ofUganda to the United Nations addressed to the
President of the Security Council
THE RESPONSE
BY nra OOVERl!tMENT OF ri-IB
THB REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
TO
THE ADDENDUM REPORT OF nOE PANEL OF EXPERTS ON THE
ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION OF NAnJR.AL RESOURCES AND
OTHER FORMS OF WEALTH OF mB DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
OF 1lOE CONGO (DRC)
MINISTR:VOF FOREIGN AFF AIRS
KAMPALA. UGANDA
4th December, 2001
URAnnex72
S/1001/1163
S/2001/1163
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1: Introduction
Il: Improvement and positive aspects of the Addendum
to the Report of the UN Panel
m: FJaws in the Addendum
- Definition oflllegality
- Methodology
Corroboration of Evidence
IV: Specific Allegations AgainstUganda and Individuals
V: Conclusions oftbe Addendum
VI: Recommendations by the Addendum
PAGE
- 3
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 12
- 13
VII: Way Forward: Recommendations by Uganda - 16
Aanextu.res: Summary Report on the Visit of the UN Panel to
KampaJa, August. 2001 - Page 1 of 28
URAnnex72
2
S/2001/Jl6l
1: INTRODUCTION
1. On requcst of the UN Security Council on 2 June 2000, the Secretary 6eneral of
the UN cstablisbed a Panel of Experts oo the lllegal Exploitation of the Natural
Resources and Otller Fonns of WcaJth in the DRC. The mandate of the Panel was to:
(a) Follow-up on reports and collect data on ail activities of illegal
exploitations; and
(b) Anaiyso the iink betwecn the cxpk>itation of natural resourees in the DRC
and the continuation of the ÇQnflict.
2. · The UN Security Couocil hcld a meeting. on 3rd May 2001. to discuss the report
of the W Panel of Experts chaircd by Mme Ba N•Daw dated 16th April 2001. The
Council agn,ccl with Ugaoda's submission tbat the allegations in the report Jacked
eotrobonded evidcncc to form a basis 1br flCtion by the Security Council.1 In bis
statcmcnt on bchalf of the Security Council (S/PRST/2001/13). the Council President
rcquestcd the UN Sccoetaty Gencral to expcnd the mandate of the UN Panel for a period
of thrc,c, momhs, at the end of wbich the Panel would pn,sent an addendum to the report.
This IDIUldatc, would .includc the following:
(a) An updatc on the relevant data and aoalysi$ of fùrthcr intbrmation,
including as pointed out. in the action plan sutrinitted by the Panel to the
Security Council.
(b) Rekmmt information on the activities of cowttries and aoother actors for
whicb ncccssary quality and qUQntity of data were not made available
earlicr.
(c) A reapome, buecl .. r..- .. pouible on eorroborated evidence, to the
commentl and ,-etiom of the statea and at:ton dted io the l'épOrt to
tllePaneL
{d) An evaluation of the situation at the end of the extension of the mandate of
the Panel, and of its conclusions, assessing whcther progrcss bas been
made on the issuea, which ÇOJDO undcr the oesponsibility of the Panel.
3. The UN Sc:curity Council also urgecl member statcs aecuscd in the Report cf the
UN Panel to C$tablish their own inquiries into the allegations contained in the report and
requestecl govemments to co-operat;e tùlly with the teconstituted UN Panel Likewise,
the UN Panel was requested to co-operate with the parties involvecl in the DRC.
1 See UNSC dowmcut (S/2()01/458) containing dtc raponscs of the Upnda Govemment to dtc Report of
the UN Panel of Experts oe Jllcga1 Exploitlltioe ofNatund Rcsourccs of the DRC, dated 9th May 2001.
Also statemcat in_lhe Sccurity Colmcil oe lhc Rq,ort of the UN Pand by Hoe. Amama Mbabazi, Minister
ofStato tbr Rtgfcia11 CHpcntioe, New York, 3 May 2001.
URAnnex72 l
S/2001/1163
4. ln compliancc witb the Security Couocil rèquest, the Oovemment of Uganda
established by LegaI Notice No. s12001 datcd 25th May 2001. aJudicial Commission of
Inquiry in the Allcgations of lllcgal Exploitation of Nanual Re$ourccs of the_ DRC
cbaired by Justice David Porter (UK.). Other mcmbcrs of the Commission are J\IStico J.P.
lkrko (Ghana) and Mr. John Rwambuya. a Ugandan retin:d senior UN official. The
Interim Report of the Justice Porter Commission was relc:ascd on 7th November 2001
(SllOOJ/1080 dated 15th Noveaaber 2001). The final Report of the Porter Comnûssion
is expected in February 2002.
S. The tenoe of Reference of the Porter Commission were as fullows:
(a) To inquire into the allegations against Uganda concerning illegal exploitation c,f
the natural resoun:es and another furms of wealth c,f the DRC, to wit minerais.
cotfee. timber, livestock, wildlifc, ivory, mollC)' or other property ftom the DRC
containcd in the report of the UN Panel of 16th April 2001.
(b) To inquire into the allegations of mass scale footing and systematic exploitation of
natural resouroes and another forms of wcalth from the DRC by the govemment
ofUganda ~ in the Report.
(c) To inquire into allegations co complicity c,r involvement by H.E. the President of
U ganda and bis fiunily in the illegal exploitation made in the said Report.
(d) To inquire into allegations of involvemcnt in the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the DRC by top rankiQg UPDF c,fficers and other Ugandan
individuals named in the Report.
6. The Reconstituted UN Panel, chaired by Ambassador Kassem (Egypt), visited
Uganda ftom 22nd to 25th August 2001, and receivcd maximum co-operation ftom the
Oovernment. The Panel met H.E. President Museveni; Hon. James Wapakhabulo, Third
Deputy Prime Minister and M"mistcr of Foreign Aftàirs. Cabinet Ministers of Finance;
Trade and lndustry; Agriculture; Bnvironment and Minerai Development; as wcll as the
relevant govermnent technical ofticials.2
7. The Gc,venunent ofUganda welcomcs the release of the Addendum to the Report
ofthe Reconstituted UN Panel in New York on 19th November 2001 as an improvement
to the initial document as it recognises:
(a) Uganda•s legitimate security concerns in the DRC.
2 See Annc,x «iotaining the Summary Report on lhc -visit by the UN Panel to Uganda. 22 - 2S August 2001
ct.ted 1st October~J.
URAnnex72
SllOOl/116.l
(b)
(c)
8.
tbat:
The Îm,p()rtance of the Lusab Cease-fire AgreelllCDt in addressing the crisis and
the illcgil exploitation of natural resources in the DRC and bringing stability in
the Ooeat Lakes Region.
Uganda's commitment to the implementation of the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement
as demonstrated by the withdrawal of inost of ber troops ftom the DRC.
The Governaent of Upmh1 still •tell witb very grave eoneera, however,
(a) Serious alleptioos and accusations arc made against bigh-ranking UPDF
officers and their civilian co.Wllerparts in the coutinued exploitation of
natural resolll'CC$ of the DRC without any corroborative evidence.
(b) The misconceived allegation persists tbat the continuation of the conflict
in the DRC is linked to il1egal exploitation of natural resourees in the DRC
in the case of Uganda.
(c) The UN Panel continues to retùse to sbare the SOUl'CC$ of evidence on
allegations contained in the report with the Independent 1udicial
ColDIDÏSsion established on the recommendation of the UN Security
Couocil.
9. ln spite ofthcse CObCCl'DS. however, the OoverDIDCllt ofUganda will continue to
co-operatc with the UN Security Council, the UN s«oetary-General and the
Recc)nstituted UN Panel in order to establish the truth regarding the allegations against
Uganda and the high ranking officeJ;S of the UPDF mentioned in the addendum to the UN
Panel Report. Uganda encoumges the UN Panel to work with the Independent Judicial
Commission (the Porter Commission) in order to establish corroborated evidence against
the high ranldng offiçers of the UPDF or anyUgandans accused ofillegal exploitation of
the natural resources of the DRC. The Oovemment of Uganda is committed to
implementation of the recommendations c:>f the Porter Commission.
Key elemeng of tbf! BesQOIIH to fbt Ad4!pàJp to th11 Repptt of th! UN Panel
10. The response of the Govemment of the Republic of Uganda to the addendum as
contained in this document covers the following points:
• Backgrowid to the addendum to the report of the UN Panel.
• Improvemcnts and positive aspects of the addendum and its flaws.
• Response to the spcçifie allcgations against Uganda but outside the ma.ndate
ofthe Justice Porter Commission.
- Exploitation of natural resourccs and the continuation of the eonftict.
- Uganda Ooven"1:ient comments on the Conclusions and l.'eCOmmendations of
the UN Panel
R.eco.nunc:ndations by Uganda on the way forward.
URAnnex72 5
SllOOJ/U63
D: IMPROVEMENTS AND POS111VE ASPICl'S IN THE ADDENDUM TO
11IEREPORT
11. As pointed out in the preliminary press statcmcnt by the Ministry of Foreign
Affilirs in Kampala on the addendum to the report of the UN Panel on 20th November
2001, the Uganda Oovemment bas noted that it eontains some updated analyses,
improvements and a more balanced eoverage of eountries and other actors, in spite of the
admitted severe time const:raints. on the part of the PaneL
12. First, it acknowledges the fimdamcntal issues rclating to Uganda's involvement in
the DRC. ln recognises Ugaoda's legitimatc security coocems rcgarding the tbreat ftom
the negative furces based in the DRC, Le., the ADF, WNBF, UNRF Il, and the more
recently formed PRA. The addendum also recognises the met tbat the intervention by
Uganda in pursuit of pe1pebah>rs of terrorist activities was allowed under a bilateral
protocot which was signed ~ Uganda and the DRC in April 1998.
A
13. Second, after exaroïuïne the allegations of systemie and systematic exploitation of
the oatural resources of the DRC by Uganda, it recognises that neither the Uganda
Oovemment nor any_ôf its companies are involvcd in the illega1 exploitation.
14. Thini, it agrees with a great dcal ofUganda's prc:sentation to the UN Security
Council on 3rd May 2001 tbat the report by the UN Panel of Experts suffered filom poor
qwility of evidente and that lllllll!' allegations against Uganda were basec1 on bearsay and
falseboods. For example, it exposed the old. UN Panel's grave error in building a
fictitious case-study based 011 DARA-Forest' company to demonstrate Ugaoda
Govemment's systemic and syst.mùc illegal exploitation and export of timber ftom the
DRC. The case study had allcaed that DARA-Fon,st was a 'Uganda-Tbai' eompany
involved in a scbeme to make &:Ise certification of timber ftom the DRC as of Ugandan
origin; in collusion with the Ministry of Water, Lands and Envirorunent (Forestry
Department) in Kampala. The ca.se study also co~ed Président Museveni's fiunily as
sharehoklers in the DARA company. Howevcr, the addendum, in paragraph 12 n:veals
the truth tbat BARA-Forest la a Congolete-Tlaai Joaing ~aapany ngilterecl in
Kinshasa in Man:h 1998 with • 35,• hectare loagiog eonceaion from the North
Kivu Provincial Authority. It foan4 out tut DARA-Forest eertifieate of
registratioa wu nnewed on 12 September 2081 by Che Mlniatry of Justice in
Kinshasa.
15. Fourth, the addendum recognises the signifi.cancc of the Lusaka Ceas~fire
Agreement and the establislunent of a new and stable political dispensation as the only
guarantee to: (1) guarding against illegal exploitation of natural resources of the DRC;
and (ii) ensuring security oftbe neighbowing countries.
16. Fifth, the addendum rec<>gnises tbat Uganda ÎS complying with the Lusaka Ceasefire
Agreement l!ftd the relevant Security Council resolutions and decisions. Specifically,
it notes that ~ bas made the significant witbdrawal of ber armed forces from the
6 URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
DRC. It a18o appRlCÛltcs tbat Ugaoda has c:omplied with the statement of the President of
the Security Council (S/PRST/2001/13) by establisbing a Judicial Commission of lnqu.iry
into the illegal exploitation of natural resouroes of the DRC.
17. Seventb, the addendum rcmedies the earlier anomaly of fi>çusiog on Uganda,
RW1Ulda. Burundi and the rebel groups; and gives covcragc of all the parties involved in
the DRC as well as the transit and de$tination countries of the natmal resources of the
DRC.
m: FLAWS.IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE REPORT OF THE UN PANEL
Delhùtion oflllegalty
18. The ~ of 'illegality' in exploitation of natura1 resourcc:s of the DRC wu not
tackled in the addendum yet it was a c:ontcntious issue and was raiscd in the response by
the Oovcmmcnt of the Republic of Uganda to the initial UN report. Altbough the
addendum is silent on the definitiooal aspects of 'illegality', it contains elements that
cte.rly demonstrldc ,areeinent with Uganda's S11bmission tbat, in the context of the
conflict in the DRC, wbt# thm: is total collapsc of the state institutions and sttucturcscxpJoitation
of resoun:cs for survival of the people such as cross-border trade is
legitimate. Some aspects oftrade carried out by thc•rebel groups who are in the de-facto
controlof the territoiy cannot be cJa.,sified as illcgal.
Methodology
19, The methodology used in data collection and aoalysis in the addendum is not
stipulated. Uganda bas argued that the UN PaneJ, for some unexpJained reasons, fiùled to
properly analyse most of the solid data provided by the technical officiais in Kampala and
that no rigon,us econotnetric and statistical analysis was contained in the Panel's report
to prove ca...i.ity. Uganda bas demonstnted, for example, that its high GDP growth
figures, winch started in early 1990s had notbiog to do with the start of the contlict in the
DRC in 1998. Rather, the eeonomic performanee bas been due to sound macro-ecoD()mic
policies and increased foreign investment smce 1990/91. The new UN Panel. therefore,
fell short of its mandate by not .dire!:tly responding to U~•s conceroe in this respect.
Hence the erroneous linkage of Uganda's economic perfonnance to the illegal
exploitation of the natural l'èSOurces of the DRC.
Con-obontion ofEvidenee
20. Uganda's responsc in May 2001 pointed out that the Panel's serious allegations
against the Uganda Oovernment and H.E. President Y. Museveni were based on heanay,
falsehooda and distortion of qta. The mandate for the UN Panel from the UN Seeurity
Council on the need for corroborated evidence to hlck up allegations is very clear.
However, the p~blem of uncorroborated or ignored evidence persists in the addendum
on a number ot:allegations against Uganda.
URA.nnex 72 7
S/2001/1163
21. Wbi1e acknowledgiog that UPDF bave witbdnlwn ftom the DRC, the Panel makes
a very serious allegation - witbout any corroborated cvidence - that there are continuing
commerçial nctworks and structures put in place by Ugandan commanders and the4-
civilian counterpart, in Oriental Province and Kampala. Examples given are Trinity and
Victoria companies, wbich are not Ugandan-owned. u ....... ec1 'reliable aouroea' are
.quoted without supporting documents on a scbeme betwcen Mr. Mbusa Nyamwisi and
senior UPDF officers to 'skim' US$400,000= off tax revenues at Beni custotnS post at the
Uganda border. The period is not specified ofwhen and how the money is shared.
22. While açknowledging tbat Uganda i!I committed to the implementation of the
LU$11ca Agreement and the relevant UN Security Council resolutiom, and bas
substantially withdrawn ber troops ftom the DRC, the UN Panel.- without any logical
evidence - concludes that a link between the continuation ofthe conflict and exploitation
of the natural :resources of the ORC exists 'in the ease of Uganda'. The Panel should
have a corroborated case study to demonstrate the linkage.
23. The UN J>anel alleges that Uganda denied that timber ftom the DRC does not
transit througb Ugande. This is mise. Uganda has aJways stated that transit cargo to and
ftom the DRC bas takcn place since time ilnmc,morial. Detailed filets and data regan:ling
transit au-go ftom the DRC were given to the UN Panel in November and August 2001.
24. The Uganda Government is concerned that the addendum is silent on allegations
based on · hearsay and Jàlsehoods raised in the initial report wbich they have not
conoborated. The recoostituted UN Panel refuses to acknowledge the mistakes where
the image and integrity of people or institutions have been unjustümbly damaged.
Examples of the mistakes tbat should bave been acknowledged in the addendurn include:
(a)
(b)
8
DARA-Foreat Cue-study apiut the Govenun•t of Upnda: The
Addendwn clearly shows that the PARA-Forest case study. which was
central to the old UN Panel's demonstration of Uganda's systemic and
systematic illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the PRC, was
not consistent with the evidence. It establisbes that DARA-Forest is not a
Uganda-Thai con,pany, H.E. ~nt Museveni and bis famiJy are not
sbarebolders in the company and .that the Oeparttnent of Forestry, the
Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment in Kampala was never
involved in the JàJse certification of timber ftom the DRC as of Ugandan
origin.
Aùeptiom apiast B.E. Pnsident Museveai and hls f'a111ily: The
addendurn is silent regarding the fictitious .shareholding by H.E. the
President's family in the private comparues involved in the illegal
exploitation ofnatural resources ofthe ORC, e.g,, Victoria, PARA-Forest,
Great Lakes Industries and Trinity Company.
URAnnex72
S/2001/Jt 63
(c) Allepd eomplimy of the IMF, World Bank and other Donor Agenda
in• eover up on data linking Uganda•s economic performance to the
illepl exploitation of the natural resources ofthe DRC.
IV: SPECD'IC ALLEGATIONS MADE AG.AINST THE UGANDA
GOVERNMENT AND INDIVIDUAI.S
Alleptiou Apùut lntlividuals
25. The Ugallda Govemmcnt teitcntcs its position on the allegations against
individuals and prlvate Ugaodan companies accused of illegal exploitation of natmal
resources of the DRC. An independent Judicial ColDlllÎ$sion of lnquiry was establisbed
in May 2001, as already stated, to investigate t.ltc allegatio!'..s. The Oovernment of
Uganda is committed to the implementation of the recommcndations of the Judicial
CommissioJL
Alleptiou ApilQt the UPDJi'
26.
Para 28 on Gold: ...... the Panel bas evidence that anisanal gold mining activities in the
Nolth East DRC in Kilo-Moto area by ùPDF, .• gold produced at MaJaka site is still
being so.ld throup the Victoria Comptoir in Kampala".
Para 44 on diaaaoucb: •• .... Artisanal m.ining in the North Kisangani area bas provided
sources ofrevenue for UPDF .... fur the continuation of the conflict".
Pan 57:. •• .... therc are indication$ tbat clashes between the Mai Mai warriors, who are
better armed than before, and the UPDF and MLC groups in the past seven months in
Oriental and Kiw regioD$ have been directly rei.ted to the control of Coltan and Gold".
Para 97: " .... the coIJIDlefCial networks put in place by Ugand& Anny commanders and
their eivilian counterparts that were described in the report are still functioning".
Res,ome:
27. The Govemment ofUganda bas established an independent Judicial Commission
to mvestigate such allegations. WJ.thout prejudice to the work of the Porter Commission.
the Govenunent is obliged to respond to the wrious allegations against UPDF.
28. Respon94l on Gold mlaing by OPDF;
(a) lt exhibits out:right anti-UglUlda bias to allege tbat UPDF is continuing to mine in
the KifQ;:Moto area in October/November 2001, when it is a fàct tbat UPDF
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
~ 12 out of 14 battalions from the DRC including the Kilo-Moto area in
Isiro in May/June 2001 where the artisanal mining is alleged to be 'still
continuing under UPDF'.
(b) Uganda bas êstablished and pointed out in ber response that Victoria company ~
neither registered in Uganda nor does it operate in Kampala. A request for
evidcnce on the existence of Victoria Comptoir company in Uganda was made to
the UN Panel. But no evidence bas hitherto been provided.
29. RespollSe en clbtaaeads:
(a) It is gross prejudice for the addendum to allege tbat UPOF continues to be
engaged in mining in Nortbem Kisangani area. fü.idence bas been given to the
UN Panel, wbich can be verified by MONUC, that UPOF withdrew ftom the
same area months ago.
(b) Uganda bas demonsb'ated commitment to the reform of the legal fi:amework to
regulate the diamonds sector. A draft Mining Bill (2001) is expected to be
discussed in Parliament to amcnd the MiQing Act (1964). The Draft Bill aims at.
iater~alia. tegulating the imports, exporta and transit of diamonds unless such
diamonds are certified by GURN or under agreed measures on standardisation of
certification of production.
(c) As pointed out in the Government response of May 2001, the UN Panel
recognises 'loose regulations' at fiee mncs that allow repacbging to &Jsify
docwnents of provenance. For example, the UN Monitoring Mechanism on
Sanctions Against UNIT A requested U~ to explain. the 9,387.51 carats valued
at $1.26m. which were alleged to have entered Antwerp reportedly as of Uganda
provenance during January-June 2000. The Uganda Revenue Authority
investigated the matter and fourni no record of 9,387.51 carats being exported
from or transferred through Uganda during the period. In order to co-operate with
the UN Monitoring Mechanism, Uganda requested, April 2001, for information
on copies of customs and transit documentary indicating Ugandan provenance,
and copies ofpassport movements of the diamond <lt!niers. No response bas been
received from the UN Monitoring Mechanism on Sanctions Against UNITA in
New York.
(d) Although Ug~ is currently not officially a diamond producing country, there
eldsts diamonds in Uganda, and have been recovered as a result of artisan goldmining
operations. A number of private companies have made applications for
diamond exploration since 2000. East Afiica Gold Min.ing (U) Ltd., a USAregistered
company was lice0$C in 2001 to explore dùunonds in Uganda.
30. Respome oa the M•i-Mal/UPDF Club on Cokaa: The UPDF role in the
North East DRC_ is strictly in accordance With the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement. UPDF
positions were-atuicked by Mai Mai militias.in Mambasa, .Bunia sector in. June 2001. The
10
URAnnex72
S/2001fll63
Mai Mai wcre.diaJodged inJuly 2001. These incidents bad nothing to do with the control
ofColtan.
31. Tite allepfioa of commercial networks pQt in place by UPDF: After the
withdnlwal tmm the DRC, is a very serious accusation which should be made with
conoborated evidence. The resources alleged to be looted by UPDF are tangible and
should be traçeable to their specific origins and destinations. The networks of
exploitation cannot be imagîned or a:wrned to exist. Indeed the UN Panel is, therefore,
challenged to provide corroborated evidence of these commercial networks for
verification.
Allegations Againlt the Govemment of Uganda
32.
S1!!9fic Alleptions in the 4,ddend,m
Para 48: " ... Although the Panel bas evidence to show timber ftom DRC is exported ...
througb Kampala •.• the Government of Uganda denied that any transited through. the
country."
Para 71: " •..• In tàct, civil servants appointed by govemment are still perfonning such
duties as custorns control and tax collection in rebel areas. The taxes are ..••. diverted for
use ofrebels, andUganda •. .''
hra ,a: "While the Govemmeot of Ug,uida does not participate directly in exploitation
activities, the culture in which its military personnel functions tolerates and condones
their activities ... .,
Response:
33. As indicated before, the accusation that the Uganda Govemment denied transit of
timber ftom the DRC through Uganda is a &Ise and malicious allegation. The
Government never denied that tirnber and otber eargo from and to Eastern DRC transit
through Uganda. Detailed filets and data by the Uganda Revenue Authority were
provided to the UN Panels in November 2000 and August 200 l. It is possible tbat the
UN Panel never studied the data provided by Uganda ~ on their Questionnaire.
According to the record of the meeting in ~ on 23rd August 2001. Hon. G.
Ssendaula. the Mini$ter of F~e to the UN Panel :
" As Uganda's neigbbour, Eastern DRC relies on Uganda for
transiting their goods given the geography of the DRC. Therefore,
traditional.ly, Uganda bas been a trannt point fo.- aD goods to and
from Eastern DRC and CheR are laws governing goods in transit".
1 See summary reports of Che visits to Ugllllda by the UN Panel, 'November 2000 & llugust 2001.
URAnnex72
Il
S/2001/U 63
34. Bvidenoe. was given to the UN Panel to demonstrate that the military e:xpe~
in the DRC was provided by the Uganda Treasury witbin the agteed budget limits. At
not tinte bas the UPDF in the DRC got involved in customs control. and tax collection to
sustain · its operations. Civil administration in rebel held areas where UPDF bas a
presence is handled by the rebel lelldership.
Response on tb.e culture of UPDF:
35. The Govermnent response to the first report of the UN Panel, May 2001,
(S/2001/485) bad clearly sbowed how sucb statements as •culture• ofUPDF supportiog
illegal exploitation of natural resources of the DRC were based on bearsay and
falseboods. Unfortunately, the addendwn maintains that impression without
com>borative evide~.
36. Evidence was given to the UN Panel to demonstrate that UPDF is a very
disciplined furçe based both on îts traçk record and administrative codes including:
(a) 1.h;: UPDF is governed by a Code of Cooduct and is subject to the law and
other relevant mterJiational conventions. NRA Statute No. 3 of 1992 and
the a(fsbed regulations and Standing Orders constitute the mili.tary code
under which the UPDF operates and is disciplined.
(b) UPDF is subject to Parliamentary oversight functions.
(c) H.B. the President sent a strict radio message DTG/500010 C in December
1998 instructing the UPDF in the DRC not to engage in business. The
President also instructed the UPDF to assist if-necessary Ugandan private
businessmen to do busineiJS in the DRC in order to alleviate the acute
needs of the population, e.g., medicine, basic essentials, etc.
(d) Army officers are subject to Commissions ofloquiry and are tried uoder
the law ifthey colDlllÎt otfences. ·For example, the UPDF officers in the
DRC who deviated ftom the directive prolu"biting involvement in business
and wen, pur:ùshed include, Lt. Okumu. Lt. Kisima ~ Capt. Kyakabale.
37. Uganda, therefore, challenges the UN Panel to substantiate the allegation claim
that the culture in whicb UPDF operates condones illegal activities.
V: CONCLUSIONS OF THE U:CONSTITUTEi> lJN PANEL
38. The Uganda Govemment agrees with the tollowing conclusions of the
reconstituted UN Panel:
URAnnex72
ll
S/2001/1163
(a)
(b)
Exploit,tjpn oftbc natural resources of the DRC continues and it is donc by many
states, companies and opportunistic individuals ftom bodt the region and otber
colQries o1Jt$Ïdc Aftica. {Para 143)
The fundamental reason ti>r the continucd illegal exploitation is the cffiçtive
coUapse of ail the state institutions and structures of the DRC, (para 1~. lt
should be added that tbis collapse explains why the DRC bas served as a base for
the various pcrpetrators ofterrorist activities against ber regional neighbours such
as Uganda. ln otber words, exploitation of the natural resources is not the main
cause of the contlict in the DRC.
39. Uganda does not share the nveeping conelulon in the addendum that
exploitation of natura1 resotJrCeS in the DRC is the main occupation of !Il foreign troops
and armed groups (146) ·as they try to justify tbeir continued military piesencc. And tbat,
thcrcfore, in the case of Ugauda, there is a linlc bctween the continuation of the conflict
and the exploitation of natural resources in tbe DRC, {Para 100). This conclusion on
Uganda's involvernent in the DRC is illogical and unfounded given the following facts:
(a) Uganda bas witbdrawn 12 out of 14 battalions ftom the DRC under the Lusaka
Ceasc-firc Agreement. Uganda bas already requested the UN Security Council
for the adequàt.e deployment of MONUC to enable UPDF witbdrawal of the
rea:naining ·battalions ·m Buta and Bunia as soon as possible.
(b) Uganda bas given tùll co-operation to the UN Panels. Ali req~ infurmation,
evidcoce, lïUd data on bow the UPDF is financed have becn provided. The
concemed officel'$ have given and will continue to give evidence on their
activities in the DRC to the UN Panel and the Justice·Porter.Cornmission.
(c) Allegations of commercial benefit as a reason to continue the conftict bave not
been proved. Allegation of a diversion of donor aid to finance the war bas neitber
been proved nor is it possible given the transperent budget process monitored by
the IMF, World Bank and other donors in Kampala.
(d) Uganda's security concerns are Jegitimate and evideDCIC of aggression by armed
perpetrators ofterrorist activities against Uganda ftom the DRC bas been proved
and confinned by the UN Panel.
(e) Uganda bas demoostrated ber commitment to the implementation of the Lusaka
Cease-fire Agreement and the relevant UN Security Cowicil resolutions.
VI: RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE RECONSTITUTED UN PANEL
40. Pabel's Recommendatioa 1:
An inleraation.i eonfereaee 1hoalcl be eoaeemed on peaec aacl clevelopment in the
Great Laka on linloed to • plan to rebuilcl pte in,titutiom in die DRC.
URAnuex72
J3
S/2081/1163
41. Uganda supports the pro))()sal that the international community sh<>uld urgpitly
assist in the formulation of a plan of action to build staw institutions in the DRC. Uganda
believes, bowever. that the broader international confereoce on the Great Lakes, focused
on the reconstruction and development of the sub-region should be conveoed a1ler the
implementation of the Lusaka Cease-ftre Agreement on the DRC and the .ArlJsha Peace
and Reconciliation Agreement on BunmdL Holding an international conference on the
Great Lakes before the conclusion of the lnter-COngo• Dialogue would ;underminc the
Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement.
42. Paael's Recommeadation 2:
Pbae m of MONUC 1hollld aceelente the dilarma--t, deqaobiUlaffon, and
reiategratioa (DDRRR) of the neptive fon:ea hl onler to redace the legldmate
security coneern1 of the regional nei.gllboun of the DRC.
ColllDleat:
43. The Goveroment of Uganda agrees with this recommendation as the DDRRR
process of the negative forces- including Ex-FAR. Interahamwe, ADF, WBRF, PRA - is
lcey to the witbdrawal of the foreign fon:es fiom the DRC and the establishm=nt ofpeace
in the Great Lakes Region.
44. Panera Recommeadatioa 3:
The World Bank, IMF and other donon should critically evaluate tbeir ..,.taace
to cou.ntries in the ,Gnat Labs region on the pouibility of helping finance the
continuatiou of the eonfliet ia the DRC and to aubmit reports to the UN Security
CounciL
45.
(a)
(b)
14
Commenta:
The main task of the UN Security Council and the international community
should be to sup))()rt the implementation of the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement.
especially the lnter-Congolese dialogue - rather tban creating new stroctlll'es - so
that a new transitional govermnent can begin to recc>nstruct institutions of the
state capable of controlling the natural resources of the DRC.
Uganda bas nc:>thing to hide. Uganda's PRSP ftamework and her MediUin Term
Expenditure Framework (MfEF) budgeting process have been transparent and
worked out with her develop~nt partners including the World Bank and the
IMF. Uganda's military expenditure remains within the agreed spending funits.
12 out_of 14 UPDF battalions have already been withdrawn front the DRC to
demotismtte commitment to the implementation of the Lusaka Cease-fire
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
~- The Government of Ugaoda bas ~ requested the UN Security
Couocil mi: MONUC to deploy in Buta aoe Bunia so tbat the UPDF wididrawal
fiom the DRC can be complcted as soon as poS$ible.
46. Paael••lleco..-eadatio• 4:
A moratorium lhoald be dedaml banaiag pllldiuea ud im.porting of prcdou
producU ••dl u Coltan, gold, dlamond, coffee, tilllber, etc. oripaatiac • anu
wllere tllere are forelp tonca ln the DRC u well • ÎII territorlea under the coatrol
of rebel P'OISP, Le. tlle whole of tlle DRC.
(a) While a moratoriwn could be considered to oontain illcgal exploitation of the
natural raourccs of the DRC. a clear distioetion sbould be made between the big
COI.DIDCl'Cial miniog çompanies and the smaJI fàrmen and artisan miner, who eam
their living dJrough the tmditional cross-border trade.
(b) A moratorium on artisan mining production or small fàrmers' produce would be
difficult to enfi>n,e in the porous bordels with the Dine ncighbouring countrics to the
DRC.
48. Puel'• llecoaa.-tioa S:
Reveaae from tbe resoan:a of the DRC thoald be challlleled tlaroap the •tate
badgeta and tu eolleetlôn ad ue •hoalcl be controW, tramparmt and
aceouatable. ·
Comment:
49. This is a very _good but unrealistic recommendation. Given the collapae of the
. state institutions and structures, the rccommcndation can only make sense after the
impleinentation of the Lusaka Ceasc-fire Agreement espec:ially the Inter-Coilgolesc
Dialogue and the--1>lishment of a DCW political dispensation in the DRC.
SO. Puel'1 llecommeadatioa 6:
The Security Collllcll may co .. ide.- bnpontioa of ..,.ctt. ..... witll repnl to the
e:sploitatfo• of utunl reso11rees oi tlle DRC u well u deYelopmentl in the Gnat
LakaRegion.
Sl. COfflment:
(a) Uganda believes tlllll sanctions should be llSed to speed up the impleinentation of
the Lgsaka peace proce$.1 and should be aimcd at tbose who violate the
implemèntation of the provisions ofthe Lusaka Cease-fîre Agreement.
URAnnex72 15
16
S/2001/1163
(b) The UN Security Couocil should consider the establisbQlcnt oh monitoring and
follow-up mccbanism for the countries involved to determine c:videnec of
violation of the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement provisions and tJ» illepl
exploitation ofnatural, resources of the DRC.
VII: WAY FORWARD: RECOMMENDAUONS BY UGANDA
S2. Ugaoda strongly believes that it is the urgent implementation of the Lusaka
Cease-fire Agreement and the creation of institutions of a viable transitional .state under
the new political and ckmocratic dispeosation tbat can guarantoe against the i&gal
exploitation of the natural resouroes and other fonns ofwealth of the DRC.
53. It is the impletnentation of the Lusaka Cea$e-fire Agn,ement. wbich will: (1)
ensuoe the reconstruction of the collapsed state institutions and .fill the vacuum created by
absc:nce of autbority to regulate the countty•s natural resources, (il) address the seçurity
concems gencrated by the piesence ofarmed terrorist•groups in the ORC .to de$tabilise
ber neighbours.
54. It is important that a smnmit between the UN Security Counçil and the Heads of
State of the Political Committee of the Lusaka Cease--fire Agreement be convened.
preferably in Afiica. to maintain the IÎlOmenhUn of the Inter-Congolese Dialogoe and to
agree on an enfurceable ~ to ensure that a transitional·govenunent is in place in the
DRC witlùn a given timetable.
SS. It is important that the UN Secw:ity Council sets up ·a mechanism which would
encoùrage and enable the UN Panel to oe..operate and sbare information with the
inckpendent Judicial Commissions established on recommendation of the Security
Council regarding the illegal explo~ion ofnatural resources of the DRC.
KAMPALA
4th Degmber. 2001
URAnnex72
S/20lJJ/U63
SUMMARY ftEPORT ON Jll;Jll§II TO UGNJDA BY THE RECONSTITUTED UNITED NATIONS
PANB. Qr EXPERTS ON THEUEGAL ElCPLOf!ATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFTHEDRC.
23:25 AUGUST, 2001.
INTRODUCTION
1. J>.-s mandaled ln !he S!at...""11E111t of !!le President of the UN Securit.; Cou."ICI ûiî 3 May 2001, L, Winectinn
wilh lhe Councl's consideralion of the item entilled: •The situation conceming 1he DRC•, 1he reconstitufed
UN Panel d ExpeJ1s on the llegal Exploitation of Natural Resources of lhe DRC visimd Kampala from 22
-is August 2001.1 The Chainnan d the•Reconslituled UN Panel, Ambassador M Kassem of Egypt. was
acoompanled by three membera of his team including Mr Moustapha Tait (Senegai), Mr Meivin Holt (USA)
and Mr Amin Mohson (political assistant- Egypt).
2. ln extending the lllélldats of 1he UN Panel of Experts for a period d '1ree monlhs, lhe Security Council
reqti«;ted the Panel ID submlt an addendum to ils final report including the following:
(a) An upda• of relevé11t data élld él1 analysls of furfler information, including as pointed out
ln lhe action plan of 1he Panel to lhe Security Couneil
(b) Relevant Information on the activilies of countries and olher actors for which 1he
necessa,y quantity and quaity of dale were not made available eaiier
(c) A response,.based as far as possible on the corrobolaled evidence, to the commenls and
reactlons of the States and actors clted in Ille Anal Report of the Expert Panel
(d) An evaluation of the situation a the end of the extension of the mandate of the Pa,ef, ald
of ils conclusions, assessing whether progress has been made on the issues which oome
under the responsibility of the Panel.
3. The UN Panel of Exper1s met HE President Y Museveni. The Panel also held discussions wilh the
following Cabinet Ministers:
(a) Hon. James F Wapakhabulo, 3rd Deputy Prime Minister/Minister Foreign Affàîrs.
(b) Hon. Gerard Ssendaula, Minister of Finance, Planning and Economie Development
(c) Hon. Amama-Mbabazi, Mmister ofDefëJlce.
(d) Hon. Kisamba-Mugerwa, Minister of Agricu1ture, Animal Industry and Fisheries.
( e) Hon. Edward Rugumayo, Minister ofTradc, Tourism and Industry.
(f) Hon. Kezimbira Miyingo, Minister ofState for Environment
(g) Hc:>n. ~ Bataringaya, Minister ofState for Minerai De-velopment
1 Seeattachmont(Annex.1): Programme for the visitto Ugandabythe UN Expert Panel on the ORC, 22- 25
August2001
URAnnex72 17
S/2001/ll 63
4. The Reconsliluted UN Expert Panel held a subsBltiYe session wilh lhe Workin9 Gloup of
technk:al oftidâs on 118 Cournry CkJesllonnêile as weU as on specifiemeasof Uganda[)s conoems·on lie
aUegalions/conclusions on the Final Report of Aprl 2001.
5. The UN Panel requested for and met Major General Salim Saleh (relired}, Brigadier James Kazini
(Army Chief of Staff), and Ll Col. Noble Mayombo (Chief of Military Intelligence).
6. Justice David Porter, Chairman of the Judicial Commission of1114uùy on the AUcptions of
lllegal Exploitation ofNatund Resouroes of the DRC and members ofhis teatn beld meetings with
the Reconstituted UN Panel of Experts m KampaJa.
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE MEETING WJTH H.E. PRESIDENT Ml.fSEVENI
7. The meeting be\weenH.E. President Museveni and Amb. M. Kas.9cm was attended by Hon.
J F Wapakabulo, 3rd Deputy Prime Mhùster/Minister of Foreign Affiûrs; Hon. Omwony Ojok,
Minimer ofStatcfor &anomie Monitoring; Mr. Busbo Ndinyenka. PresidentOs Office; Ms Hilda
Musubira. the Principal Private Secretary to H.E. the President; Amb. James Mugumc, Oirector
of Intematiooel Cooperation; Mr. Ssemaoea; IUld Mr. Adonia Ayebare, Ministry of Foreign
Aflàirs.
8. Amb. Kassem was accompanied by three members of the Expect Panel ~ Mr. Holt (USA), and Taft
(Senegal} and Mr. Amin Mohson a PoHbl Officer (Egypl).
9. Amb. Kassem thanked the Presldentforhaving found lime k> receive the UN Panel ofExper1S on the
lllegal Exploitation of Natural Resoun:es of the ORC. He infonned fhe President that the purpose of lhe
reconstituted Panel was b poepare an addendum to the Ftnal Report The Panel, 1herem, needed bolh
updaled and new inbmation in order b revise items or review parts of the Anal Report. He also infonned
file President fhat since his arrivai in Kampala the Panel had had useful meetings wilh Gowmment
Ministers and the Wor1dng Group of the lechnical officiais.
Jhe Need for lnçlutlon on the UN Panel of a V@l!Q of thf Afrfcan Struqgle
1 O. H.E. 1he President wekxxned the UN Panel members and expressed satisfaction lhat t.tne Ba N"Daw
of Ivory Cooet had been replaced. He expressed lhe hope thatAmb. Kassem would be a more balanced
Chaitman of lhe UN Panel. ln lhis context, lhe President sakS lhat in order to help the UN Secoetary
General Kofi Annan, he had recommended lhat the Panel shoukl include a veteran of the slruggles in
Eastern and Soulhem Africa - someone from either Mozambique or who had wortced 'wilh the rate
President Nyerere ofTanzania -because fte prd>lems of Rwanda, Burundi and ORC were al •hisforically
llnked.
11. H.E. lhe President saki lhat he disagreed wilh the old UN Panelth delnilion of "lllegafily" th.al any
economic activity which was not sanctioned by Kinshasa was 'ilegal'I If lhat definition were b be followed,
lhe President ernpfflisized, the people ln the Eastern DRC would have eîfher sfarved b dealh or we would
have had a terrible genocide. He pointed out lhatduring UgandaOs civil wars of bolh 1979 and 1985 when
18
URAnnex72
S/2001/IUil
Kampala was c;ut off, people from Western Uganda would have died and tost lheir cattle if medicines and
catlle drugs weoe notprocured tom Tanzania. Rwanda, Burundi, etc.
12. In response to the suggestion to include a veteran of Aftican struggles on the UN Pane),
Ambassador Ka$seJn informed the pre.,ident that be bad been involved in the Great Lakes mues
since 1995 as Cbainoan of the UN Panel on the Genocidc in Rwanda. He bad abo served as the
Egyptian AIJ'bassador to Etbiopia and Moanbique. He ais(, explained tbat it is the .practicc of
the UN Panels ofExperts not to include persons ûom the region or country being investigatcd. '
i3. Amb. Kassemtold the PRsideot that one oflhe probJcms with the report of l"' UN Panel w"liS
lack of be.lance in the coverage of countries involved in the DRC, focusing on Uganda and
Rwanda and ignoriog Zimbabwe, Angola, N$11ÎbÎa, etc. In an intercsting move, Amb. Kassem
thenrequcstcd H.B. the President tbat Uganda sbould help in the Panel's efforts to cover other
countries involvcd in the DRC, by providing information on any illegal exploitation inyolving
Zimbabwe, Angola, Naanibia ()I' the Kabila Administrations. He expJaioed that the Panel requires
tbat information IDIISt be confirmed by two sources in onler to be sun: the ellegations are base<l
on actual evidence.
14 .. In respome, H.E. the President told the Ambassador that Uganda bas heard ofvarious
activities by Angola, Zimbabwe and Nanùbia in tbe DRC. He explained, bowever, tbat in
UgandaDs courts oflaw, evidence is given under oath. lt is., thereforc, oot enough to bcar, one
needs concrete ewlence. Allegations wbich are oot backed by such concrete evidence could lead
to perjury. He advised the Ambassador to talle to the armed opposition to the Kinshasa
government who should have the information on activities of the allies of the Kabila
Administration . . ~-Ion f'i H.E. thePrelJdent's FamDY lqvolv!!Q!III in the lllagal Exploitation <i Natural Rllourpl
oftheDRC
15. H.E. the President assuoed fhe UN Panel tiat neit1er himself nor his son Muhoozi are ilvolved i1 any
busll8SS in lhe DRC. He also recommended lhal 1he UN Panelshould .in"1View his brotier Major General
SalimSaleh.
WbY Uqancta aotlnvolved 1n the DRC
16. H.E. the President gave Ambassador Kassem a compiled book containing the background press
reports, data and information since the ADF invasion of Western Uganda in 1996, which explain why
Uganda got involved in lhe DRC; and a copy of his statement.on •Background to the Situation ln the
Gruat LakN Region• in Harare on 9 August 1998. The President lnformed 1he Ambassador lhat the
biggest problem ln 1he Great Lakes has·t>een caused by the absence of a sta ln the DRC sinoe 1he l;H'8
of President Mobafu.--That 1s why, President Museveni explained, Mobutu aways relied on foreign forces
and meroenaries - in 1966, 1967, 1977 and 1991 - c control the stale. He fuf1her explained that lhe Late
19
URAnne:l72
S/2001/1163
President Mobutu of Zan would have died in office if he had not compounded lhe problerns of Congo by
giving Co09(>lese tsrriDy as a base brAOF, lnlerehamwe and EX-Farboes cl Rwanda in ea,ty 19fX>s.
17. H.E. lhe Presldental$o inbmed the~ that Uganda is compling the affidavits of 1he people
who were allaci<ed .il North Western Uganda in November 1996, by an lslank: exlremist group (the fablqs)
who had been trained by H. Turabi, the then Speaker of P8rfiament in the Sudan. ln response '1 a
question by Arnb. Kassem on the role of IGADD in reso1ving the crisis in the Sudan, H.E. the Plasident
poinled out that the IGADD prooess deals wi1h issues of the internai problem ln the Sudan and not csossborder
tem>rism.
Recommandation for the UN Panel to Vislt Eas1em DRC
18. H.E. the President oecommended ID Amb. Kassem 1hat the UN Pillet should visit the ORC and lnspect
some of lhe mines rel'em!d ID in the first UN Panel Report. ln response, Arrb. Kassem IDld lhe President
that the various gowmment depar1ments in Kampala had been very supportivè and that the Minislry of
Defense had, indeed, invited hlm ID vlsit the mines in the DRC.
H.E. the Pglldentlla ReccmnalMo on lnv!fllgatlon1 on Minerais
19. H.E. lhe President mld lhe UN Panel that in investigating exploilation of minerai$ it is imJ)Ortant ID
dislinguish between two types:
(a) Big mines which ,eqwre equipment arid capital to exploit; and
(b) Artisan mining operations whiçh are difficult to trace.
20. He informed the Ambassador lhat Uganda has managed artisan minera by liberalizing lhe economy
includlng 1he forex and capital acoeunts. As a oesutt of the l>eraizalion of the economy 1993, Uganda gold
exPorts grew tom 1 b 5 lnns (1994), and 10 tons (2000). Uganda is now exporting US$60m of hides "1d
skins per year again because of liberal economic policles, indicating that fhe crucial ingredient is the
coeation of a good macl'O-eçOllomic polk:y environmenl
21. Anal/y, Ambassador Kassem lhanked H.E. lhe President for lhe co-operation that was extended by
the govemment departments, and promised to keep in touch with the various officiais from hls operalional
headquarters ln Nairobi.
SUMMARYREPQl!T ON THE Mf:El1N(i WITH THETHRD DEPUTY PRIME MNISTERAND MINISOER
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ftON. JAIIESWAPAKHABULO ON 23RD AUGUST 20Q1 !!,T 9.00 A.M.
22. The meeting between Hon J Wapakabulo and the Rcconstituted Panel of Experts was
attended by: Mr. Ralph Ochan, PennanentSecretary, MinlsfryofForeign Affiirs: .Amb. James Mugume:
Director, International Cooperation; Mr. l. l<iwanuka, Uganda Coffee Development Authority; Mr. Deo N.
Byarugaba, Forest Department; Mr. L. Tibaruha, Oirector Legat Services, Ministry of Justice; Mr. P.
Ssemanda, Senior Economlst, Ministry of Foreign Affai,s; Mr. Fred Waityaba, Office of lie President; Ms.
Allen Kagina, Confmrssioner Customs & ExciseJUganda Revenue Aulhorify; Ms. Christine lubega, Bank
of Uganda~ Mr. Ahurwendeire Didas, Office of the President; and B .• 1. Ochana, Counsellor, Minisfry of
lO
URAnnex72
S/l001fll6l
Foreign Affais.
23. The Thlrd Depuly Prime Minister and Minster of Foreign Affaks welcomed lhe reconstiboed United
Nations Panel to Uganda and added that this gives Uganda a good chatice of defendlng herself on
allegalions male in the UN repoit on pk,ndemg of the DRC oesouroes. He assll8d Ml>. M Kassem that
Ugatda would conlnue to exland maxinum co-operatixl to the UN Panel. He, however lnfonned the UN
Panel Illat the data to be r.ollecfed may difrer because of the following:-
{a) The officially aoalyzed data sbould be integrated and given by the Ugaoda BURaU
of Statistics (UBOS), wbich bowever is only two years old.
(b) The various departments of Govemmcnt have diffi:rcnt data eut-off dates and tûno lags.
For example, coffee exporta n:corded by Uganda Cof:lèe Development Authority (UCDA)
in the month ofNovember, will be reftected in the in>nth ofDeccmber by Uganda
Revenue Authority (URA).
( c) Export lioensing departments capture intcndcd export data while URA n:cords actual
imports and exports. For example, gold export figufes by the Ministry ofEnergy and
Minerai Development n,flcct üention. of cxports wbi1c URA captures actual cxports of
gold.
(d) It is known that a m.unbcr ofcompanies ùndentate vlllues of export products in order to
avoid bigb transit bond charges in the neigbboring countries.
(e) Different metbods ofdatacapturillg. Sorne departments record quantities wbile otbers
capture value.
24. The Minister fbrther went on to say that the oenceptual definition of •Illegality" by the old
UN Panel bas to be discussed. as it remains a contentious issue. The historical cross boarder
trade and transit cargo between Uganda and DRC since Colonial times sbould not be
overlooked. Mombasa aod Dar-es-salaam Ports have tbeir hinterland which includes Eastern
Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Rwanda since 1920s.
25. Hon. J Wapakabulo aJso made the following points:
(a) Uganda remadns convinced that the Lusaka Cease-firc Agreement on the Democratic
Republic of Congo provide the only viable way to address the security concems of the
Oemocratic Republic ofCo~o. her neighbours and the establishment ofa new democratic
dispensation in the DRC. ,
(b) Uganda bas demonstrated good will and bas with<kawn most of the troops ftom the DRC
except Beni. Buta and the western slopes ofRwenzori Mountains. As requested by the
UN Secretary GeneraJ. the remaining troops will withdraw in the context of the Lusaka
disengagemetif" proceS$.
URAnnex72
21
S/1001/1163
(c) Of all fi>reign forces and the CIDCl'gCDC)' of a strong and stable state, remain the only
guarantee to the end of the illegal exploitation of the natural resoun:es of the Democr!ltic
Republic of Congo.
26. Ambassador Kassem made the following points:
(a) The Panel was given three (3) monthond aJready one bas e)apsed. The ON Panel is
committed to producing a baJanced report. The Panel bas therefore comc for Dll>re
infi>rmation and clarifications bccause there bas bcen a lot of complaints on the final
report. The report would be revised, depending on the ncw evidence.
(b) The countiy questionnaire was given in advance and is expeçted to rely on the new
evidence gwen. The panel is committed to write a report which will boost the Lusaka
PcaceProcess.
(c) AB countries involved in the conflict would be visited. The Panel would also visita
number of European Union countries including l3ritain, Fr,,ince ~ BelgiQID if a .need
atosc.
( d) lt fs the practice of United Nations to keep tbeir sources of infonnation secret.
( e) The reconstituted UN Panel wUl discuss the mue of •illegality" sioce a lot ofinterpretatbn
bas been put fi>rwan:I and the Panel of Experts had not made up its mmd on the Ïsslle.
(f) The Panel wanted to know the status of the Protocol signe!1 in 1998 between Uganda and
DRC and whether it was still val«i.
(g) The Panel would revisit Uganda. ifnecessary. Timc comtraint was howevet a probbn.
(h) The team needed to know the status oftbe rebel controlled areas.
(i) How were taxes in rebel collbolled 8l'QIS collected and distributed?
27. In response Hon. Wapakhabulo saki that:
(a) It is a go<>d developinent tbat the issue orillegality" was to be revisited and that the Panel
would write a balanced report. The idea of the UN Panel visiting other coumries involved in the
DRC C<>nflict is welcome.
{b) Uganda is happy that the Panelrecognizes the Lusaka Peaoe Pn,ceS$ as the only way
fi>rward for creating a stable DRC.
( c) Tax colleçtion in the DRC is an issue of the Congolese and that the little be knew was that
under Front for Liberation of Congo ( FLC). all tw(es are coUected jointly.
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
(d) W'J.th regard to the control in the rebel territory, according to CLF agreement, Bemba is
supposed to be the leader.
SUMMARY REPQRT ON THE Mffl]NG WITH THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE, HON.
28. The meeting between Hon. Amama Mbabazi imd the Reoonstituted UN P~ of Experts was
atteoded by: Ho1L Muluri Mukasa, Mioister fur Security, Ministry ofDef.ènce; Mr. Gabindadde
. Musoke, Secretary fbr Deiimce; Maj. Gen. Jeje Odo?'.go, /umy Commander; Brig. J. Mugu.-ne,
Deputy Army Conunander; Brig. J. Kazini, Chief of Staff, Col Mayombo, Chief of Military
Intelligenoe; Mr. Busho Ndinyçnka. Deputy Director ESO; Mr. Busingye Amooti, Deputy
Director ISO; Mr. Fred Waùugala, Head ofLegal AtJàirs 1S0; Mr. Ahurwendeire, Head of
Researcl! ESO; Ms Naome Ki"baaju, Under Secretary/Lûgi.,'"tics; .Amb. J. Mugume,
l>irector/Iuternational Cooperation (MOFA); Mr. P. Ssemanda, Senior Economist (MOFA).
29. ln his opening remartcs, Mr. Mavnoud Kas$em stated that -
(a) The reconstituted UN Panel was giveo a new mandate to complete the unfinished
work of the first Panel led by Mme Ba N'Daw of Cote d'Ivoire
(b) The pwpoac of the UN Panel is to find out ifthere is oew evidence on earlier
allegations and -to seek clarification on varioWI issues in the first Panel's Report.
(c) The new UN Panel~ was extendcd for 3 months ofwhich one month had
akeady passed. The Panel was ready to hem: from the Ugandan side in light ofwhat
was reporte<I by the first Panel. In particular, the reconstituted UN Panel wished to
gather information wbich could strengthen UgandaDs objections to the first report.
30. ln resPQnse, Hon. Amama Mbabazi made the followîng painls:
(a) The Uganda Govemment is gratefid to the Security Council for reconstituting a new UN
Panel Experts ofDRC witb a new Chainnan. The new Panel would not have ample time as
it was rushing through many meetings in a single day.
(b) The first UN Panel was not balaneed because it predominately consisted of
members from the Francophone countries.
(c) Uganda was unhappy with the first report because it was based on hearsay,
fulsehood and contained distorted data in many cases. Hence UgandaOs
condemnation in the $trongest t(21llS of the methods used by the first Panel in
writing the Report on the IUegal Exploitation ofNatural Resources of the DRC
in April 2001.
(d) Wnen the lst UN Panel ofExperts on the DRC met with H.E. President Museveni
in Novernber 2000 with Brigadier Kazini was present. Their report stated that the
URAnnex72
23
S/1001/1163
Panel requested to see Brig. Kazini but the request WIIS tumed down.
(e) Brig. Kazini was again. seated in the meeting. Toe reconstituted Panel wu &cc to
ask Brig. Kazini, Lt. Col Mayombo, Chief of the Military Intelligence or any
official poesent questions oelating to issues under the UN Panel's mandate.
(t) The 1st UN Panel of Experts on the DRC should not have condemned one without
giving tbem a chance to be heard.
(g) The 1st UN Panel of Experts on the DRC met H.E. the President in ICamplJa,
November 2000 but dxl not infonn him that there were alleptions 1abeled apinst ·
him personally.
(h} The Ministry of Defence was ready and willing to fàcilitate the Panel to get
evidence ftom various officiais on various •gations even from the Congolese
themselves.
(i) The 1st UN Panel of Experts on the DRC did not condemn Zimbabwe, Namibia,
etc. but ·condemned only Uganda and Rwanda.
31. The UN Panel asked and 1he Hon. Minis~r of Defence answered the following questions:
24
(a) Question:
What was the UPDF mission objectives for involvement in the DRC?
Response: UPDF Mission in Congo:
(i) Secure UgandaIJs secwity interest by denying the Sudanese Govemment
opportunity to destabilise Uganda through Eastern Congo.
(8) Oeny habitation ofUgandalls dissidents, . ~ ADF, WNBF, NALU, UNRF
II, in the Congo.
(fü) Ensure that the political aod administrative instilbility arising ftom rebel
and govemment clashes in Eastern Congo does not destablise Uganda.
(iv) Demobilise elements of the Interaharnwe, the fünner Rwandan anny, and
prevent them from terrorizing Uganda and Rwanda.
(v) Protect Ugandal]s territorial integrity from invasion by Kabila forces.
(b) Question:
Was .thiere an established law on the relationship between UPDF and the rebels in
tbcïJRC?
URAnnex72
S/l00J/116.1
llppcnye:
Thete is a code of conduct wbich reguJated the re.lationship between the UPDF
and rcbcls. lnitially tbis document were supposed to govern the opend:ions and
conduct ofRPA as well but the Rwandesc govemment later retùsed arguing tbat
tbeir C()nstitution does not aDow tbeir soldiers to be pWIÛmed putside Rwanda.
(Code attacbed as annexture 'C'}
(c) Ou.tion:
Wbat was the reJationship between UPDF and DRC civilian Administlation.
Ref!!pme:
(i) UPDF was not involved in the civil administration of the areas wheoe it
opended. The decision that UPDF and otber Ugaridan authorities must not
be involw:d in the civil administration and C()ntrol the economic activities
in areas C()ntrolled by UPDF was taken September 1998. The only
incident known to the Ugandan authorities which breached the directive
to that eftèct was the appointmcnt by Brig. J Kazini ofLotsove Adele as
govemor oflturi Province. The UPDF High Command met over the OEUe
and reprimaoded Kazini for bis action.
(ù) Even tbough tbis was contrai')' to policy of UPDF, Brig. Kazini's
appointment letter to the govemor bighJighted need to improve the quality
oflife of the Congolese people:
• "Embar1t on a minimum road rehabilitation programme wilh a view to
boosling lrade and commerce and lhe delivery of social services to lhe
people•,
• •Remernber lhat as a decenlralised authority you are answerable to the
people you lead. The essence-is to serve the people providing the much
-needed guidance for the alfainment of improved welfare•.
(d) Question:
Was lhere any involvement by UPDF in collection and distribution of taxes in DRC?
Rnponsa:
UPOF was not at all involved in lhe collection of taxes as lhis was lhe domain of civil
leadership. UPDF offioers namely Brig. Kazini, Col. Kahinda Otafiire and Lt. Col.
Mayombo wilnessed lhe signing of a meme>randum of shaông resources by RCD.
UgandaOs stand had always been lo approach the revenue question in such a way as
not to get involved in lhe internai administration of Congo.
Revenue collected must be injected ln secuôty, social and economic infrastructures (see
aiinexlure A).
URAnnex72 lS
S/2001/1163
26
,,.,,,.,~
Tbeoe is a code of conduct wbich reguJated the relationsbip betwccn the UPDF
and rebels. lnitially this document were supposed to govern the operations and
conduct ofRPA as well but the Rwmlese govemmcnt later rdùsed arguing that
their constitution does not allow their soJdiers to be punished outside Rwanda.
(Code attached as annexture 'C')
(c) Oaesfion:
What was the relationsbip between UPDF and DRC civiJÜln Admbûstntion. ....,.,,.
(i) UPDF was not involved in the civil administnùion of the aieas wbcre it
operated. The decision tbat UPDF and otbcr Ugandanauthorities must not
be involvcd in the civil administration and control the economic activities
in 111eas controlled by UPDF was taloen September 1998. The only
incident bown to the Ogandan autbc,rities wbich breacbed the directive
to that eftèct was the appointment by Brig. J ·Kamü ofLotsove Adele as
govemor oflturi Province. The UPDP High Command. met ovec the mue
and reprimanded Kazini for bis action.
(ù) Even though tbis ·was comary to policy of OPDF, Brig. Kazini's
appoinemellt .Ieua- to· the govemor bigbligbt.cd oeed_to improve the qualty
e>ftife of the Congolese people:
• •Embal1( on a minimum road tehabilitation programme wilh a view to
boosting nde and commerce and .the delivery of social services to the
peop1e•.
• •Remember lhat as a decentralised aulhority you are awwerable b the
people you lead. The essence is to serve lhe people providing the mucb
needed guidance br the attalnment oflmproved weffin".
(d) Qgnllon:
Was lhere any involvement by UPOF in colledion and disbibution of taxes in DRC?
Rllponle:
UPOF was not at all involved ln the coUeclion of taxes as lhis was the domain of civD
leadership. UPDF officers namely Brig. Kazini, Col. Kahinda Olaffire and lt. Col.
Mayombo witnessed the signlng of a memorandum of sharing resources by RCD.
Ugandal]s stand had alwa,s been to approach the revenue queslk>n in such a way as
not to get involved ln lhe internai adminislralion of Congo.
R@venue collected 1111st be injected in security, social and economic i'lfras1ructures (see
annîfxture A).
URAnnex:72
S/2001/1163
UPDF, however, went ahead k> implement lhe code of conduct to regulate i1s activities in
DRC.
(e) Qullb:
1s 1here evidenoe of indiYiduals or companies known by UPDF to be involved in the
exploitation of natural resources in the DRC?
Reepgny:
(ij There were various economic operators in Eastern DRC who can easily be
accounted for by the civil leadership since lhey WOUld give them pennission to
operate lhere. Al!hough it was oulside our maidate, we invesliga81-and found
out the folowing;
• vtggm Group: lhis is a company registered in Goma DRC and i1s
registered proprtebs are found in annexture {D) as Ahmed Ibrahim, a
Lebërte$e ~ in·Goma.aldK Ndukuhire, Uganda, who was resident in
Goma at the tilne.
• AR NAIVErTE: owned t,y Shiraz Hudan, a Canadiai ex Ugandan origin and
his partner ls one Alexis Makabuza. lt 1s registered bolh in Uganda and
GomaDRC.
• S1Jm T[!dfnq Çonpnyowned by Sam Engola, Ugandan.
(ii) UPDF as a policy did not and was not allowed to do any business. ln the earty
days of the operation in DRC H.E. lhe President sent a radio message prohilliting
any involvement ln business in ORC. Ref. Msg DTG 1500010C Dec 1998
(attached as annexture E).
• Those who deviaQI from thisdirective were punlshed, some of whom were
Ll Okumu, Lt Kisima, and Cpt Kyakabale.
• Even the code of conduct that was joint for bolh RPA and UPDF (ref. joint
code of conduct)) discouraged lnvolvement in any commercial activity by
sokfters.
• UPDF could not allow any diversion from i1s mission by the involvement of
ils troops in businéss.
(Q Question:
1s lhe,e any inWigenoe information by Minisby of Oefenoe that lhe Kinshasa govemment.
was giving to the Rwandese lnterahamwe based in DRC?
27
URAnnex72
S/2801/1163
21
Responff:
There is sorne ilfonnalion li'om Zinbabwean POWs and lnamamwe captuoed li'om lhe
DRC which we shall pass on to lhe inqulry in due course.
However there is a force of 3000 WNBF at llebu which is being commatded by Amin's
son T aban and are co-b:ated, hined, anned and fed by Ille Government of Coogo.
(g) Quntlon:
. What is Ille total hurnan and material cost of Ugandan lnvolvement in the .DRC?
Rnvon,e:
On the human and malerial cost of the war we believe lhat this question hinges on lhe
National Security and is not maferial ID Ille maller under inquiry.
(h) Question:
Annual Budget figures for Ministry of Oefence sirlce 199n -ISTRY Of DEFENCE BUDGET PERFORIIANCE RIGI SHS. BIUJONl
DETAILS 19171118 19Nl99
WAGE 31.05 60.8
NON-WAGE 90.92 84.7
DEVB.OPIENT 10.00 17.45
STATUTORY 6.3 17.8
TOTALS 138.27 180.75
Notes: There was a Supplementary Expenditure of
Shs.42,907,590,762J:: in 9lW9 FIY for C/assitied
Expendilure.
1 US$= (UJ SHS.1750
199MO 21G0111
100.6 113.6
91.8 74.123
13.7 10.64
17.8 14.3
223.9 212.663
2001'°2
118.25
85.306
12.03
5;3
220.888
§UlfMARY REPORT ON THE MEETING BETW§N HQN. KEZIIIBIRA IIMNGO, THE MINISTER OF
STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY AND 11tE UN .EXPi:RT PANa ON THE DRÇ 23.
AUGUST 2001 · . . · · · ·
32. The meeting between Hon. Kezimbira Miyingo and lhe Reconstituled Paoel of Experts was attended
by: Amb. James Mugume. Mr. Semanda Patrick, Mr. J Ocana. Mr. James Ndimukulaga,
33. Amb. M. Kassem made the followins points:
(a) There had been lots of teports on the exploitation of the natUJlll resources
including tiinber and wild life in the DRC by foreign forces.
2 See RST/34/100/01 fàxed to Amhllssador M Kassem. Chainnan ofhc UN Expert Panel on lhe DRC, daoed 1
October 2001
URAnnex72
S/2001/lllil
(b) The Panel would therefore like to hear from the Mimster on anything on the
subject that might bave come to bis knowledge, since Uganda bad raised
objections to the first UN Panel Report, April 2001.
34. ln ~nse. the Hon. Minister saicl tbat:
(a) The Minislry of W-afBr, Land and Environment is responsible for policy as far as the
Environment is concemed. The main objective of the Minis1ry policy is to ensure
Ugandalls envionmental susfainabilily; selkufficiency in timber br the provsion ri fine
wood and olher forest producls.
(b) Uganda is not an importer of timber and lhe olher forest producls. Whatever forests
products lhat passlhn>ugh Uganda are in transit and are not normally monitored by his
Milislry. The Minisby rAWater, laids and Envionment only monilors kx:a1 tiJtier maitoet.
Ugnla is sekuffident in timber. He coukl notcomment on the best in the DRC as he
has never been lhere.
35. FoHowing questions:·
(a) 1s lien, any formai bilateral !rade CQ-Operation between Uganda and the DRC?
(b) Ive lhere any Ugandan cornpanies lhat are investing in the DRC?
(c) Amb. Kassem requested for documents on the DARA company which show that il is not a
Ugandan company.
(d) Which body is responsible for giving the certiffcates of origin for wood producls in Ugéllda?
(e) Who finances the DARA Company?
(ij (Which aulhorilies are responsible for issuing oertificates of origin for Timber lhat
originates from Eastern DRC?
36. ln response, lhe Minisferof State for Environment made lhe following points:
(a) There is no bilateral trade agreement between Uganda and the DRC on forestry and
related products.
(b) The question relating to Uganda companies investing in the DRC or certification products
.from the DRC should be directed to the Minist.ry of Finance and Uganda Revenue
Autbority.
(c) The question ieJatîng to impounded ivory shouJd be directed to the Ministry ofTourism,
Tnule and Industry, and the Wildlife Authority.
URAnnex72
29
S/2001/1163
( d) For Ugandan timher the certificates of origin are issued by the Foresuy officers on the site
where the timber is coming fiom.
(e) The list of the sharebolders of DARA - Great Lakes compeny C8ll be obtained by the
CommissionofForesby and give to the Panel The copies of the sbareCQ'tificatC$ -weoe.givc:n
to the UN Panelon24 August 2001).
37. In bis concluding remarks, the Hon. Minister adviscd. the loecooetitutcd UN Panel of the
Experts that in addressing all the questions relatiog to the illcgal expi.nation of natunl resourocs
of the DRC, effi>rts must be made to eoeure that the impJementatinn of the Lusaka Peace
~ remains in~ as it is the most viable guanmtec agaiost illegal exploitation in the
DRC.
SIJMMARY JWl'OBT QN '.DII MEE'IJNG IIJWEEN HON. G §RUAYU TIii
.MINIDIB 91 QNANÇE AND IUli UN PANEL QF IVRJS QN DOE PBG a3
AUGU§I 2001
38. The meeti1g belwaenHon. S$endaa, Minislarof FIW!oe ni ht l8COl1Stilul9d UN Panelof Expeds
was atl8nded by: Mr. Fnms Tumuhairwe, Commîssioner, Millslry of Finance; Mr. 1lsasirana L K.
Assistant Commissioner, Ministry of Finance; Mr. Sewanyana, Uganda Bureau of S1atistics; Mr. John
Mayende, Uganda Bureau of Stalistics; Mr. Bownbridge, Mlnislry of Finance; Amb. James Mugume,
Mlnlny dfoleigrl Airais; MsAlen•Kagila. Ugaada ReveooeAutlorily; Mr. MiChel Ego, 8a1k of Uga,da
and Mr. Ssemanda Patrick, Mlnlslly of Foreign Affàrs.
39. Amb. Kassem made the foDowing points:
(a) The UN Panel on the illcgal exploitation of the natunll oeso1Uoe$ of the DRC is on
the second phase of the mission to enabJe the reconstituted UN Panel to address
ç0mplaint$ and reservations nûsed by Ugaoda and otbcr countries in the Final
Report April 2001. AQd that is why they are re-visiting those couotrics with
reservatioDS on the report.
(b) The UN Panel was ~fure ready to Jisten so that it can corne up witb new
conclusions.
(c) The UN Panel bas some questions with oegard to activmes in Easter DRC - ooe
ofsudl çasc is the DARA Companies - ooe being ~red in.Ki11Shasa and the
other in Kampala but both condoeûng the ·$1UJJC business.
40. ln response. Hon. G S,endau)a. Minister ofFinance, made the following points:
30
(a) Uganda is one ofthose countries who objected to th!, UN report. The objections
Wéië submitted through the Ministry of Foreign Affiùrs.
URAnnex72
S/2001/11 (iJ
(b) Befi>rc the eurrent di$pute in Eastern DRC, there were people conducting business
with authority fiom Kiosbasa. Wb.en the dispute brok.e out tbese people ~ eut
olffio.m lèimhasa but continued to do their business. lt is only these C.ongolese
business people wbo can explain better acti\lÏties in tbat part of the DRC.
(c) As a so~ State. Uganda bas customs laws tbat are amcr,ded from time to
time and implemented by the Uganda Revenue Authority.
(d) As Uganda's neigbbour Eastern DRC relies onUganda fur tnmsiling their goods
given the geograpby of the DRC. Tberefore, traditionally Uganda bas been a
traoeit point fi.lr ail goods to and from F.astent DRC and tbere are laws goveming
goods in transit.
41. In response to Mt. Holt's question, on the financhd relationsbip between Uganda and the
rebel groups in EasternDRC, the Minister made the following observations:
(a) Thele is no economic rehdionsbip between Uganda and the rebels in Eastern DRC.
(b) The Wodd Bank and the IMF which have monitored the economic progress ofUgaoda
can testily that the &cto,s behiod Ugandan economic growth have nothing to do with the
DRC.
(c) The only opportuoity wheo. Ugaoda discussed economic co-operation with the DRC was
soon after President Kabila Snr. took over power in Kinshasa in 1997. At that tune a large
number of Ugaoda Mûûst.ers was in\lÏted to Kinshasa. They stayed in Kinshasa for two
weeks. They were supposec;I to talle about oil explorations along the shared Western Rift
Valley lak:es. but notbing took off:
42. Mr. Holt, also asked lhe Minister the following questions:
(a) ls there any relationsbip that exists between CFL rebels, RCD and Uganda on
timber and minerats?
(b) ls tbere any relationship between Uganda and Eastern DRC in tcmm of tax
benefits.
43. In n:sponse, the Minister of Finance made the following comments:
(a) The only time tax issues were discussed between Uganda and DRC was when Mt.
Kabila Snr. took over power in I<inshasa in 1997. Uganda wanted to he)p the
Kinshasa Govermoent improve on tax and financial administration. Nothing came
out of tbese discussions.
(b) Wflh regard to the rebels in Eastern ORC, no in\lÏtations has come from them or
from for discussions on tax issues.
31
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
44. Amb. M. Kassem in an irritated mood. niscd the tbllowiog poiots:
(a) The UN Panel came to Kampala in n:spect of o~ns raised by Uganda. The
UN Panel cioeulated questionnaires in advanoe. The Q\lestionnaioe fJIUSt be answered
so tbat the Panel can revise the objections in order to CODJC up witb. ncw conclusions.
(b) In the past border trade betwcen Uganda and the DRC was between states. Given
the poesent situation in the Easoem DRC. is tbcre any decreo or parliemcatary
legislation in Ugaada to oever the situation in Eastern DRC? Ifthe aoswer is oegative
then the point now is wbetber the activitics in Eastern ORC are legal or not.
45. ln response, the Hon. Minlster of Finance made the i>llowlng comments:
(a) Ugaoda bas not made uy legislaoen tbat is spccitically on trade From Eastern
ORC.
(b) .. u~•s revenue startedto incat:aiC inearly 1~ as aresult of rei>rms cimicd
out widl ~~:of the Wodd Bank and IMF. The libeniJizlÛ>Jl of the eeonomy, mo\tÏog
away-~nitbe'j)ublic to the private sector Jcd growth stratcgies beJped to ünprove the
ugandâ èconomy. Ugaqda's developoeem partoers including the Workl Bank and IMF
can oellahorate causes of the positive changes in the Uganda economy $ÏnCe the early
1990s.
46. Amb. Kassem. stDI 'Visibly irritated, intbrmed the Hon. Minister tbat be was interested in
Uganda's response$ and not oemmeots by the World Bank/lMF. lftbe Panel had wanted the
IMF/World Bank answers, it would bave gone to Washington DC. Ambessador Kassem
wondered if the Minister bad seeo the oesolutions passed by the EU Parliament on the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC. He added tbat the resolution gives some
wamings to Uganda. lt is tberetbre, important tbat the reconstituted UN Panel comes with oew
conclusions. And for tbat the UN Panel necds oew intbrmation. '
47. The meeting ended on a cold note. lt was clear that the chcmistry was not good. For SDmc
strange reasons, Amb. Kassem scemed to be ·teme and irritated most of the lime.
SUM!IMY•RECORD 0-= lllfIPIGWIJH ratlSfStOE UATEf9BMl@AL
48. The meeting between Hon. Bataringaya Kamaoda and the R.ecoostitute UN Panel was
attended by: Amb. Mugumc, Mioistry of Foreign Afliürs; Mr. Patrick S~ Mioistry of
Foreign Aftàirs; Mr. Ochaoa, MinbtryofFomgn.Aftiûn; Mr. Watuwa Bwobi, Minisby ofEnergy
and Minmal Development.
49. Hon. K.amanda Batarinp.ya made the tbllowing observations:
(a) Having been Uganda's Ambassador1o ORC during the days of Mobutu and Kabila Snr.
32
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
ln 1990s, and also having been bQm near the boarder wilh DRC, he can bear wltnes$ to
the cross boader trade between lJgandans and Congolese which has eldsted sinoe the
colonial days.
(b) The Ministry records export permits for comparues which have intentions t> export and
also capture production statistics.
(c) The pofecy of the Minis!ry of energy and MLn.eral Develn...,pment ls ID mgislsr cnly
businessmen who deal in minerais produced in lJganda.
50. The Ch8Îmllll of t,e reconstmoed UN Panel cl Experts explained t> 1he Hon. Minisler about the new
mandate of the Panel and lamented about 1he $hort period given b him ~ prod1.1oe a report. He itformed
the Minister fhat in order to write a balanced repoo, he needed new evidence. The Chainnan asked the
following questions:
(a) 1s tbere a mechaoism'system of monitoring Uganda's minerai production and exports?
(b) 1s tbere a di1tinction between DRC gold and Ugqndan gold?
51. ln reply the Hon. Minisfer of Stale for Minerai Development saki lhat
(a) · The Ministry Y«JUld provide more information as req08$ted. The Ministry was unhappy
lhat 1hea which was given to lhe &st Panel of Expet1s was not used il 1heir report. The
first UN Panel had inslead rel"led on hea-say. Data requested by the UN Panel would be
given during the rnee&ng wifh the Working Gmup of the T echnlcal officiais on 24 August
2001.
(b) The monibing system, for minerai expor1s and production exists but it is not very efficient
tike in any olher Oeve1oping Country. lt is dlfficult to make lhe distinction between ORC
and Ugandai gokl. The Mifisfry of Energy and Minerai Oeveloprnent is interesled in gold
produced and exported from Uganda.
52. Mr. WatuwaBwobi, the Commissioner for Geological Survey and Mines reviewed the
UN Panel report and made the foJlowing comments:
(a) Ail MioeraJs mentioned in the UN Report are known to exist in Uganda including
diamonds and Coltan.
(b) The first diamond (0.243 metric carats) was picked at Kibale. Buhweju in 1938 and
another at.Butale in 1956 both as a result ofgold winniog (see Geological Survey ofUganda
Bulletin 4 - The Minerai Resources of Uganda published in 1961 page 61).1
3 GeQlogiQI Survoy ofUganda. Bulletin 4, the Minerai ReSQurCe$ of Uganda ( 1961)
33
URAnnex72
SIJOOJ/1163
(c) InmrmationonColtan is füuod on page 24ofBulletin4 (1961).4 The p'Oduction
of Coltan dccJined due to depre$SC(l prices in the Jate 1950s. The producti>n WilS
bound to pickup with improved prices as is the case today.
(d) Information on gold is on page 15 of the same Bulletin 4. Today gold bas been
found almost in ail districts ofUganda. Most of the gold mined is alluvial (except
Busia gold field wbich is reet) .and is mined by artisana.1/small-scale roiDers. many of
whom are un&eosed.
(e) It is estimated that over 500,000 Ugandan artisans are engaged in goJd production in
4 1 bid
3.f
Uganda during any single mo~
(t) Minerai production figures (especially of gold) have always been lower than export
figures since the trade in gold was h~ and royalty removed in 1992/93 (CF Para
96 oftbc report of the first UN Paoel of Experts. April 2001). Before libera)ization,
the gap betweel1 the gold production on export figures was not signific:Qnt.
(g) The main reasons fur the increased gap between production and export figures fur
gold include:
• Sein lbrciiz.abl. the tew lcensed atislllal mil8rs 'M>l.lld indicâefew pns of producbl
to hang on their lk:ense5 and the buyers WC>Uld file low figun!S to avoicl payment ôf royalties.
• AffBr rlberalizalion in 1992193, buyers felt confident to export 1heir gold 1hrough official
dlannels 1hus iodlcating increased experts. Mostof the artisalal miners are not licensed md
invariably do not file their productiOn retums whlch in tum come from a few lioensed miners.
Thus, white the production figures have remained fair1y stable, lhe export figures hàve
steadily gone up.
• The gold export figures il table 1 of the UN Report (para 96) are lhose on the Export Pemils
issued by the Ministry of Energy and Minerai Developrnent ln rnost cases 1hey dilfer tom
those of dJal expor1s. AclJal exportfigll1!S n lhose capturecl by lhe Cusbns Pepartment
One needs an Export Permit before processing other export doèumenb.
(h) Although Uganda has no produetion figures for diamond. it is possible that some
diamonds are being prodw::ed as a result of winning gold. During the Diamond
Prospectiog Programme in Uganda (1965-1974) by Minerai Prospecting (U) L TD a
number of diamonds totating over 0.4m CTS were recovered and three (3)
Kim.berlites were discovered. Kimberlites are rocks which are ID1Jjor hosts for
diamond.
(i) Since Uganda does not have official figures of diamond exports or production the
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
Mini,try oennot comment on the figure in table 2 of the UN Report of April2001, the
source being the Diamond Higb CounciL If we are given export papers, we could
know whether the purported exports were ftom Uganda or not. The poSSl'bility of
ftaudsters using forged documents must not be ruled out.
G) Niobium (Collan) production wu balted in Uganda due to low prices. Increased
demand and higher prices bave led to more production and hence exports, the
coïncidence with the Congo contlict notwitbstanding (cf para 33 of the UN Report).
It is stated that •seven years• wortb of Columbo-Tantalite (Coltan) was found in
stock. 1s it possiole that.the material coukl not bave been sold· due to low prices!
Besi<les we do not measure minerais worthiness in years!
("k) t;ollowing the concllJSion ofUNDP assisted Minerai fnvestment Prognumoe in
1992, the number ofinvestors interested in the minerai sector increased. This
number dropped with revision of the sur&ce rent in 2000.
SlJIIIIARY REPORT OF Jl:IE llff!P; wmt HQN. PROF. E RUGUMAYO THE MINISTER OF
J0\1!111, TRAPJ; AND INO.Y§IRY 23 AUGUST 2001
53. The mealing belweer1 Hon. Prof. E Rugumayo and lhe Reconstiluted UN Panel of Experts was
allended by: .Ambassador Mugume, Ministry of Foreign Afairs; Mr. Ssemaxta. P., Ministry of Foreign
Mirs; Mr. J. Muhwezi, Ministry of Touri$m, Trade and lndustry; and Mr •• J. rmcf,gan,kayo, Ministry of
ToPrtsm, Trade and lnduslry.
54. The chainnan of the UN Panel explained why the Panel was recoll$tituted for an extra period of 3
months. He •PQinted out lhat lhis time, the reconstituted Panel was k> cover more countries including
Bunml, Ugéllda, Zinbabwe, South .Afri:a, Namibia, Rwanda. Angola, aKI a nl.lnber of counfrfes oulside
Africa.
55. Ambassador Kassem and his team asked lhe following questions:
(a) 1s there an amu,gement in which trade is carried out in the rebel controlled meus
ln Eastern DRC sânce the Kinshasa Govemment is not in control of the area?
(b) Would the Minister be able to show tbat the trade in timber, minerais and other
items in the Eastern DRC is legal since the Kinshasa authorities bave no control
over the areas.
( c) What wouJd be the effect of collflict among members of the same trade
agreement such as COMESA?
(d) How does the Ministry ofTrade, Tourism wxÙodusny defioe the import, export,
re-export and goods in transit?
(e) What are the conditions in which Uganda govemment gives a certificate of origin?
35
URAnnex72
snOOl/1163
(t) Wbat is the b'ade ~ between Congo and Uganda fi>r the Jast five years in
tenns of volume and value?
(g) Who are the largest importers, export~, transporters and countries of origin and
destinatk>n?
(h) Whicb enforcement authority conduçts the fi>llow up on the illegal tndJic.ting Qf
ivory? Where was lhe origin and fale of the 200 kg of Ivory lhat was impounded at
Entebbe Airport as reporfll<t in the Ugandan press in July 2001?
56. ln response Prof. E Rugumayo inbmed lhe reconstitulecl UN Panel lhat as a Minisa', he deals wilh
policy issues and promised lhem lhat al lhe data lhe UN Panel needs will be given by the Wortdng Gmup
of the Technical officiais on 241t August 2001. He furlher informed Che panel 1hat most of the information
the UN Panel needed coukl be got from Cun,ms Department Ugancla Revenue Aulhority ..
57. On lie issue of the Ivory which was impounded at Entebbe intemational airport Assistant
Commissioner, WOlfd Uf!! Aulhority, laa" explained lhat usually when ivory is impounded, the màtter is
handed over to the police and the culprfls prosecuted in the coulis of law.
SUMMARY RECORD ON THE l@JING BETWEQ !HE RECONSTITUTED UN PNJB. AND THE
WORKING GROUPOFTHETECHNIC.AL OFFICIALSON:mg DRC.24 AUGUSr 2801
58. The recoostituted UN Panel ofExperts met be fullowiog members of the Working Group
of the Technical officiais at the Ministry of Foreign Aflàirs Bc>ardroom:
Amb. James Mugume, Mlnis1ry of Foreign Affairs (Chairman of the Worfdng Group); Michael
Azlingin Ego, Bank of Uganda; Christine Lubega, Bank of Uganda; Ayebare Adonia, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs; Ssemanda Patrick, Minisffy of Foreign Affairs; Allen Kagina, Uganda Revenue
Aulhority; Hemy Ngabirano, Uganda Cotre& Development Aulhorily; 1 David Kiwanuka, Ugancla
Cotre& Development Authority; J Muhwezi, Mînislry of Tourism, Trade and lnduslry, Jus•
Tindigao,kayo K. M"mistry of Tourism, Trade and lndU$by; Moses Kabanga, Minislry of Ftnanoe;
Kabbs Twijuke, CiVl1 Aviation Aulhorily; James Ndimukulaga, Ministry of Water, lands and
Environment, Ahuwendeire Didas, Office of the President Moses Kaggwa, Mlnistry of Ananoe;
Waluwa Bwobi, Commissioner, Geological Survey ~ Mines; Mubiru James, Uganda Bureau of
Sfalisb; Bahemuka Stephen, UgandaButeau of Stalstics; and Mayende John, Uganda Bureau
of Statistics.
59. The meeing belween the reconstilu~ UN Patel and the Wortdng Group of~ ofliclas covered
the following Agenda items:
(a) Country Questionnaire for Uganda by the UN Panel of Experts.
(b) Woikplan/T.imc-Frames ofwork of the UN Panel in the next two months.
3fi
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
(c) Disl:ussiom on specific areas ofUganda's coocems on allegations.lconclusions in
the Final Report of April 2001. Helpiog the reoonstitutcd Panel to Ulldent.and Ugaoda'~
ot;ections to the Report.
(d) AO.B.
COUNTRY ougnoNNAJRF.S FOR UÇANDA DY 1'P1 UCQN§DIYIED
UNPA.~J.:
60. The respective IIICQlber.-s of the Womng Group provided the required data and explanations
to the UN Panel per item as Îlldicated <>n the country questionnaire including on
Imports.fexportslrc-eftbgoods in transit for the period î994-2001.5 The Commissioner of
Customs, Ugaoda Rcwnue Authority, Mis. Allen Kagiol explaioed to the UN Panel that data for
1995 and 1996 fiom Mpondwe was lost duriog the ADF rebel attack on Mpondwe Customs
bonler post in 1996. Sbe explaned ~ the P&n1:I tbat the names oftramporters are not captured
but the vebicle numbers oftracks ttaosporting goods ~ recorded.
61. Tho UN~~ the Woddng Group for the data provided. The UN Panel furtber
sougbt clarification on the fi>llowiog items:
• System of certilicalk>n of origin of Ugandan producls (natural and lndusbial producls).
• An arrangement in place b deal with counbies in confia?
• The case oflvory which was impounded at Entebbe International Airport: how is the
• seizure/confiscation dooe at enlry points and what are the enforoement structures?
• How is clvilian enboement at .Entebbe Airport and other fields handled?
62. The Worldng Group ofTechnical officiais mad the following claificalions:
(a) Mr. Julius Tindigarukayo, Assi.,tant Commissioner in the Ministry ofTourism, Trade
and Industry explained to the Panel the enfôroement mechanism in the cas., of impounded iwry:
• The enforcement is caniecf out by Cust>ms, UPOF, Police and civilians. The culprfls are
handed over ID Police i>r Investigation and persecution .in .courts of law.
• On lhe issue ofivay iq)ounded at Entatat lnternalionà Arport. Ile AssistantCommissioner
promised b provide more data sinèe he had .aln!ady contacted Uganda Wildlife Aulhority.
(lnformalion we Subsequenlly bwaided 1hrough Ile UN Resident Co-ordinator b Nairobi via
Note Verbale# RST/34/10M>1 dated 27 September 2001).
s See attaclunent (Annex 2): ListofDocumenm handed ta J\mb. M Kassem, Oiairman oflhe UN Expert Panel on
24 August 2001.
URAnnex72
37
S/200111163
(b) On the issue of Certificate of Origin Mr. J Muhwezi explained that this diftèrs ftom
product lo product. The Uganda Coffee Developme11t Authority issues certificales•for coffee
producls whlle other producls are handled bythe Uganda Exr,ort Promotion Board.
( c) Mr. Kabbs Twijuk:e infotmed the Panel tbat at ail the aidie1ds customs offi.ciab are
always present He fur1her ~ailed lhat besides Entebbe Aiport lhere are 5 àrfieltt accessible
to and from Uganda. For the smal alrports the Uglll(la Civil Aviation has to be lnbmed ln
advance 5 days. Producls imported through Entebbe lnlamatbnal Airport have to pay tax unless
the goods ae in tn.lsit. There is a ban on Ile expor1alkJn .of linber. He also elaboraled mgadng
data on passenger tlow, export by type, aeronautical income, aircraft movements between
Entebbe and Burundi, ORC and Rwanda since 1993.
WORKPlAN
63. Amb. Kassem thanked the Wooong Group of lechnical officiais b' lhe Information which had been
provided. He said lhal if need arose, then the UN Panel would cqoeba:k br mooe data or darificatbn. He
doubled, however, if tine would all:1# lhe new Panel to nwisit Kampala. Amb. Mugume inbmed lhe
reconstiluted Panel llat the previous UN Panel châoed by Mrs. Ba N'Daw was given a lot of data but to
his surprise they chose t> ignore it .and inslead wroCe a report based on hearsa,. He prayed that this new
Panel utilizes the data given to il and corne out with a raport based on evidence.
Spedftç n, dcggm to UqandL anffr:,.,,,,.. llglnçlulbll lnthlflnllRgddthe old UN
Panai datld 16 Aprll 2001: . . . . . .
64. Amb. J Mugume inbnned Amb. Kassem, Chànnan ci the Recons1loed UN Panel of Experts llat the
full response by lhe Govemment of Uganda 1o the Anal Report of the okl UN Panel of Experts on the illegal
explOitalion of natural oesouroes of the DRC is conlained in (i) the staaament b the Security Council by Hon.
Amama Mbabazi, former M"mister of Sta1e fi:>r Foreign Affairs on 3 May 2001 and (ii) UN Security Council
document $/2001/458 daed 9 May 2001. The new Chainnan of the UN Panel did not seem to hM seen the
two documents.
65. For the purp()S(f of helping the new Chainnal of the UN Panel to understand Uganda's otJiections
to the Fmal Report of UN Panel of April 2001, Ambassador J Mugume, Chairman of Ile Working
Group of Technical Officias, gave examples of concems on the key fundamental ft8W$ of the report:
38
(a) Conceptualdlfinitlon d'llleplly: Ugandadid notacceptthedefinitionil the Mme
Ba N'Daw report of 'illegality' as c:overing al transactions and actions in the DRC that were not
aulhorized by l<inshasa. The Mme Ba N'Daw Report ignored the legal status of the Lusaka
Peace Ag~ton the DRC, (1999) which mandated an parties to the.Agreement- including
the rebel forces to have Securtty/Adminislrative responsibilitie in the respective areas until 1he
establishment of the new dispensation in the ORC.
(b) Blaud ëDftl"llge by tlle Report: The report of the UN Expert Panel on the ORC, April 2001,
failed to cover investigations in an the counbies involved in the DRC as mandated by the UN
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
Securlly Councl. The cowrage of the Mme Ba N"Daw Reportr8llaclad a bias based on the original
French proposai, Jna:y 2000, lhatinY8Stigalions should covar ~ Ugalda and Rwanda as
"unilvlled COlll11ries' in the DRC, which was Aljecled by the UN Securly Council in favor of
investigation of al COlll11ries involved ln the ORC lncluding ZimbabMJ, Angola, Namlia, and the
Kil1$hasa government
{c) Poor qlllllty of Mdtla: The report 1eco111mended ve,y swng eanclions agailst
UQa1da and Rwanda ba9ed on very poor quality of evldance. lnslaad of baslng the allagàions
and conclusions-on COl1Cl8le evidenoe, the-Mme Ba N'Oaw reportchose to rely heavily ·oo
h9rsay, falsehoods, disb1ed data ni obvious blases:
• Htarlay: The reportaguas, for example, 1hat 1hedecision b get nwolved in the ORC by
Ugandawasbase(I I enllpfR.....,,.W.,,.,MOEfl,oneoonomic
ioelests of the senior UPDF who had 88IYed ln 1997 wa-(para 27). No raference was
made b the discussion witl H.E. President MUS!MHli oo the subject in Kampala,
November 2000. No allemptwas made b examoe Uganda's wel-documenled security
concems and altacks from lie DRC by the SUdanese backed >DF rebels et:.
• F•1hooda; The report falsely alleged, for example. fiat (i) President Musevenl's famlly
was .a sh8l8holder ln OARA Great Lakes timbercompany; that1he Department of Forestry
oerlliad timber tom DRC as Uganda1tinber aid lhat a non-existentfacby ln Namanve
processes DRC fimber b' export (paras 47-54) (ii) govemmant ntfused pennissa1 for the
UN Pnl billerliew Brig. Kazini, whom the Pnl metatStala House KampaJa ln
November 2000 (111) 25'/o of lhe·right-hand cars lmpor1ed ln Uganda in 1999 went looled
from Ile DRC which has left.hand vehicles, (para 36).
• Dlltorted data: The report deliberately and repeatadly dlsb1ed data b support false
conclusions or allegations, b' example (i) the use of gold export data by lhe Minlstry of
Energy and Mi1eral Development which rellect export permis or intended expor1s wilhout
referenoe b the explalaby nolas md ignoring lie actual export dala by 118 Cuabns
Depar1ment (para 96) b support the false allega1ion rlgold looting from the ORC; (i)
wrong inapretation of Uganda's economic data b glve a false Impression that Ugandall$
GDP growth and balmoe of paymenfs benefited tom the UPDF involvement in the ORC
after 1998 (para 142). Uganda0s high GDP growlh nnds starlad ln early 19908 and have
decfined aflar 1998.
• Obviow .__: lheMme Ba N'Daw reportdisplays obvÎOIII bia9es. For example, it (ij
condemns PrèsidentMuseveni as an accompl0e b the lagal explollalon and the god
fat18I" of the illegal exploilalion of naturâ NISOUrteS and contlnualion of war in the ORC
(paras 206, 211) wilhout any concrete evidence, (ii) examines the .events of 19941hat led
to the conllict in the DRC and convenienly fails b recognize the signfflcanc::e of one million
genocide victims in Rwanda, (para 22) (iU) refers to the lnlerehamwe. as 'the so caDed
negatilte forces'. (PiD 173), (iv) make, no attempt to inve,tigate 1he legitimate security
concenrs of Uganda and Rwanda in the DRC Crisi$.
URAnnex72
39
812001/1163
(d) .Delibmate attanpt to ■adclmine tlae Luaka Peaee Agrc,em•t: The.Mme Ba
N'Daw report belatcdly mentions tlJI,! signific:anoe of the Lusaka Peaoe .Agreement
.(pare. 219). Wone, it ignores its deli!:ate bùmoe and provisions in its
intelpretation of illegality, and cbooses, in its vcry sweeping ~mrneoclatio~1, to
utilize the instrument of sanctions sclectively to punish a tèw of the signatorics.
Indeed, wben Uganda wanted to pull out of the DRC uni1aterally in May 2001, the
UN Secretary General rightly interv(:QCd to loeep the paice process on track and
requested Uganda to withdraw within the context of Lusaka Agreement.
CONCLUSION
66. ·The visit to Ugttnda by the reco~~ of Experts went very wc:IL
Ambassador Kasseni exp. ed ~~ the ®-Operation extendcd by
the Govemment ofUganda. The Governmcnt undertook to forward the
outstaodmg datafmformation for the questionoeire to Nairobi tbrough the UN
Resiclent Co--ordioator in Kampala. 6 lt was ~ tbat the Nairobi-basecl UN Panel
would keep in touch with the Governincnt on any fùrtber question and
clarificatiom.
Prepared by:
TJae Directorate oflnternatio..S Cooperation
Ministry of Foreign Affain
KAMPALA
'See attllchmcnt (Annex 3) List ofitenlsldooimcms bwMdecl ro die VN Panel lhrough the UN Resident
Coon1inator in Kampala (vide Nore Verbale RST/34/JOOA>I dafod 27 September 2001)
40
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
ANNEX 1
PROGRAMME FOR 11-IE VISIT TO UGANDA BY THE UN EXPERT PANEL ON THE
DRC-22-25 AUGUST 2001
WIQNgDAY 22ND AY.QgST 2001:
Moming Arrivai from Nairobi
Aftemoon Meetings with the Porter Judicial
Commission.
Venue: ICC (Intemational Conference
Centre)~
JHURSQAY Uu AV§USTZQIII,:
9:00 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
11:30 a.m.
12:45 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
4:30 p.m.
URAnnex72
Openlng c.eremony: Meeting with 3"'
Deputy Prime Minister/Minlster of Foreign
Affairs.
Venue: MOFA Boardroom.
Meeting wlth Minister of State of
EnVirooment and r=orestry.
Venue: Mlnistry Headquarters,
Partiament Avenue.
Meeting with the Mioister of finance,
Planning and Economie Oevelopment.
(Officiais from CUstoms, Civil Aviation
Authority (C.AA), Bank of Uganda, Uganda
Uganda Bureau of statistics (UBOS), etc.
in attenclance).
Venue: MOFED Boardroom.
LUNCH BREAK
Meeting with Hon. Mlnister of Energy and
Minerai Development.
Venue: Amber House.
Meeting with Hon. Amama Mbabazi,
Minlster of Defence. (Security/Intelligenoe
Officiais in attendanoe).
Venue: Minisby of Oefenoe, Bombo.
41
S/ll)Ol/1163
f81P4Y :zt1N AUS,§I ZOQI:
9:00A.M.
10:15 - 11:30 a.m.
8:00 p.m.
Meeting wlth Hon. Mintsoer of Agriculb..ire.
Venue: MOFA Boanlroom.
Meeting With Technical Offlcials/Working
Group. .
Venue: MOFA Boardroom.
Meeting wlth H.E. the President
Venue: State floute, Kampala.
SATURDAY 25, AUGUST 2001
2:00p.m~
4:00 p.m.
41
2"' Meeting wlth Hon. Amë1ma Mbabaii,
Mlnlster of Defenoe.
venue: lntemallonal Conferenoe Centre.
Meetll'9 wlth Brig. Gen. Salim Saleh,
Brlg. J Kazlnl and Lt. Col Mayornbo.
Venue: lntsnatlonal Conferenc:e Centre.
URAnnex72
S/2001/1163
UNEX2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS HANDED OVER TO THE NEW UN PANEL ON THE
DRC ON 24 AUGUST 2001
1. CUSTOMS:
Imports/Exports/goods in transit/re-expor+...s, countrf of origln and
destination, transportation stnce 1993.
2. MINERAL PRODUCTION EXPORT:
Ust of all licensed dealers and estimated exports since 1993.
3. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY:
A list C>f Coffee exporters and qualitles exported sinoe 1993 todate:
A map showing the distribution of sawmills in Uganda.
Dara Great Lakes articles of association and a copy of
company registratlon. A letter authorising Dara Great
Lakes to suspect he wood forests in Uganda from_ the
Commissioner of Forests.
4. A list of Ministries and personnel responslble for: Mineral/mlnlng
sector management, Agricultural Forestry and Environment and
energy.
5. Uganda's Mining code and Mining Regulations.
6. Uganda's Instrument Authority Polices and Activities.
7. The financial Institutions Statute 1993.
8. Uganda Bureau of Statistlcs Statistical Abstract 2000.
9. Uganda Civil Aviation Authority statistlcs on exports, imports and
flights
10. Uganda Investrnent Guide. Opportunities and conditions, March 2001.
URAnnex72
43
ANNEJ3
RS1'13411U1
The Minislly of Foreign Afairs of the Republic of Uganda presents Ils compliments to 1he UNDP
Resident Co-ordinm and has lhe honour to Pifer b the Country Questionnaire between lhe UN Panel
of Exper1s and the Uganda GovemmantWorking Group of mchnlcal olcials on the llegal Exploifaliorl of
Natural Resot.1roes of 1he DRC in Ktrnpala, 24 - 25 August 2001.
The Mi1isllyof Fooeign Afaifs wishes b n,questChathJ UN Panelof E>cperlsackn~n,ceipt
of the documenls lhatwere handed over 24 -25 hlgust 2001 in response to lhe Country Quesionnaira.
The Minis1ly of Foreign Affan also wishes b bwlWd the aUacbed copies of the illowing
additional documents as requested by the UN Panel of Experts:
l. URA Doctuneots:
(i} CopiesofORC documentation.
(il) Uganda Cusk>mS Definition.
(li) Anknal Teell cleaad lhrough Entellba in 2000.
2. Report on specific issues raised by the UN Panel Experts - Uganda W-Jldlitè
Authorities.
3. Wby Uganda Gow:mmcnt got involved in the DRC-anextract fiomtbe ~-
memorial subnûtted to ICJ, April 2001.
4. Information provided by Bank ofUgand.a in Uganda:
i) List of aU Commercial Banks.
h) Mem>nuxlum and Articles of A$sociation or Rides requjred by the UN PaoeL
fü) Their paid up sbare capital.
iv) Names ofDirectors.
v) Bank ofUganda Arumal Reports 1999/2000.
vt) Trade betwctm Uganda and DRC.
vû) Brief remarks on Uganda's Balance of Paymcnts.
5. Data and Explanatoiy Notes on hnports 811d Exports, 1995/2000
by Uganda Bureau of Stalistics (UBOS).
The Minislry of Foreign Afrairs of lhe Republic of Ugna avals itself of lhis opporlunity to renew
to the UNOP Resident Co-ordinator the assuranoes of i1s highest consideration.
Kampala: 'Z1Septemblr2001
The UNOP Residêri1 Co-ordinator
Kampekl
44 URAnnex72
RST/341100/01
Amb. Mahamoud Kassem
Chalmlan, UN Expert Panel on DRC
EXPNATDRC/UNON
NAIROBI
fax: 2s+2-1:z2 619
1 October 2001
Re: UGANDADS DEFENOE BUDGET PERFORMANCE FOR
FY 1997 /98 TO 2001/2002
S/1001/1163
Attached 1s a a>py of the Minlsby of Defenoe Budget Performance for FY 1997 /98 -
2001/2002 whlch wàs requesoed for by the UN Panel of Experts ln Kampala on 25
September 2001.
Please advlse If the balanoe rA the doCllments that were not handed c:Ner on 23 - 25
September 2001 which were forwarded through the Office of the UN Resident Coordlnator
ln Kampala vide Diplomatie Note Verbale No. RST/34/100/01 dated 27
September 2001 have been reoehled by your offloe (seè attached copy of the Note
Verbale).
Kindly let me know If there 1s any more data/lnfonnatlon that you may requlre from
Uganda. OUr invitation for the UN Panel to revlslt Kampala for any further Interviews
and darfflcatlons st1II stands.
Please acoept, Mr. Ambassador, my warm regards and hlghest consideration.
James Mugume
For: PERMANENT SECRETARY
cc: The Charge d' Affaires
Enc.
Permanent Mission of Uganda to the UN
NEW YORK
The UN Resident co-.:>rdlnator
KAMPALA
URAnnex72
45
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Agent of the Republic of Uganda hereby
certifies that the texts of the documents reproduced in this
Volume, as attachments to the Rejoinder submitted by Uganda
in the proceedings relating to Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Uganda, are accurate copies of the texts of the
documents they purport to reproduce.
6 December 2002
Honourable Francis J. Ayume
Attorney General
Republic of U ganda
· (signed)
Agent of the Republic oJUganda