The International Criminal Court on Tuesday began presenting evidence in a confirmation of charges hearing held in absentia against fugitive Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, alleging he bears responsibility for years of killings, abductions and other atrocities committed by the Lord’s Resistance Army.
Prosecutors told a panel of three judges in The Hague that Kony, the LRA’s founder and longtime commander, is charged with 39 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang said the attacks by the militia "tore apart" the social and cultural fabric of northern Uganda and that victims remain "scarred in their body and spirit."
Niang opened the presentation by showing multiple videos the prosecution says document destruction and violence carried out by the LRA, including a clip from a Uganda police video showing a body being removed from the rubble of a burned-out building. The hearing is the ICC’s first confirmation of charges in absentia, a procedural step that allows prosecutors to outline their case and ask judges to commit the accused to trial. It is not a trial itself.
Kony’s whereabouts remain unknown more than two decades after the court issued an arrest warrant in 2005. He emerged in the global spotlight again after a 2012 viral video recounted his alleged crimes. The LRA began mounting attacks in northern Uganda in the 1980s when Kony sought to topple the government, later carrying out raids and abductions in parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.
The militia became notorious for recruiting and forcing child soldiers to fight, mutilating civilians and enslaving women. Prosecutors said the pattern of crimes has left communities struggling to rebuild. "The social and cultural fabric of Northern Uganda has been torn apart and it is still struggling to rebuild itself," Niang said.
Although Kony is not present, he will be represented by counsel during the hearing. After prosecutors finish presenting evidence, judges will decide whether to confirm the charges. If the judges confirm charges, the case could proceed to trial only if Kony is taken into the custody of the court.
The in-absentia confirmation hearing has drawn attention beyond the specifics of the Kony case because legal experts say it could set precedents for how the ICC handles other high-profile situations in which the accused remain beyond the court’s reach. Michael Scharf, a professor of international law at Case Western Reserve University, told The Associated Press that the outcome could influence potential future proceedings involving leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose warrants were issued more recently.
Kony has eluded capture despite international efforts, including U.S. special forces operations and a multimillion-dollar reward. Some survivors and victims’ advocates welcomed the court’s presentation as an important step toward accountability. Odong Kajumba, who said he escaped the LRA after being abducted and forced to carry supplies across the border in 1996, said he would be "very happy" if Kony were arrested.
Not everyone shares that view. Odonga Otto, a former lawmaker from northern Uganda, criticized moving forward while Kony remains free, calling the proceedings "a mockery" until he is detained and arguing that trials would feel more real to victims if held with the accused in custody.
The Kony hearing follows other ICC prosecutions of LRA figures. Dominic Ongwen, a former LRA commander who was abducted as a child and later rose through the group’s ranks, was convicted in 2020 of 61 offenses including murder, rape, forced marriage and the recruitment of child soldiers. Ongwen is serving a 25-year sentence in Norway.
Prosecutors’ presentation at the confirmation hearing is expected to last several days as they lay out documentary, testimonial and video evidence. Judges must weigh whether the material establishes substantial grounds to believe Kony committed the alleged crimes before deciding whether to refer the case to trial, a decision that will be complicated by the long delay since the 2005 arrest warrant and the defendant’s continued absence from custody.