Uganda rejects ICJ’s judgment that slammed Uganda with $325 million, saying it’s unjust and incorrect.

The government has rejected the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment that slammed Uganda with a $325 million (Shs 1 trillion) restitution debt for its military actions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) between 1998 and 2003.

According to the ministry, although the sum given is significantly less than the $11.5 billion requested by the DRC, Uganda deems the judgment unjust and incorrect, as did the 2005 liability decision.

“In its 2005 decision, the court decided that, during the reparations phase, the DR Congo would be needed to establish and prove the particular loss sustained as a consequence of specific Ugandan conduct constituting globally illegal acts for which it is accountable.”

The DR Congo failed to fulfill the burden imposed by the court. Indeed, it did not provide proof of even a single particular harm caused as a consequence of any Ugandan action during the compensation phase. “It is so profoundly unclear why the ICJ chose to break from the condition it previously placed on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, much alone how it arrived at the number of USD 325 million,” the statement says in part.

In 2005, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held Uganda guilty of stealing DRC’s resources, among other things, when the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) conducted military operations in the huge country. Uganda maintains that the findings of misbehavior by the UPDF, long regarded as one of the world’s best disciplined armies, are incorrect.

Uganda’s Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, questioned why the UPDF was singled out in a battle with other parties.

“The UPDF (Uganda People’s Defence Forces) was and continues to be a disciplined force and a force for good in all of the nations in which it has operated.” “Kiwanuka said in a statement.

Uganda, along with Rwanda, Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, were in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, battling with Congolese troops and, in some instances, among themselves. With the DRC’s continuous insistence that these leave their country, it was determined at a conference in Lusaka, Zambia, that all parties cease-fire, free hostages and swap prisoners of war, troops disengage immediately, remove all foreign forces, and participate in a national discourse.

Kiwanuka contends that the war was thus addressed in the Lusaka peace treaty, and that the court’s ruling “is yet another failure to grasp or respect African affairs and makes no contribution to present attempts at addressing, on our own, the security challenges that exist.””

“During the relevant era, Uganda was not alone in DR Congo.” The existence of countless additional belligerents was accepted by the court. Let us not forget that the war was settled by the signing of a peace treaty, the Lusaka Agreement, which proves the presence of other participants throughout the material; era.

As a result, it is regretful that Uganda has been singled out in this manner. Many will naturally wonder why Uganda is being asked to compensate for whatever allegedly went wrong during the war. The answer is that Uganda has always believed in the international system and hence consented to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ immediately after independence in 1963,” according to the statement.

Uganda regrets that this decision has occurred at a time when its working relationship with the DRC has substantially improved, according to the statement. The two nations are currently cooperating in a variety of sectors, including security, infrastructure, and regional economic integration.

At the end of last year, Ugandan and DRC soldiers initiated strikes against the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), who had bases in eastern Congo.

“The difficulties that led to Uganda’s participation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1998 and 2003 were not addressed at the time, and they are still not solved today.” In any case, Uganda continues to address the situation with the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in order to reach a long-term and mutually agreeable solution.

Uganda sees the verdict as an unjustified intrusion in this process and in African politics in general, a fact that the court seems to be unconcerned with. “It is exactly because of such foreign intervention that there is so much anarchy on the African continent,” the statement continues.