'The International Criminal Court's confirmation of 39 war crimes and crimes against humanity charges against Joseph Kony represents a peculiar kind of progress: legally significant, practically meaningless, and symbolically troubling. On November 6, 2025, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber III determined there are substantial grounds to believe the Lord's Resistance Army leader is responsible for atrocities committed in northern Uganda between 2002 and 2005—murder, sexual enslavement, forced marriage, torture, rape, and the conscription of child soldiers. Yet Kony, who has evaded capture for over two decades since his initial 2005 arrest warrant, was not present for this milestone. He remains at large, believed to be sheltering in the Sudanese-controlled Kafia Kingi enclave or the Central African Republic, reportedly in poor health but beyond the reach of international justice.
This confirmation hearing, conducted in absentia with legal counsel representing the absent defendant, sets a precedent that reveals as much about the ICC's limitations as its ambitions. The court can now authoritatively declare the legal basis for prosecuting one of Africa's most notorious warlords—but it cannot compel his physical presence for trial, as the Rome Statute prohibits trials in absentia. The result is a legal victory that functions primarily as documentation, a formal record of crimes the Acholi people and other victims have known intimately for decades. For communities in northern Uganda, the DRC, CAR, and South Sudan who endured the LRA's systematic violence, this milestone raises a fundamental question: does international justice that cannot enforce its own warrants serve any purpose beyond absolving the international community's conscience?
Members are reading: Why Kony's two-decade evasion reveals structural failures in international justice architecture and African sovereignty gaps.
Domestic accountability and the hybrid justice model
Uganda's own war crimes trials offer a counterpoint to the ICC process, one that centers African judicial capacity while acknowledging its limitations. The 2024 conviction of former LRA commander Thomas Kwoyelo in Ugandan courts demonstrates that domestic institutions can deliver accountability when international mechanisms fail. Yet this hybrid approach—combining international and national justice—reveals persistent tensions about where legitimacy resides and whose justice counts.
The Ugandan government's human rights record complicates its role as arbiter of war crimes accountability. While conducting trials of LRA commanders, Kampala simultaneously restricts freedom of expression and assembly, creating a selective accountability framework where some perpetrators face justice while state actors often do not. This dual reality is not unique to Uganda; across the continent, governments that cooperate with international justice for rebel groups resist scrutiny of their own forces' conduct.
The ICC's focus on non-state actors like the LRA, while legally justified, feeds perceptions of institutional bias. Of the court's convictions and ongoing prosecutions, African suspects dominate—not because atrocities occur only on this continent, but because African states and situations are where the court finds political space to operate. Powerful states remain beyond ICC jurisdiction through non-membership or effective immunity, creating a two-tiered system where international justice applies primarily to actors from weaker states.
Members are reading: How the LRA's systematic violence created generational trauma that legal proceedings cannot address, and what accountability gaps persist.
What justice without enforcement means for Africa
The confirmation of charges against an absent defendant crystallizes a fundamental tension in international justice: the gap between legal authority and practical power. The ICC can issue warrants, confirm charges, and conduct trials, but it cannot compel states to arrest fugitives, cannot deploy its own enforcement mechanisms, and cannot operate where political will is absent. This architecture of justice without power disproportionately affects African victims, whose suffering becomes the subject of legal proceedings that may never conclude.
For the Acholi community and other LRA victims, the ICC's latest procedural milestone offers formal recognition of their trauma but no tangible justice. Kony's likely fate—death from illness in hiding rather than accountability in court—would represent the ultimate failure of international justice to deliver on its promises. The precedent-setting nature of this confirmation hearing, conducted without the suspect present, may expand the court's procedural options, but it cannot overcome the fundamental limitation that justice delayed often becomes justice denied.
As the ICC continues its work, the Kony case serves as a stark reminder that international justice remains contingent on factors far beyond legal merit—on geopolitical priorities, state cooperation, and the willingness of powerful actors to invest resources in accountability. The court's concentration on African situations, while reflecting where it can operate rather than where atrocities occur, perpetuates post-colonial patterns where international institutions intervene selectively on the continent while largely exempting powerful states from scrutiny.
The question facing the ICC and the broader international justice project is whether symbolic victories—arrest warrants that go unenforced, charges confirmed against absent defendants, legal processes that document atrocities without delivering accountability—ultimately serve or undermine justice. For victims who have waited decades for Kony to face trial, the answer is increasingly clear: process without enforcement is performance, not justice. Until international law develops mechanisms to compel compliance from powerful and weak states alike, the architecture of accountability will remain what it has always been—a system where some perpetrators face consequences while others, shielded by sovereignty or geography, remain beyond reach.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
