Kampala — Many sentiments have been echoed about the arrest of Sudanese President Omar-el-Bashir once he sets foot in Uganda for the Smart Partnership Conference.

South Africa and Botswana have expressed commitment to arrest Bashir once he steps on their soil and Uganda should follow suit. Uganda has more reason to arrest Bashir now than any other country. First, it was the first country to refer a case to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Secondly, this month, Uganda is chair of the UN Security Council which referred the Darfur situation, on which President Bashir's indictment is hinged, to the ICC.

Thirdly, as the host of the upcoming ICC review meeting, Uganda cannot be seen to be frustrating the workings of the justice body. Legally, as a state party to the ICC, under Article 86 of the Rome Statute that establishes the international court, Uganda is enjoined to cooperate with the court in investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court.

There are, however, some people who feel otherwise. To them, the arrest would destabilise and worsen the already frail relations between Sudan and Uganda. They seem to ignore the grotesque atrocities suffered by mostly women and children in Darfur. Bashir's arrest will mark the process of accountability for crimes committed right before his eyes.

This is notwithstanding the powerful message the arrest will send to would-be perpetrators of heinous crimes. Some of President Bashir's apologists claim that Uganda should adopt the African Union (AU) position not to arrest him. What they forget is that the AU is not party to the Rome Statute. Its pronouncements are merely political with no legal significance. Moreover, South Africa and Botswana, who are also members of the AU, have committed themselves to arrest Bashir.

It is time for our leaders to know that there is no place for impunity today. The immunity of sitting presidents cannot be invoked any longer for crimes against humanity. The days where the likes of Augusto Pinochet escaped accountability on the basis of state immunity are long gone.

In Rwanda, a precedent has been set in respect of Jean Kambanda, the head of the Rwanda interim government at the time of the 1994 genocide. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, based in Arusha, Tanzania, has held that having dejure and de facto control, Kambanda, while having knowledge that acts of genocide were being committed against the Tutsi, did not take steps to thwart them. This judgment applies with equal force to the situation of President Bashir.

While he may not have personally committed the alleged atrocities, he had the obligation to stop them. Much more significant, if Uganda fails to apprehend President Bashir, it will not be expected to request other countries to arrest Kony who continues to roam from country to country. With Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army at large, there will be an undesirable effect of delayed justice for the people of northern Uganda.

Uganda's failure to arrest Bashir also poses many serious consequences to the fight against impunity.

Since the Nazi trials at Nuremberg, several tremendous developments in the realm of international criminal law have unfolded, the latest being the establishment of the ICC, which provides an opportunity to victims of heinous crimes to obtain accountability for them. This is critical for justice and lasting peace. Uganda cannot be seen to be the one to undermine these efforts.

Finally, I would also like to re-echo the words of Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the UN, that "the crime of genocide against one people truly is an assault on us all."

The writer is a researcher at Makerere University Faculty of Law