A Torture Chamber Cannot Become a Blind Spot in Justice -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

OCRB: Bureau for the Repression of Organised Crime After Mahamat Said Abdel Kani’s Séléka forces took de facto control of Bangui in 2013, this facility became needed as a location to detain the suspected opponents. Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted the former warring Séléka commander of four counts of crimes against humanity for torture and unlawful imprisonment on 23 September 2026. On February 24, however, he was found not guilty of war crimes. His sentence is yet to be determined.

The distinction matters. It must be established that the act alleged to have constituted the war crime is closely connected with an armed conflict. A crime against humanity needs to demonstrate that the act was a part of a wider or systematic practise towards civilian population. This might mean that the same brutal conduct can fulfil one outfit of legal terms while failing to fulfil the other. Judges have to look at the individual ingredients; they cannot simply conclude a state was in chaos and assume a war crime.

But an acquittal on one charge should never be construed as a public relations escape hatch. The verdict says something bleak about power in Bangui, the institution charged with crime prevention here was a complicit player in the crimes against the people it exists to protect. The moral of the story is bigger than one general. Violence can take on the guise of legal legitimacy when armed groups inherit state institutions, uniforms and detention facilities.

It was not: it is also a challenge to the familiar sectarian account of justice, as evidenced by Said’s case. Anti-Balaka leaders Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona were also convicted by the ICC earlier. Said is the first Séléka member to be convicted in court. That breadth is important to public confidence, but justice does not require a tick in the scorecard for one conviction from each camp. Whatever religion or allegiance the accused have, victims deserve decisions based on real evidence.

The next test is practical. Prosecutors may recommend a sentence that fits the gravity of the crimes proved, but judges should weigh Said’s personal culpability and point to available evidence. Second, the ICC needs to explain its findings in simple French and Sango, as well as why it failed with its war crime charges. Legal precision is useless unless the communities impacted can understand it.

Reparations require equal care. At this point, the court should engage with survivors over how measures for medical treatment, psychological support and compensation are structured; do everything it can to keep their identities from being revealed; and give a realistic timetable of its work. The Trust Fund for Victims is unable to undo damage simply by pledging it. At the same time, Central African authorities should maintain records, investigate other alleged offenders and provide for witnesses. No single verdict can ever be the weight of a whole conflict.

Thus the most pointed question following September 23 is not whether The Hague has handed down a verdict with dramatic overtones. In the case of survivors in Bangui, it is whether they will see justice walk out of the courtroom with them.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia