CRC ELECTIONS: Awich Pollar (Uganda)

Summary: CRIN is contacting all candidates standing for election to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in December 2012. We are asking them about their experience in children's rights, what they think they can contribute to the Committee, what they think about key issues, their vision for the Committee and, importantly, how they see NGOs' role. Interviews have been edited where appropriate for clarity and brevity.

Mr Awich Pollar, 42, from Uganda, currently serves on the Committee on the Rights of the Child and is seeking election for a second term. He is the Director of the African Network for the Prevention and Protection Against Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPACN), a child rights organisation in Uganda.

1.Why are you seeking re-election to the Committee?

First of all, why I want to come back to the Committee is tagged to how I actually came to the Committee. You will realise that some people came to the Committee when they were professors and had written extensively about children, and some people came to the Committee when they were juvenile judges, so they have had a wealth of experience in court and therefore wanted to share [their experiences] with the international community. I came from a background of having suffered as a child soldier, so I brought in the idea that I went through this bad situation and I can therefore share my experiences, so that a child in every corner of the world should not suffer. So unlike a judge who wanted to come and share his experience, or a professor, mine is a little unique.

I have therefore taken a strong interest in the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC). When I came [to the Committee], I kind of became the de facto head of OPAC. As you can see I have also been the Chair of [the Committee's work on] Article 31, but my biggest concentration has been on OPAC. In this way I have used a lot of my time to ensure that States who have not yet ratified, ratify. And now we have 147 States [who have ratified the Convention}, meaning we still have a long way to go. So I am still focusing to ensure that States ratify OPAC, and report and also show compliance to it. I still have a lot to do and it is my vision that I can continue this work for the Committee a little while longer. So every State that comes here and has not ratified [OPAC], my question is when will they ratify?

The other thing is that since I came to this Committee, I have tried to internalise and I think that I do now. Because if you give me any article [of the CRC], say Article 6 on the right to life, I should be able to know what is the checklist for me to see that Albania [for example] is observing this and is complying with this article. For example on death control, accidents, suicides or infectious diseases. So I think I have built this over time and I think I am in a better position to see compliance.

2. What experience do you have of working in children’s rights?

Outside my mandate work on the Committee, back in Uganda I am a director of ANPPACN (African Network for the Prevention and Protection Against Child Abuse and Neglect), a Continental organisation. So I have really been using this NGO in Uganda to try to do a lot at the national level on violence and protection and I am sure if you talk to anyone in Uganda, [for example] UNICEF or Save the Children, they will tell you this organisation has credibility. So I have really done a lot for this organisation.

Again at the national level, I have tried my best to interface with the parliament, the legislature, and the judiciary. There is a problem with the separation of powers, so it is always difficult to bring the parliament and the judiciary together. And yet the courts are saying, for example, that we lack laws on adoption, and parliament on the other hand are saying 'no there's a loop-hole, children are being smuggled out'. So I was the only person who could bring members of the parliament together with the judiciary and avoid the principle of the separation of powers.

On the regional level, I am quite involved in the East African Community and have played an important role in bringing together different actors who deal with children's rights on a daily basis, for example doctors and teachers.

Finally, [at the international level] I act as the coordinator between the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the African Committee on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

3. What do you think are the main barriers to children’s rights being fulfilled?

The problem globally fits into two dimensions: [countries] from the developed world and the developing one. From the developed world, it's a competition of priorities. Many developed countries have many other challenging problems. You can see in States priorities that children tend to go down [in priority]. In connection to priorities, almost all States don't have enough resources. That is why the issue of priority comes up. But also for the developed countries, there is always the persistent challenge of the development of society, [for example] technology . If you think of Sweden, they could have finished their programme, but if you meet an NGO in Sweden they tell you the challenges. The challenge in Sweden is not the same as in Uganda. So I could put this issue under the continuous changes in society.

On the developing countries, like in Uganda, it's [the issue of] resources, but there is also the element of political will. We [the Committee] must cultivate the political will [amongst governments]. This is more evident in the developing world. In developed countries, the political will is there and it is clearly institutionalised. There are government departments, Ombudspersons, etc. This shows at one time there was a political will to set up these [institutional bodies].

4. Which areas of the Convention do you think need more clarification?

[With] the Convention, like any other piece of law, you pass it and then you see the gaps. For example, with Article 38, that is why an Optional Protocol was introduced to fill that gap.

As it stands now there are some provisions which still need clarity, and therefore the implementation becomes difficult for States. Some States say to you: 'our understanding of this provision is this'. So there is a variation in the understanding by States of some provisions.

For now, though, General Comments are good as they really explain [the provisions], but it depends on the development of that General Comment. It should be a document that is honed and appreciated by all. The processes that you go through should be so involving that in future there should not be obvious steps that you missed that someone would say 'we did not have an input'.

5. Civil society organisations play a key role in the CRC monitoring process, yet globally States are becoming more hostile towards their participation. How do you think this could impact the work of the Committee?

In this session, I have pushed the question of civil society participation more than anybody in the Committee. I have been asking States what is the law of governing civil society? And I do this more because of my directorship of the NGO in Uganda. I know of the love / hate relationship NGOs have [with the government], especially in developing countries. I know even in developed countries [there can a be a difficult relationship]. For example in the UPR [Universal Periodic Review], even the United States [government], who claim to be the champions of rights, have a love / hate relationship with NGOs. You can see that with Human Rights Watch, who are US based, the government is not happy with it.

States should have clear legislation on this and should not be telling NGOs they have to register every year. This is a real problem. Otherwise they [governments] can say this year we are not registering a particular NGO. I have really been questioning the relationship between NGOs and the State, and I really want clear legislation.

We [the Committee] should be raising and making recommendations [to States] on civil society participation. Because when we do make recommendations, the States often organise workshops. If [the issue of] NGO participation is in the Concluding Observations, NGOs can go to States with these recommendations.

6. Part of the Committee’s role will be to examine complaints submitted under the new Optional Protocol to the CRC. How do you think this will change children’s rights advocacy?

I don't know how it works in other treaty bodies, but a complaints mechanism brings the issues closer. As it is now, we are operating more on an institutional level: this measure should be in place, that measure should be in place. But suppose that measure is not in place, what do you do? Suppose there is a recommendation but a government keeps quiet, where is the policeman? So the individual complaints mechanism brings the issue nearer. The violation that has occurred to a particular child will be brought nearer and addressed more specifically. Once addressed, the States will pay more attention to the measures in place. So it is a step in the right direction.

7. The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the only UN treaty body that lacks a follow-up procedure. If you were to develop the procedure, what would it look like?

I [often] wonder why we have not developed one [a follow-up procedure for the CRC]. I think it is because for other treaty bodies, such as torture [the Committee against Torture], violations occur directly to a rights-holder, like someone is tortured for example. So it is easy to follow-up. The problem with the CRC is that the violation occurred to groups. Still, the initial stages have started, for example giving the Concluding Observations to stakeholders and drawing up action plans. We need to be more systematic. There should be a check-list or time-bound approach to what has been agreed [by States] to be implemented.

8. If you were appointed Chair and had to make one big change to how the Committee works, what would it be?

My experience of being Chair of Article 31 {has been very useful] as I have co-ordinated a number of experts from around the world (International Play Association, etc). So If I was to be Chair, I would think how could I raise consensus, [especially] in closed meetings. This is really important. In my work [as Chair] on Article 31, I really did it. So my first input would be how do I develop consensus in meetings, both closed and with States.

If I were to bring other changes, I would also think of how we could address the backlog of State reviews. We have gone back to the General Assembly to ask for double chambers, but I still believe there is a way we could increase the coverage.

I would also think about how we get the States to ratify the Optional Protocols. Because at the moment there is no institutional mechanism to remind them {States to ratify the Optional Protocols]. Or even informing NGOs, or UNICEF, to consult the State parties to consider ratifying.

9. If you could propose a new right in the CRC what would it be?

I have always been joking with my friend from Canada, when we talk about for example the Optional Protocol [on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography]. I have always told them this right doesn't exist in my part of the world [Uganda]. Then I say to them, if I were to introduce a new right, I would introduce a new Optional Protocol on child sacrifice. I was telling them it is a big thing in my part of the world. What I mean is that in my part of the world, people have a tendency of saying if you want to be rich, get a boy child of two years and cut the neck. I am talking about ritual killing. You know there is a lot of child sacrifice. So right now we are covering it under the right to life. Children are not there to be sacrificed. In Uganda, if you read the newspapers, every day there are two or three [cases of child sacrifice]. But I have not been thinking too much about new rights, I have been focusing on compliance of existing provisions.

10. Who has most inspired you in your work and why?

What has inspired me is the physical thing that has happened to children in my community [in Uganda], the suffering of the children and the helplessness, and then the State's attitude. So it's more from my environment, what I have seen in the past and again what I continue to see. But of course there are personalities in institutions who try their best that also inspire me.

11. What did you make of the Kony 2012 campaign? Do you think it had a positive or negative impact in tackling the issues in Northern Uganda?

Many of my friends have asked me about this, but I didn't actually see the video myself. I really don't think I am competent to comment on that because I need to have watched it.