Address underlying issues  of Acholi-Balaalo stalemate

For several months President Museveni has been faced with what looks like an impossible dilemma: how to restore a measure of deterrence between the feuding Acholi and Balaalo herdsmen. After initially having cast the dice in favour of the former with the issuance of Executive Order Number Three on May 19, Uganda’s elder statesman last week took a middle-of-the-road position with his pitch for coexistence.

Before that, President Museveni had, if not shifted goalposts, a change of heart as evidenced in the commissioning of a verification committee back in July. The committee was tasked with establishing the circumstances under which the nomadic Balaalo herdsmen pitched camp in Acholi Sub-region.. 

Under the tutelage of Prof Jack Nyeko Pen-Mogi, the acting chairman of the Uganda Land Commission, the committee was also expected to untangle what informed the impunity that the settlers seem to enjoy while lording it over natives. 

READ: Museveni, Saleh differ on Balaalo eviction in Acholi

Yet his committee discharged its duties with great distinction. Vignettes it captured sketched a picture of a sense of entitlement amongst settlers whose connections to influential people rendered any interventions from the security apparatus on the ground useless.
We understand where Mr Museveni is coming from with his need to demonstrate a keen eye for coexistence. In a sense, his position that is only retributive to settlers proven to have committed crimes dials back the simmering tensions. But only just. 

The delicate balance the President is desirous of certainly cannot lay claim to offering something of a lasting solution. Sooner rather than later this strategic ambiguity will be exposed for what it is—hot air with no liftoff.

Above all is the emergence of a haunting recognition of how differently things could have played out if we had a strong civil society. Empirical evidence points to the fact that civil society organisations (CSOs) are best placed to hit the bullseye in alternative dispute resolutions.

 Especially those around land conflicts. This is in part because—unlike other branches of the government—CSOs come into disputes from what can largely be construed as an impartial stance.  Unfortunately, the architecture of CSOs in the country has been dismantled. In doing so, the current status quo has, perhaps unintentionally but not unsuccessfully, shorn affected parties of a dispute resolution spectrum that counts negotiation, mediation, neutral evaluation, conciliation, ‘pressured’ conciliation, and arbitration as handy options.

With CSOs weakened to the point that they cannot adequately act as a bridge between the formal litigation channels and informal traditional justice options, it has been left to the president to cast the dice. We believe this should not be the case. 

Mr Museveni ought not to intervene in anything and everything. Other pillars in society like the CSOs and independent media should be empowered to help citizens make smart decisions. Short of that, the president’s in-tray will continue to show no signs of emptying.