My 2013 Diary: Eventful Month in Gulu, Uganda

September 2013:

I spent a better part of my time at my office at the Refugee Law Project in Gulu where I was based, researching and reviewing reports of various projects including the Advisory Consortium on Conflict Sensitivity Project (ACCS) and the Beyond Juba Project (BJP) II. I also attended several other meetings in and outside the office including the Gulu Local Government Council meeting,  which was held at the Council Chambers. Along with other informal meetings, these forums gave me a chance to learn more about the work of different actors in Gulu and how they are addressing issues and challenges facing the northern Uganda communities. Further, I was able to meet and network with different people.

Here are reflections on the month.

Weekly Staff Meeting: Improving Communication and Collaboration at RPL

As a new member of the team at RPL, I was excited to attend my first general staff meeting. The meeting was part of our weekly planning and review process, where staff members provide updates on their activities and share their plans for the coming week. This is a crucial part of our work, as it allows us to stay on track and ensure that everyone is working towards our shared goals.

Unfortunately, previous meetings had not been successful due to a lack of attendance or engagement. Since the Kampala office (HQ) required that staff hold these meetings weekly and regularly, it became necessary that we found a way to make them work.

During the meeting, I gained new insights into the organizational structure and management of RPL. It became clear that no one staff member in Gulu was entirely in charge of the regional office. Instead, the office was composed of six staff members, including project officers, administrative staff, a guard, and a driver. The head of the program was based in Kampala, where he made decisions and coordinated staff issues and program activities. All field staff reported to him.

At the first meeting, I noted that no one was willing to chair the meeting, so I offered to take on the role. I discovered that since no one had been specifically assigned to the Gulu regional office, no one felt responsible for organizing or leading such meetings, In subsequent meetings, I offered to organize and lead the sessions.

One issue we faced was a lack of willingness to share work plans. I recognized this and took the initiative to propose a solution. I suggested creating a standard template for weekly and quarterly work plans that could be consolidated into one plan and shared with everyone. This idea was well-received and successfully implemented.

To further improve communication and teamwork, I proposed weekly meetings that would be coordinated by me, but with a rotating chair to give each staff member a chance to lead. With someone to remind and organize others, these meetings were a success.

Finally, I noticed that staff members were participating in a merry-go-round initiative where they contributed money to support each other. While this was a kind gesture, I suggested a more effective approach: adopting a Savings Internal Lending Communities (SILC) system. This system allows members to accumulate savings and borrow at a predetermined interest rate and term. Although they did not fully adopt this approach, they were willing to try it, and I offered to train them on it.

My efforts to improve office culture and collaboration seemed to have worked and I am glad it helped enhance teamwork and productivity.

 Meeting with the NUMEC

I accompanied Stephen Oola, the RPL’s Head of Program (HoP), and other staff at a meeting with the Northern Uganda Media Council (NUMEC) to discuss ideas on how to help improve the ongoing RPL radio program on conflict sensitivity in Northern Uganda. NUMEC is an independent media organization that is run by journalists and media professionals working in the conflict-affected region of northern Uganda. Its main mission is to “Integrate the critical role of media and communication into the strategic objectives of actors and stakeholders in northern Uganda’ and other parts of Uganda” with the objective of empowering the local communities through adequate and reliable information on programs and development, enhancing peace, justice, accountability and good governance.

The meeting was part of an evaluation exercise that had been requested by DFID, the project donor, after the end of the first phase of the Advisory Consortium on Conflict Sensitivity Project (ACCSP), which began in 2010. The evaluation was meant to help identify key strengths and weaknesses of the project with the view to strengthening the next phase.

This meeting was attended by many participants from the media fraternity (radio, newspapers, and Television), most of the professionals who had extensively written and researched the Northern Uganda conflict.

From the meeting, it emerged that the RPL radio programs were effective but needed to refocus their content and consolidate their operations so as to create a greater impact in the community. The Radio Mega talk show program was singled out as the most effective because it has a larger listenership base and has recently generated a lot of responses from the listeners. It was the opinion of NUMEC that this component is further strengthened. However, RPL needed to do away with the program aired on the Radio Rupiny. This, according to NUMEC has had less impact since it is aired late at night (off-pick hours) and is less provocative.

A proposal to train more NUMEC media practitioners in conflict sensitivity and peace journalism, as part of capacity building for journalists was put forward. This was aimed at ensuring reporters report accurately, effectively, and in a non-partisan way on issues of peace and conflict in northern Uganda. NUMEC and RPL ate currently collaborating and involved in media and communication training for government officials and civil society organizations to promote effective engagement. It was clear that this engagement was crucial to bridging the interests and agendas of different actors, especially at a time when the Ugandan media had been praised to have strongly advocated for regime's accountability and openness in Uganda. This is the space that RPL ought to utilize more. I however feel that the media has continued to print articles on corrupt government officials only, ignoring other areas that need greater attention such as the local peace initiatives and continued instability in the North as well as areas in the North-east where continued human rights abuses by the regime continue to happen unabated.

Students’ Forum on Constitutionalism Gulu University

This was a forum in that RPL had been invited as part of the wider network of working with the CSO to advocate for constitutionalism and to get students' engagement in the national processes. For a long time now the youth and especially University students have not been on the frontline in participating in the issues and have felt marginalized. This was part of that process to give students a chance

There is a strong feeling among Ugandans that since the promulgation of the country’s constitution in 1995, political elites have taken advantage of the ignorant masses to derail the full implementation of the constitution to their own advantage. The result has been many crimes have been committed with impunity,- and without regard to the constitution. According to the event organizers, the current regime is undermining the spirit and the later of the constitution. And the youth is seen as having a critical role to play in bringing about the change.

My observation of this symposium was that students were not convinced that there was a way out of the current situation in Uganda. In a country where the president has ruled for 27 years, and where many people have lost hope in good governance apathy and hopelessness are quite visible even among students. Even though the speaker spoke candidly and persuasively about the need for change, identifying challenges and the state of the current affairs, few seemed to agree that it is possible to remove the current dictatorial regime.

This begs the question of whether this was a better and more appropriate way to encourage change. Could the speaker have been more tactful in his approach? In my view, the choice of the speaker was wrong in the first place. He is an opposition leader, from Northern Uganda and has been fronted by his party to vie for the presidency in 2016. Secondly, as an Acholi politician, many non-Acholis students saw him as a representative of the wider Acholi whose agenda is to recapture Uganda leadership by overthrowing the current regime. This automatically created a rift and created a bias. I thought' the organizers of this event needed to have better-analyzed issues much deeper and be more sensitive to the needs and views of the diverse students' population. To assume that all the students supported regime change was a mistake. Many students thought the speaker was biased and was advancing the views of his party, simply because he has offered himself a leadership position. That’s why the students reacted differently. Some non-Acholi students seemed to have been particularly offended by the Speakers’ constant attack to the president and the ruling party.

In my view, the organizers needed to consider inviting a neutral person as the speaker to avoid creating a negative perception among the students who hold different views. It is common that a politician of that caliber will be biased toward the ideologies and views of his party. The presentation needed to lay out a balanced view of issues affecting Ugandan people and let the students make their own decisions instead of advocating for a particular political position. Some of the questions that the students raised questioned whether regime change was necessary and gave examples of events in Libya, Tunisia, and now Egypt.

 Special Council Session of Gulu District Local Government

 The Special Council Session of Gulu District Local Government was an invitation that was made as part of a partnership arrangement between the RPL and the GDLG. RPL has worked closely with the GDLG as a key development partner by virtue of its support of the program to strengthen governance and accountability initiatives in the District.

 For the last two years, GDLG was rated the best performing Local Government in Uganda for two consecutive years. This achievement was said to have been rated through the so-called “Independent Local Government Score Card Initiative (LGSCI).”

 In view of this excellent performance, the Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) and the Uganda Local Government Association (ULGA) organized a Peer-Peer Learning visit to Mbarara District (in Western Uganda) to Gulu District to share some of the lessons. This was fronted under the banner: “Strengthening Citizens’ demand for good governance and effectiveness in the delivery of Public Services delivery as well as boosting the professionalization and performance of Local Government Councilors and technocrats.”

 Through this invitation, I was privileged to attend the session’s peer-peer learning session where governance and accountability issues were discussed. I also attended the afternoon Special Council meeting. There were other sessions as well: Business Forums, the relationship between the District and the Municipality, and a field trip to communities.

The Peer-Peer learning session was particularly beneficial as I was able to learn more from the exchange of ideas between the participants of the two districts. The session provided a platform where both Local Governments recognized their learning needs as they went deeper into discussing and understanding their issues through the informal learning session while fostering their professional and personal growth.

I was personally impressed by this initiative that had been taken by both Councils which put greater value on peer-peer learning. Participants utilized and shared their own experiences-, while addressing “real” issues and challenges affecting their Districts. This seemed not only cost-effective but also versatile, given the group involved.

The afternoon Special Council session was aired “live” on Radio Mega, and this enabled the wider community to learn and provide feedback, with some of whom have been through similar experiences, and shared similar responsibilities.

An important lesson for me was this kind of learning needed to be encouraged. Having colleagues in such a group setting can be an effective way to stimulate understanding of issues, and implement solutions to on-the-job challenges.

A few years ago, I participated in a similar initiative where I designed and implemented a peer-peer learning program for peace animators in my former organization (CRS). The program was called people-to-people tours. This program enabled communities affected by conflict to tour other parts of the country, to meet and talk to people undergoing similar situations so that they can learn and exchange ideas on how best they can improve their own. We worked hard to ensure the individuals involved got to know one another so that whatever issues were discussed could be addressed at a deeper level. However, cultivating this genuine understanding was hard. We had hoped that it would break down barriers between groups and allows them to work together.  But the programs were never successful. They attracted a lot of criticism because they were designed by us and not from the perspective of the participants engaged in the process. The results were it created unwillingness on the part of participants to engage.

For this particular group, I saw an enormous potential for networking with colleagues from across the country. I found the learning team meetings extremely valuable with such a rich exchange of ideas and sharing of problems, challenges, successes, and best practices. The benefit of such peer dialogue is immeasurable.

Acholi War Debt Claimants

During the month I met another group of war victims calling themselves the Acholi War Debt Claimants Association as part of my documentation for RPL’s BJP II work on reparations for Northern Uganda war victims. This particular group meets daily outside the offices of the Gulu District Local Government Representative to pursue their claims for some misappropriated amount of money that was paid by the Ugandan government to them as part of compensation for the animals they lost as a result of the insurgency in the region.

Since 2006 the Acholi War Debt Claimants Association, with more than 20,000 members has battled with the government until 2007 when the government agreed to the compensation through an out-of-court negotiation. The Association was set to be paid Shs12.1 billion but has since been paid 5 billion but the executives of the Association are said to have mismanaged the funds amounting to UShs 130 million. According to one of the members, three executive members in Gulu allocated themselves Shs25 million each, leaving claimants in a dilemma.

This Association is an example of the many struggles that communities here in Northern Uganda are going through as they try to rebuild their lives. Even as organizations continue to pressure the government for reparation for the victim bigger questions on how best to manage subsequent challenges such as corruption continue to create a dilemma for such programs.

 Opportunities for Networking

Over the month I was able to visit the offices of Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) in Gulu town. This is a British volunteer organization that I once was part of in the Philippines for two years. It was an exciting moment to get to meet new phases, not listen to and learn about their experiences in Northern Uganda.

 Most of those I met were British, Irish, and Canadian nationals. However, many have served in various parts of the world as professionals and it was great connecting up with them. I met a volunteer who once worked in Mindanao, Philippines, where I was based.

 Face-to-face with a former LRA fighter

One evening I decided to take a ride on a Boda Boda (Commercial motorcycles commonly used in Gulu, Uganda, and East Africa in general) on my way home from work. I had been told before that majority of its riders were former LRA child soldiers or abductees. Due to the prolonged period, they spent in the bush fighting they were unable to attend school and so most lacked education and essential skills. 

As we went, he chatted he told me how he was forced by the rebels to kill his parents and siblings. He has since returned from captivity and lives a life of destitute life with no one to look up to. All his relatives are also dead except for an aunt who lives in a neighboring district. I could not hold but sympathize with him and hope that his life would one day be rebuilt.

He told me that when he returned, he first faced a lot of rejection from members of the community who wanted to kill him. At that point, he wanted to take away his life. He was only lucky when he received assistance from an NGO he did not name and churches have tried to organize funds to help rehabilitate them and give them skills. 

The major challenge I find in this context is how both the government and the CSOs are struggling to get back the communities to regain back their lives. There are many questions about this. How do communities emerging out of war cope and tackle its aftermath? What kind of future should be envisaged?

It is clear that life has changed so much for the Northern Uganda communities since the war. Some rural folks moved to town and have adopted a new lifestyle. A Myriad of social problems has emerged. NGOs have brought in a new culture- even though there are noticeable positive impacts, where the culture of dependency is rife (affected even the elites). Most are dependent on the daily allowance provided by the NGOs-, and portray communities are vulnerable and unable to provide for themselves. Communities have taken up new conflicts—rampant land disputes that have become a potential conflict trigger.

Thoughts on Strategic Peacebuilding

Since the war erupted more than two decades ago, Northern Uganda seems to have attracted tones of local and international NGOs. Even though some have closed down and left since the war ended in 2006, those that are still operating seem to do the same thing and duplicating efforts.

No conscious effort to coordinate activities is taking place nor a particular effort to seek complementarily. For example, organization source funding individually and works on programs that attract donors' attention. 

Many NGOs are also working around the same issues and funding sources are the same. Important questions to consider: What if the funding is over? Will the donors continue to give funds?

 Again, little efforts seem to go towards preventing the reoccurrence of conflict. Many are blaming the LRA leader, Joseph Kony for the atrocities committed during the war. How about those that were committed by the government forces? There are also complaints about the government being not transparent and autocratic—some thoughts!