In this section we turn to the arena of politics and policy, including the multiple actors and powers operating at and between different levels of the state hierarchy. It is an arena of formal and informal engagements and institutions where law, order, rights, investment, and accountability are navigated and argued over between different interests, between the two countries, and between the different levels of the administration. The pastoralists of Karamoja and Turkana do not have easy access to this space, yet community researchers argue that the problem of insecurity plays out here.

As the researchers moved from kraal to kraal and settlement to settlement up and down the border, returning three or more times to the same communities to give feedback, deepen the analysis and talk with community members, they alerted community leaders about upcoming opportunities for engagement with government, security agencies, and NGOs. In so doing they seeded community discussions and helped extend the community leaders’ analysis of the politics involved in finding solutions to the problems of crime, law, and order. In this section, we detail a series of events which gave understandings among the team members and community leaders. The community teams followed them in real time as participant observers, communicating findings and researching as they went. They spoke, listened, watched, and made and collected records. Two broad areas of policy are considered: the military disarmament programme and a cross-border agreement that approached security through the lens of natural resource sharing between the pastoralists of the two countries. The analysis illustrates the way in which these borderlands are governed, where and how trust does or does not operate, and how different interests navigate the spaces of power.

The twists and turns of disarmament 2022–23

A consultative meeting

On an afternoon in early November 2022, eight Karamojong community researchers went to the office of George Wapuwa, the Resident District Commissioner (RDC) of Moroto District in Uganda, to meet him and Brigadier General Joseph Balikudembe, Commander of the UPDF Third Infantry Division, which, as one newspaper puts it, ‘oversees Karamoja sub-Region’ (New Vision, 2020). Sitting in a small circle of chairs under the trees outside the RDC’s office, the team listened as the Brigadier General explained that there had been ‘a near exchange between armed Turkana [from Kenya] and the UPDF in Moroto’. He advised that the government planned to invite community leaders to a meeting the following week. The meeting would be held at Kobebe in Karamoja, beside a large dam around which Karamoja’s Matheniko, Bokora and Jie, and Turkana pastoralist herders had their kraals (mobile cattle camps) and temporary homesteads.

The following day, a letter from the RDC arrived at the offices of the Karamoja Development Forum, the NGO facilitating the community research on the Uganda side. The same letter went to several other NGOs working on peace in the sub-region. It announced the government’s intention to hold a consultative meeting to discuss the matter of guns with Turkana herdsmen (image on left). It noted that, despite a prohibition agreed with Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta in 2019, ‘most of the Turkana herdsmen are armed’. The letter invited the NGO peace partners to attend and requested help with refreshments.

Mzee Imana Echor, a Kenyan member of the community research team, Turkana community elder and ex-Member of Parliament, told the research team that he called the Brigadier General the following day. Balikudembe told him that he had invited the recently elected Governor of Kenya’s Turkana County to meet him at Moroto and they would then go on to meet the communities at Kobebe on 9 November. Imana travelled to Moroto in advance of the Kenya delegation. When the Turkana Governor swept into town on 8 November in his convoy of 15 cars, accompanied by the County Secretary and some 20 others, Imana took him aside at his hotel and advised that although the Government of Uganda want the Turkana to disarm, the Turkana would not be safe without their guns.

The community leaders gathered at Kobebe on the morning of 9 November at the appointed early hour and waited. They had agreed who would provide and slaughter bulls to provide the ritual welcome for the occasion. At last, at 3pm, the cars arrived and the RDC, MPs, Turkana County and Karamoja Sub-Regional staff, the Turkana Governor and the military men and women stepped under the shade of temporary awnings. Soft drinks provided by the NGOs were handed round. The formal introductions and protocols proceeded. Then, as the sun began to set, the Turkana County Commissioner rose to speak (Friends of Lake Turkana, 2022):

"I want to ask our Turkana: you have been hosted so that at least your animals can survive the drought, but instead you turn to crime while being assisted. The President of Uganda, His Excellency Yoweri Museveni, signed the MOU with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta. It allows Kenyans to bring their animals to graze in Uganda, but they should not come with guns. The Uganda Government is clearing the guns and then you come with them. Guns create confusion and tension, with raids and crime. We want to maintain good relations with our neighbours. Leave your guns behind with His Excellency the Turkana County Governor. If you are involved in crime, the law of Uganda will take care of you."

The Turkana County Governor, Hon. Jeremiah Lomorukai, then spoke. He drew attention to the friendship between the Presidents of Kenya and Uganda, noted that the Kenyan President was committed to ‘ending criminality and disarming all citizens with illegal guns’ (UPDF, 2022), and emphasised his role within the geopolitical relationship:

"Together as the leadership of Turkana County, as the leadership of Kenya, as leadership of East Africa and as leadership of Uganda, we are not going to entertain banditry and we are going to sign any document that discards that kind of activity. As the Governor for Turkana, mine is to marshal support for activities that will take us forward through provision of water, medical facilities, drugs for our livestock and other essential needs."

He went on to promise roads and dams that Kenya would build to assist in helping ‘the people of Ateker’ (Turkana, Karamojong, Jie and other associated groups), and referred again to the East African Community.

Kraal leader Ikale Akwaan, a respected Turkana herder responsible for the welfare of families and their herds of hundreds of cattle, stood to reply. With elegant diplomacy he thanked all the organisers of the meeting, then asked the Turkana governor to provide animal health services, and then went on to point out that he knew that animals stolen from him were being held by Karamojong in Kotido. It was a message that, in his case at least, it is not – or not only – Turkana who raid cattle. He went on to say:

"Karamoja pastoralists have not been fully disarmed. There are still illegal guns that terrorise the Turkana people. If I voluntarily give out my gun, all my animals will be taken because I will be defenceless. The government should look for a fair solution. You can see me as the one responsible for the peace we are enjoying in Kobebe."

Kraal leader Lotee Ekorikol stood to speak for the Karamoja pastoralists. The notes say that he spoke briefly because of time. He highlighted how conflict arises from misunderstandings between business traders from both Turkana and Karamoja communities. And then the meeting closed. The research team noticed the dissatisfaction of the community leaders present; they had not been given a chance to give their side of the story, no opportunity to make formal complaint regarding military abuses, too little time to discuss the matter amicably, and they had been offered no place at the decision-making table. One said that it would have been better if pastoralists were allowed to point out the problems before the delegation came up with their resolutions.

The bulls were not offered for the people to share, as the meeting had not met the criteria for a formal traditional decision-making gathering. Reflecting on it afterwards, Imana asked, ‘how can you call that a meeting? We were supposed to hear from Karamojong and Turkana and mediate a decision’. Another elder present described it thus:

"At the Kobebe event the Turkana had mobilised two cows to eat after the meeting when the government officials came. They introduced themselves: he is the MCA [Member of the Turkana County Assembly], he is the Governor. They showed their power. We didn’t hear anything of us. They had already gotten their own food. There was no resolution for the community. So, there was no bull killed for them. Everybody just walked out of the meeting. The meeting was a big mess." - Elder male researcher

A few days later, Ikale Akwaan’s kraals at Kobebe were raided by armed men. Six herds, about 170 cows, were stolen from under his protection. The animals were taken to Kaabong, a district to the north of Kobebe. The UPDF Divisional Commander mounted a military operation, ‘showing his power’ as one of the research leaders put it:

"'Peace is not the absence of crime, but how you deal with it. The divisional commander tracked the stolen cattle, found some exhibits, and rounded up a lot of herds. A few of the cows he rounded up may be those lost by Ikale Akwaan, but most were not. Some innocent person suffers, a few stolen cows are recovered, the others which are impounded are innocent cows and the owners usually lose them." - Research leader

What did the community researchers observe about the roles, interests, and powers of different actors at the Kobebe event? They pointed to the way in which local pastoralist leadership had been excluded from deliberation and they recorded how, later, the Turkana had been particularly bitter at the lack of concern for their safety and their need for water and grazing. The event was not a negotiation, but a performance in which the visible power of the state was set against the relative weakness of the people’s local leaders. The asymmetry was evident, accentuating the problem of mistrust between the state security institutions and the traditional institutions of the pastoralists.

"There was peace until this meeting at Kobebe, when our government officials and a delegation from Kenya ordered us pastoralists, especially the Turkana, to surrender guns or leave them behind before crossing to Uganda. A few weeks later our peaceful co-existence began to change. I blame the way our security officers are disarming pastoralists, especially our brothers from Kenya. When our soldiers are tipped off about possession of a firearm, they use force and violence and we Karamojong are also affected. When our soldiers cordon a homestead and drive away cows to compel the Turkana to surrender their guns, the Turkana think it is us that have tipped off the soldiers. The Turkana raid us in revenge and conflict escalates. Our government should ask the Turkana council of elders and their representatives to intervene." - Karamoja male trader

A high-level military meeting

On 20 February 2023, the Government of Uganda hosted a high-level joint military meeting in Moroto. The line-up was high powered. In attendance were Uganda’s Minister for Security, Jim Muhwezi, and General (Rtd) Caleb Akandwanaho (commonly known as General Salim Saleh), presidential adviser on defence and Chief Coordinator of Operation Wealth Creation. The Kenyan delegation was headed by Rebecca Miano, Cabinet Secretary for the East Africa Community, and the most senior military delegate was the Commander of the Kenya Army, Lieutenant General Peter Njiru. On the Ugandan military side was UPDF Commander of Land Forces Lieutenant General Kayanja Muhanga and Deputy Chief of Military Intelligence Colonel Abdul Rugumayo.

A joint communiqué issued at the end of the meeting appealed to the President of Uganda to exercise his Prerogative of Mercy in favour of nine Turkana herdsmen who had been arrested and imprisoned for possessing illegal arms. It went on to list many issues to be addressed to facilitate development, enhance peace, and strengthen security along the border between the two countries. Out of 13 issues listed in the communiqué, four touched on law and order and the administration of criminal justice with regard to cattle raids, six on the implementation of a cross-border MoU signed between the two countries in 2019 (UNDP, 2019), and three on coordination of security arrangements between them. While at first it seemed to align with the everyday peace desired by communities, a closer look showed that the communiqué was heavily tilted towards military concerns. Communities did not feature in the communiqué other than as beneficiaries of state interventions. Neither their institutions nor the social and cultural relations that are an integral part of interactions between the Turkana and Karamojong were mentioned.

A cordon and search operation

In the months that followed, some Turkana moved away from Kobebe, deeper into Karamoja, and held meetings with Matheniko, Jie and Bokora kraal leaders. Many others moved back across the border into Kenya, even though there was almost no grazing and water on the Kenya side at this stage of the dry season. Turkana Kraal leaders held a series of anxious meetings at sites close to the Uganda border and discussed what to do. The Turkana County Government and the local Members of Parliament began to engage vigorously, encouraging the pastoralists to abandon hope of returning to graze in Uganda and to consider moving to Turkana South and East instead. Kraal leaders, women’s leaders and elders considered the idea and sent emissaries to the south and east. They found that it would not work as there was not enough grazing or water.

Meanwhile, the disarmament campaign was also proceeding apace. On 8 April 2023 there was a cordon and search operation at Lokeriaut, 50 kilometres from Moroto, where Turkana were encamped in a protected kraal with Matheniko herders. By many accounts it was a violent event. Five children and a woman were hospitalised with bullet wounds. UPDF social media posted a message reporting the successful operation (image on right). Three days later, 32 pastoralists, most of whom were Kenyan citizens, came up before a courtmartial convened at Moroto and each was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison under anti-terrorism laws. The harsh sentences generated a buzz of media coverage across Kenya and mobilised Kenyan politicians to call on the Government of Kenya to intervene. It was not long before the issue dropped off the front pages, however. Meanwhile the herders were in despair.

"We had relative peace, sharing grasses and water until the soldiers attacked the kraals, throwing bombs randomly, displacing and killing everyone including livestock near Lokeriaut." - Karamoja male herder

A government official from the home area of many of the convicted Turkana compiled a report based on interviews with people who had been present. He ended with a plea:

"The Turkana and Matheniko have common cultural ties. They have lived together and seem to understand each other better. The countries where pastoralist live have rules and regulations to be followed. Whether people are safe while following restrictions is a question that begs for answers. A long-lasting solution needs to be found for peaceful coexistence as all aspire to promote their traditional livelihoods. It is true to say some decisions may destroy the existing peace dividends achieved. There is still room to live in harmony." - Lokorikeju Titus Ekiru, Sub-County Administrator, Loima, Kenya

The operation at Lokeriaut is not unique but, coming at a time when the community researchers and local community leaders were feeling relatively optimistic about finding new solutions, it provided a harsh reminder of the power of the armed forces to dictate the terms of governance affecting both Karamoja and Turkana.

The Executive Order

A month later, on 19 May, President Museveni of Uganda issued Executive Order no 3 of 2023. Even though the legality of the directive was questioned by legal counsel in Kampala, this was refuted by Uganda’s Attorney General, who said, ‘The Executive Order was issued to the [political] executives to ensure it [nomadism] does not happen; so there is nothing unconstitutional about it’ (Samilu, 2023). In the Order, the President connected the bringing of arms into the country with the charge of terrorism. The Order required resolution of the murder of a team of geologists who were killed near the border apparently by Turkana raiders, through ‘blood settlement’ (compensation), and gave the Turkana population six months to implement the directives, the failure of which would result in expulsion of ‘all the Kenyan Turkanas and their cattle’ in perpetuity. There was consternation among the pastoralists on both sides. Although the text of the Order mentioned shortcomings in military, police, and justice institutions, it gave no directives on addressing these problems. Instead, it only gave orders for containing communities, particularly the armed Turkana from Kenya.

"The Executive Order is guided by one-sided information given to the President. In the spirit of the East African Community, we are one people, the Ateker, and the only devil spoiling us is the raiding and killing. For us, even before going to government, we should really be able to do something at our level. It should be the Karamojong saying, no, no, no, do not chase our brothers and sisters! And likewise, for the people of Turkana. Our leaders of Ateker should say, ‘Mr President, this is too much.’ They should de-escalate the situation. The Executive Order gives powerful mandates to security forces. They have powers to do anything. But they should know that in law you are innocent until proven guilty." - Female herder, Karamoja

Turkana pastoralists, now back in Turkana County and suffering the drought there, were very worried.

Our government is slow in acting towards sensitive things and that is why our problems keep on growing. … Why is Uganda mistreating us and our government is quiet? The researchers read us the Executive Order from Museveni. The letter tells us we are no longer required in that country. If we are not going to take our animals to Uganda where they have been grazing for years, better you leave us to die. The Government of Kenya, especially the current one, has failed us terribly. We are in deep fear in our hearts, we have sleepless nights because of what has happened to our people in Uganda.

This latest phase in the disarmament campaign struck the communities a hard blow, particularly the Turkana. But even Karamoja communities were distressed – they reported more incidents of herders being shot, as they might have had a gun, and they felt endangered by the anti-nomadic sentiments of the Executive Order. While kraal leaders on both sides of the border had a clearer understanding of the actions of the two states and the political processes at play, these events helped undermine the confidence generated by the research. On the one hand, the research process was stimulating new levels of engagement, on the other, the Order and the imprisonments were driving a wedge between Turkana and Karamoja. Pastoralists disagreed about how to respond, and their respective political representatives cast blame on communities on the other side of the border. The Turkana County Governor encouraged the Turkana to stay in Turkana despite the lack of grazing.

An administrative solution? The Cross-Border Resource Sharing Agreement

Immediately after the disarmament meeting in Moroto in February 2023, a Turkana County delegation, senior Karamoja administrators and Members of Parliament and high-ranking members of the security forces from Kenya and Uganda met to draft a Cross-Border Resource Sharing Agreement that would outline the routes, maps, and modalities of natural resource sharing between Karamoja, Turkana and Pokot pastoralists moving across the border. General Akandwanaho (Salim Saleh) was in the lead and encouraged the assembled officials to ‘shift the overreliance on pastoralism as a source of livelihood and explore the economic potential of the region through cross-border trade and exploitation of minerals’ (KNA, 2023). The meeting did not include any direct representation of the communities.⁵

The pastoralists were encouraged, however. A wellarticulated and well-managed resource sharing agreement could do much to improve conditions on both sides of the border if it helped improve trust. When the General invited the Director of the Karamoja Development Forum, Simon Long’oli, to lead a civil society group to provide background documentation, Simon accepted with enthusiasm. Simon, who is the Uganda leader of the research team, formed and led a working group to provide technical information to inform the clauses of the agreement. The community researchers saw this as an opportunity to improve the agreement through realistic understandings. But Simon was given very little time – not enough to go to communities in a systematic way. While he was able to incorporate findings from the community research into the text of the background document, few of his written and verbal contributions made their way into the agreement itself.

On his advice, the government drafters proposed that the agreement should be discussed by communities before it was signed. It wasn’t clear what right they might have to make amendments, however. Allotted time allowed for only three community events, one for each of the major groups Karamojong, Turkana, and Pokot. When the researchers informed community members of this consultation process, most felt that that it would be a waste of time. They argued that the conversation should have started concurrently from the communities and their governments, and inputs from community members and their leaders (women, elders, and youth) should have informed the deliberations by the military, security and political elite gathered in Moroto. In the event, only one consultative meeting took place: the others were interrupted by the disarmament process.

Even though the agreement was presented as a mechanism for enabling the sharing of resources between the two cross-border pastoral communities, it was also shaped by the security priorities of the two states. For Uganda government, the main concern was to avoid reversals in the gains of disarmament of the past two decades; the Kenya government was keen to control incursions on its borders as well as promoting the mobility of Kenyan pastoralists into Karamoja, given the impacts of the droughts that have ravaged Kenya for going on four years.

The involvement of the Commander of Uganda’s Land Forces and the Commander of the Kenyan Defence Forces, the presence of General Akandwanaho, and fact that the Uganda delegation was led by the Minister for Internal Security all point to the security imperative for both governments even in the resource-sharing discussions. The focus on resource sharing also highlights an investment imperative: for Uganda, the quest to create an enabling environment for the exploitation of the mineral resource wealth of Karamoja and a dream of an agricultural breadbasket; and for Kenya, the exploitation of energy wealth in Turkana (Mutaizibwa, 2022). General Akandwanaho’s role as Chief Coordinator of Operation Wealth Creation emphasises this agenda (Sserunkuma, 2023; Taylor, 2022). Whether or not the General has personal business interests in the mining sector in Karamoja as some of his detractors claim, the Ugandan government has been keen to issues licences for mining and other industrial land uses on land previously considered by pastoralists to be held in trust for their communities. The national security and economic interests at play mean that community interests and priorities compete with other local, national, regional, and even global interests.

Pastoralist leaders were sanguine, recognising the forces at play and looking for opportunities for influence. The team members who interacted with General Akandwanaho felt that he understood community arguments about the unique needs of pastoralism, the importance of mobility, and the need to secure the practice going forward. They described the way he reacted to the letter addressed to him by President Museveni when he was initiating the technical process of negotiating the Resource Sharing Agreement. The letter, dated 3 March 2023, asserts that the strategic goal of the National Movement (Uganda’s ruling party) in Karamoja is ‘to end nomadism and subsistence, traditional cattle keeping and build a settled society based on commercial agriculture of cattle (ranching and dairy), crops, minerals and factories based on value addition to crops and minerals’. The General, while acknowledging the President’s guidance, was clear that those were the President’s views, and he looked forward to hearing from the participants what they thought was feasible and appropriate. Whether the General will be able to persuade the President about a different trajectory for the future of Karamoja and its borderlands is another question. Experience to date suggests that NGO enthusiasm for putting the point of view of pastoralists seldom translates into influence. The research showed that pastoralists also viewed the NGO role with scepticism. Well intentioned as it may be, it was keeping pastoralists away from the table and displacing their opportunities to present their own analysis and proposals.

Couched in language that suggests that the agreement is for the benefit of the pastoral communities of Karamoja and Turkana, the absence of organised community representation in its negotiation seems a missed opportunity. Who among those involved in the process were representing the two communities? The elected leaders who were present? Pastoralists leaders argued that their MPs had failed to represent their reality, respond to their concerns, or argue for community participation in delivering solutions.

The agreement attributes cross-border mobility to climate change, citing ‘the current situation in which climate change and its adverse effects in the region, has necessitated involuntary migration of herders and their livestock among the people of Karamoja, Turkana and West Pokot in search of pasture and water’ [authors’ italics]. Rainfall in Turkana and Karamoja has long been low and variable from year to year and place to place. There is no month in either territory when rainfall exceeds evaporation potential. Its scarcity and variability are the reasons why pastoralism is the dominant mode of production, and it is why agreements to share access to grazing and water between different territories and in safety are so important. The extensive grazing system involves mobility across often large distances, a way of production that requires security arrangements to be largely maintained by herders themselves. The evidence from the community research and from satellite data analysis (see East Africa Appendix 1) is that while there has been an increase in the frequency and extent of mobility in response to changing rainfall patterns, seasonal mobility has always been an aspect of pastoralism in this cross-border area. Thus, according to the communities, climate change is not causing pastoralist mobility, but is causing it to change.

The agreement indicates that the state parties may commit ‘to provide for urgent and transitional arrangements for free, safe and orderly movement for a period of 15 years’. The presumption here, judging from the vision articulated by President Museveni in his letter to the General, is that at the end of this period, the pastoralism practised in the region will have transformed into commercial agriculture and there will no longer be any need for mobility. The pastoralists do not agree, and their position is backed by considerable research on rangeland ecology, pastoralism, and pastoralist mobility (Catley et al., 2013; Scoones, 1996; Krätli, 2022; FAO, 2022). While they are keen to see transformation in their livelihoods and economy, and to benefit from modern technologies of production, the many hundreds of people met during this research in communities on both sides of the border yearn for an approach to development that is grounded in their rights as citizens and respect for their culture, indigenous knowledge, and institutions.

Unlike Uganda, Kenya recognises pastoralism as a legitimate production and livelihood system and has integrated imperatives to support it in a wide range of policies and laws, including the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Kenya Vision 2030, the National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands, the National Land Policy, and the Community Land Act. Communities on the Kenya side hope that their country will not sign up to an agreement that is founded on a narrative of pastoralism being a backward practice that should be eradicated.

While there is no denying that the issues of security and mobility in the communiqué and the draft agreement are relevant to communities, the community research suggests that the agreement would look different if community voice and institutions were put centre stage. Their explanation of how insecurity works in the cross-border areas should have been key to the construction of the agreement’s provisions. Some of the provisions run the risk of contravening international human rights norms and even national laws and policies, others are based on a flawed understanding of transhumance, while many of them have nothing to do with, or may undermine, the sharing of pastoral resources between the two communities (see Table 1).

A year after they were scheduled, two of the three community consultations had yet to take place. It may be that the agreement was ‘put on the back burner’ as one commentator put it when disarmament events we described above (the Lokeriaut Cordon and Search and the President of Uganda’s Executive Order) interceded to create difficulties between the two nations, their respective administrations and the pastoralist communities. It is also likely that the draft is with the relevant ministries at national and sub-national level of both states, where it must patiently navigate the technicalities of policy rather than the easy rhetoric of political announcement.

Table 1: Examples of provisions problematic to pastoralists

Pastoralist navigation of the policy space

A political leaders’ meeting and a kraal leaders’ meeting

In May 2023, the Karamoja Development Forum convened a Political Leaders’ Meeting in Moroto. The same month, there was a meeting at Lokiriama among Turkana kraal leaders convened with the assistance of FOLT. Each speaks to the communities’ growing willingness to engage in concerted negotiation to seek and agree solutions with the state.

The political leaders’ meeting in Moroto brought together some 45 political/administrative leaders from Turkana and Karamoja to hear the research evidence and debate new ways forward. Participants included the Ugandan Minister of State for Minerals and Energy, and senior members of the Turkana County executive and MPs from either side. Pastoralist community leaders joined the research team and presented a coherent analysis of the interlocking insecurities. They argued that their exclusion from decision making has been fundamental in the failure of every initiative to improve the situation. The quality of their evidence and the confidence of their analysis sparked a different kind of discussion. The assembled administrators, politicians and soldiers slipped effortlessly into a different way of talking. For once, they did not blame the pastoralists and their provocative mobility for the insecurity. Instead, they frankly admitted problems of military over-reach, administrative corruption, and failures of justice and policing, in creating fertile conditions for insecurity and violence. Minister of State Lokeris said: ‘If you read this report the children [the community research team] have written you will find everything is here... they are doing a very good job. Now all over we must all work together.’ It is a small advance, easily lost if the pressure is not sustained by the community leaders, but it is nonetheless important and builds some confidence inside the community. It may also build confidence of government and others in the ability of community leaders to offer useful and reasonable contributions.

"Disarmament has not restored security. Disarmed communities are not able to defend themselves. Politicians from Kenya should have a look at the policies, legal frameworks and justice systems surrounding firearms. We must create peace for our people, and the ones who are stubborn shall be held accountable by the security forces." - Minister of State Lokeris

"It was a surprisingly frank conversation. It was agreed that security, weapons, traders and raiders are killing us, and it is only teamwork that will end it." - Research leader

Not long afterwards, 35 Turkana kraal and other pastoralist leaders gathered on the Kenya side of the border at Lokiriama. They heard the findings of this research. They also shared their perspectives on what they should do next and, after lengthy discussion, agreed that despite the Governor’s exhortations, it would be madness to migrate to the south of Turkana County. There was no free grazing or water, and insecurity on the southern border of the county was intense. So, they agreed among the different Turkana sections present that they would, as far as they were able, comply with the Executive Order. They would navigate and negotiate. They would collectively find the resources required for compensation to the families of those the Order mentioned.

The people’s wish for the kind of peaceful existence that they should enjoy as citizens is not reflected in the content or approach to policy. In the description of these two major policy areas, we see how power is distributed asymmetrically within the policy space. Community leaders did their best to take advantage of the policy opportunities using the research and connections with civil society actors to get heard, but their power was limited. Pastoralists are sometimes consulted, but their perspectives and suggestions are never pivotal. To increase their influence, pastoralists have realised a need to rebuild their fragmented institutions and reformulate their ability to navigate and their power to negotiate. Therefore, the question we turn to in the final section is how a system so interlocked, and so built on foundations of violence that stretch far back in time, can change.

Footnotes

⁵ The list of participants is confusing about the nature of the meeting(s). The list is on headed paper of Operation Wealth Creation, and the meeting title is indicated as ‘CC-OWC & SPA-D Joint Security Meeting at Hotel Africana, Moroto District, 20 Feb 23.’