The inescapable truth is that the people of northern Uganda, Teso, Sebei, and Bugisu did not invite the wars that devastated their homes, nor did they summon the rustlers who looted their herds. Families lost cattle, land, property, and, in many cases, their loved ones.
These losses are neither abstract nor equal; they are concrete, measurable, and profoundly unequal. Some families lost hundreds of head of cattle, while others lost only a few. Some lost homes, whereas others lost parents or siblings. Any policy that ignores this variation inevitably perpetuates injustice. While restocking is a development intervention, it is not restitution. Restitution acknowledges both moral and legal responsibility. Justice demands that losses be compensated proportionally before any broad rehabilitation programme is implemented. Otherwise, restocking risks becoming tokenistic, a cosmetic exercise that ignores decades of suffering. It is insufficient merely to provide livestock without recognising those who bore the brunt of neglect and violence. Successful examples from other countries show that compensation can work.
After World War II, Germany provided reparations to victims of Nazi persecution and to affected nations, acknowledging responsibility and offering material support. In South Africa, the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission combined financial reparations with education and health support, restoring dignity to victims of systemic oppression. Cambodia’s compensation programmes for survivors of the Khmer Rouge, alongside legal accountability is another example. These cases illustrate that justice and development are not mutually exclusive, but compensation must precede broader interventions. Furthermore, to restock without simultaneously addressing the root causes of ongoing cattle rustling is an exercise in futility. Livestock provided to vulnerable households can, and often will, be stolen if the cycle of raids remains unbroken.
Security reform, disarmament, and cross-community dialogue are indispensable prerequisites for effective rehabilitation. Without such measures, restocking is akin to fetching water in a basket: well-intentioned but ultimately wasted. The moral imperative for compensation is inseparable from practical considerations. Generations of children were denied schooling because their families could no longer afford fees after losing livestock. Many households plunged into poverty, and livelihoods were destroyed. Failing to compensate perpetuates economic inequities and undermines social stability. Genuine peace cannot be founded on silence or token interventions; it must rest upon truth, justice, and equitable recovery. Some critics might contend that full compensation is financially or logistically challenging.
While these concerns are legitimate, they do not absolve the government of its duty. A phased or prioritised compensation programme, targeting first households that suffered the greatest losses, is both morally and practically viable. Development interventions, including restocking, must be complementary rather than a substitute for justice. It is vital to emphasise proportionality, unlike a one-size-fits-all restocking exercise that treats unequal losses as equal, which is fundamentally unjust. A family that lost 200 cattle is not the same as one that lost five. Equitable compensation recognises this difference and aligns with justice and fairness. Moreover, it lays a foundation for lasting peace, for communities that perceive government action as fair are more likely to cooperate in rehabilitation efforts.
Germany, South Africa, Cambodia, and Bosnia demonstrate that acknowledging historical wrongs and compensating fairly can strengthen social cohesion and prevent cycles of conflict. Ultimately, the issue extends beyond cattle alone. It concerns the moral authority of the state and its credibility in peace and national cohesion. The government cannot credibly claim to rehabilitate communities while bypassing the victims of history. To do so risks deepening mistrust and resentment, undermining both reconciliation and security. For genuine peace to take root, compensation must come first. It constitutes recognition of historical wrongs, restoration of dignity, and a prerequisite for sustainable rehabilitation. Only thereafter should restocking and broader development follow. Anything less represents a half-measure that substitutes expedience for justice and risks perpetuating the cycle of loss.