The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Tororo City: A neutral ground or a new battleground in disguise?
COMMENT | REGINA ASINDE | President Yoweri Museveni’s proposal this week to resolve the decades-long dispute between the Jopadhola and Iteso communities in current Tororo district, might seem like a long-awaited compromise. The plan is to elevate Tororo Municipality to city status and declare it a neutral administrative unit, while creating three new districts—two for the Japadhola and one for the Iteso.
At first glance, this seems like a balanced deal. But beneath the surface, this “solution” is more likely to become a new battleground in disguise.
For years, despite historical grievances and underlying tensions, the Jopadhola and Iteso have coexisted in Tororo with some semblance of unity. They have shared schools, markets, places of worship, and public services under one municipal administration. They inter-married, and have children who can speak both languages. That fragile coexistence, though not perfect, offered space for interdependence and mutual understanding.
Now, this new administrative division risks hardening ethnic boundaries — turning what was once a shared space into contested terrain. The very idea of a “neutral city” raises more questions than it answers. Who will govern Tororo City? How will power be shared? Who will benefit from its resources? If the city council, service delivery agencies, or investment decisions favor one group over another, tensions could flare up again — only this time, with a new administrative cover.
Worse still, by creating new districts along ethnic lines, the proposal may entrench the notion that different ethnic communities cannot coexist peacefully. Instead of fostering integration, this division risks normalizing administrative ethnic separation as a model for conflict resolution. It’s a short-term fix that could have long-term consequences.
Let’s also not forget the symbolic weight of the name “Tororo”. For the Jopadhola, it is deeply tied to their cultural heritage and identity. For the Iteso, it represents a growing urban center where they also have deep roots.
Declaring the city “neutral” without addressing this symbolic ownership is unlikely to remove the emotional attachment both sides feel. If anything, it creates more fertile ground for future disputes over who truly belongs.
Ultimately, the idea of neutrality without trust, shared governance, and meaningful dialogue is just a shell. It risks becoming another front for a contest over identity, access, and recognition.
Instead of redrawing boundaries to separate people, efforts should be made to bring them closer through inclusive governance structures, civic dialogue, and shared development goals. The focus should be on what unites us—not what separates us.
Tororo doesn’t need a neutral label. It needs bold leadership that can foster unity in diversity, not silent segregation. The city may keep its name, but if we don’t tread carefully, we might lose its soul.
This isn’t just about administrative restructuring. It’s about the future of coexistence in Uganda.
****
The author is the Country Director of LERWA–Land and Environmental Rights Watch Africa Ltd, an author, and a community organiser with experience in human rights advocacy. She works at the intersection of land, environment, and social justice, supporting grassroots communities to amplify their voices and protect their rights. Her writing and organizing are deeply rooted in cultural awareness and a commitment to equity. Email: skasede@gmail.com
