Rather than use his words to evaluate his performance singularly, one thinks it is best to use Dr. Limlim’s words to evaluate the performance of the multiple actors associated with the world bank financed Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF):

What was our role in this and how did we facilitate the status quo or not. Basically, when we point a finger at Dr. Limlim the other four fingers are pointing to the one pointing.

When we do not question certain paradigms we are guilty of being complicit. For example, in critiquing Dr. Limlim’s performance are we accepting that the design and intent of NUSAF was appropriate and relevant for Karamoja in the first place? How suitable is NUSAF for a predominantly semi-nomadic agro-pastoralist community?

If it was perfectly suitable then we can critique Dr. Limlim for botching its implementation in Karamoja. However, if we think that it was not suitable, as one thinks it was not, then we must begin by asking why Dr. Limlim did not question it and just implemented it as is – did he have a choice?

Then, we must ask why the state, the elite, the leaderships of all kind and the general public did not question it or resist it in the first place – NUSAF, I mean. How come we moved from NUSAF I to NUSAF II and NUSAF III doing the same thing and expecting different results? The horse rider is changed but not the horse. Is the problem with the horse riders or the horse itself?

With due respect to all, we need to move away from purposeless lamentations which finger point a few individuals. We need to focus on systemic and purposeful lamentations – starting with a reflection of our own actions.