Originally posted on WEAKLEAKS! ::::::::::::::::::):):) Rioting By Writing Via A Series Of Serious 'Politics In Poetics', By Jon Pen de Ngong, A Literal Fighter, A Literary Rioter, A Freelance Writer, A Free-land Blogger, A Freehand 'Poetician'; Who Picks His Mild 'Wine' And Speaks His Wild Mind Out Loud: While Hot!--Why Not?:

INTRO…

Mastering the art of assigning roles to Scapegoats Mastering the art of assigning roles to Scapegoats

In summary of this open letter, you, the politicians who have christened yourselves ‘Jieng (Dinka) Council of Elders (JCE)’, are responsible for the reputation of the community and the safety of witnesses and critics under the ‘politics of escapism and hypocrisy’ you are fanning in South Sudan. This is evidenced in your widespread public and media campaigns, which have even spilled over to international forums.

The first thing that struck my mind the very day I saw the so-called leaked version of the AUCISS Report was: “O my God, how will the witnesses survive in the hands of this regime!” Given the reports and records we know about the reactions of the government towards dissents, and the prediction to what will happen to the people whose names have been inadvertently or intentionally exposed in that pullout version of the Obasanjo Report…

View original 3,242 more words

Kenya is Bullying South Sudan .

Posted: March 27, 2015 by PaanLuel Wël in Junub Sudan

By David Aoloch Bion

Kenya is bullying South Sudan. Ethiopia is bullying South Sudan. Why? These countries are jealous and envious and covetous of South Sudan spectator economic Success.

It took Kenya 50 years to achieve what South Sudan achieved only for 8 years. Kenya is dying of envy of  South Sudan success  . For that, if Kenya leave South Sudan at that  pace, it will overtake it soon, Kenya is trying hardest to disrupt South Sudan progress.

When Riek Machar rebelled , Kenya recognized him , supported him , welcomed him on red carpet . This is not because Riek is fighting a just war but because Kenyan  don’t want to see South Sudan stable and prosperous .   Even if Riek come into power today, Kenya will still look for ways of failing South Sudan,  unless, Riek will give Kenya 30% of South Sudan resources , this is when Kenya will settle . welcoming Riek on red carpet  was first direct bullying

Now , Kenya has invaded South Sudan . This is second direct bullying.

It is now the fullest responsibility of South Sudan ambassador to UN , Mading Deng to declare  the position of the Republic of South Sudan to United Nation on Kenya ‘ government grabbing brigand behavior.

To people  of South Sudan, you cant drive two lorries at ago, Riek rebellion is one lorry, Kenya is another.

South Sudan must use diplomacy and international channels like the UN to deal with envious Kenya until its end the rebellion of Riek .

From there if Kenya insists , South Sudan will show her , what takes it to provoke a neighbour ,

 


By SSB Correspondent

South Sudan's coat of arms, in which the eagle symbolizes vision, strength, resilience and majesty, and the shield and spear the people’s resolve to protect the sovereignty of their republic and work hard to feed it.

South Sudan’s coat of arms, in which the eagle symbolizes vision, strength, resilience and majesty, and the shield and spear the people’s resolve to protect the sovereignty of their republic and work hard to feed it.

March 27, 2015 (SSB)  —-   A law student at Nkumba University-Kampala, Gai James Kai has warned of a looming Constitutional crisis in the country following the recent extension of President Salva Kiir’s lifespan/term in office for two years more.

He said it would be illegal for President, Vice-President, cabinet ministers and their deputies to continue carrying out their executive duties two more after the end of their term in July.

Gai told our reporter this week that if elections are not held by June this year, it would also be illegal for President Kiir to appoint a cabinet because his term of office would have lapsed by July, 2015.

His comment follows the recent announcements by National Legislative Assembly that incumbent President, Salva Kiir Mayardit’s term of office is extended up to 2018.

Kai added that although the term of parliament cannot be extended, the Presidential term can be extended by another two years or even more, depending on the surrounding circumstance.

Few months ago, Kiir indicated that he would dissolve Parliament by June; 2015, but has considered the extension of the lifespan of the executives.

Gai said: “Yes! The extension of the lifespan of Parliament can only be done during times of war like this, and under those circumstances, but should not be for more than one year at a time and the cumulative extensions should not exceed two years.’’

“Further the law requires that Vice-president, cabinet ministers and deputy ministers shall not occupy their executive offices for more than three months without being members of Parliament and there is a grace period of up to three months for non-MP ministers to hold these positions.’’

He said while the President shall continue in office until the person elected as President in the next elections entered office, he cannot appoint a cabinet after the three months grace period.

“It must be made clear that beyond the dissolution of the current Parliament, the appointment of a cabinet by a “President’’ whose term expired would be illegitimate,’’ Kai added.

Although Salva Kiir recently approached the High Court to secure an order to declare elections by or on June 2015, opposition political parties protested the proposal and challenged the decision in court, saying ; even if the Parliament can be dissolved by July 2015, government business should go on and so the terms of the executive can be extended for one or two years until a new government is formed.

-

The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing from.

By David Aoloch Bion

Some South Sudanese are celebrating the recent incursion of Kenyan army into South Sudan territory . It has been their wishful thinking, it has materialized today.

This aggressive act is the part of wider conspiracy theory to make President Kiir lost power by all cost or hook and crook. This provocation  is the dying work of Dr . Riek Machar and his cohort Dr Aduok Nyaba .

Kenya knows the international law very well, they can not and will not claims the land of South Sudn. But it just  is conspiracy theory to bring down the government of Salva Kiir .

It is preplanned that Kenya will make an incursion into South Sudan ,and South Sudan will overreact in military manner ,then Kenya will get a pretext now to go into war with South Sudan .if the Government of Salva Kiir go into war with Kenya , Riek Machar will take the advantage and overthrow Mr Kiir , if Kiir is gone , Kenya will declare the cease and Riek will come and repair the damage .This is false assumption , who do not know international law and diplomacy?.

This is what Aduok said in Sudan Tribune and here I quote ‘’ Kenya could annex the Illemi Triangle in Eastern Equatoria while Uganda may lay a claim on some of the disputed areas in Madi and Acholi areas in Eastern Equatoria and some parts of Central and Western Equatoria states. . Sudan could annex some parts of Western and Northern Bahr el Ghazal in addition to Unity and Northern Upper Nile state regions. . Ethiopia may lay a claim on parts of Eastern Upper Nile and Jonglei. This happened to Western Sahara when Spain withdrew in 1975 leaving Morocco and Mauritania to struggle over it”,

No country mentioned above want to annex South Sudan land, it is dirtiest lie of power maniac who are just abusing and playing with   the mind of South Sudanese  it is a willed wishful thinking of power maniac .

Mind you , if these areas annexed as you claim , therefore , these tribes are jumping from the frying fan into fire , no man from these tribe will rule in those countries until Jesus come . mark my words  , it is in South Sudan , whereby a man from these  region can be the president , it can’t happen in Ethiopia or Sudan for a Nuer to be President .

This is not annexation ,but ,  it is self-annexation , it is these tribes who want to join other states , they said , Dinka is dominating us ,

It is these tribes , who want to be annexed because they say , Dinka is oppressing us  , marginalizing us , dictating us ,Mr . Aduok , should know that  South Sudan is a frying fan , but Ethiopia, Kenya , Uganda are fire . make no mistake .

Stop your power maniac thinking , it will not take you into power. Be fair.

 

Why Dr James Okuk Should See the Neurologist!

Posted: March 27, 2015 by PaanLuel Wël in Junub Sudan

By Peter Gai Manyuon

Dr. James Okuk

Dr. James Okuk

March 27, 2015 (SSB)  —-   Dr James Okuk received his PhD from the University of Nairobi in December 2009, where his thesis was “Justice and Poverty Reduction in South Sudan”, a research that was criticized by many South Sudanese intellectuals globally due to the fact that his work lacks scholarly substance for public consumption as a PhD thesis, globally and particularly for people of South Sudan.

Dr James Okuk has been a bodyguard of Dr Lam Akol since then until the time he became a PhD holder. Most of work was facilitated, and perhaps written by Dr. Lam Akol himself, an evidence that has contributed so much to his worshiping of Dr. Lam.

Okuk has been a small boy of Dr Lam Akol since Lam broke away from the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) and formed his own party, the SPLM for Democratic Change that has now turned into SPLM for Dictatorship Celebration . When Dr Lam Akol went to exile, Okuk became so critical to the government of South Sudan that he tossed up his dear life for political gamble leading to his arrest and torture as he shown love for his master.

Okuk was arrested and faced charges for criticizing the monster Salva Kiir on Media, a man he latter turned to adore for committing genocides against the Nuer ethnic group. What a shame to these political opportunists? Was it really necessary for Okuk to fight for Dr. Lam Akol but not for his Chollo, whose land has been alienated by the corrupt Bandits of Salva Kiir? Today, Okuk is living under the tents of dictatorship, celebrating the massacres of the Naath Nation, but how sure is our fake doctor of philosophy that the next genocides will not be committed against the Chollo (may Naath forbids)?

After Salva Kiir forgave Dr. Lam for committing the crime of demanding Democratic Change, a crime that Dr. Riek Machar and his colleagues are now committing, he saved himself of one sleepless critic, James Okuk. Okuk is now born again in dictatorship and ready to mingle with dictators since his master is serving his house arrest in Juba. It begs a question if any South Sudanese intellectual would still regards Okuk as an independent thinker at this point. What category of people can we classify Okuk in South Sudan?

Well, after reading his article on Sudan Tribune website, I struggled to contextualize the content of his article. I took my time to read his narrations up to the last dot, however, I never gotten a gist of his intellectual analysis, if I may call it so, but rather entertained lies and rollicking phrases that lack intellectual dynamism with hopes to prove a point, which he never did. In conclusion, the only motivation of writing such article was not to justify in response to Amb. Stephen Par Kuol, but to appease the monster for a possible job opening and recognition in the future. What a disgrace? When will the error of Salva Kiir rewarding jobs to betrayers and incompetents end in South Sudan? We can and will never build a viable state on lies, Okuk must learn!

Why responding to James Okuk this way?

Hon. Stephen Par Kuol presented an educative piece on 23th of March 2015 entitled “The fallacies of bashing both sides in South Sudan Conflict”, and in summary, Amb. Kuol discussed what he refers as “both sides narrative”, in which the regional bloc, IGAD, AU and the international community tends to blame the two sides equally and fail to give credits when it is needed. Amb. Par also put records straights on many important elements of Peace Talks that are being misrepresented in Juba to corrupt the reasoning faculty of intellectuals like James Okuk.

Stephen Par correctly elaborate on the opposition’s key demands such as the proposal of amalgamating and recruiting forces from least represented minor tribes to form a viable national army that represent the faces of 64 tribes in South Sudan and formula of wealth sharing between states and the national government, etcetera. All these proposal would benefit the likes of Dr. Okuk than Amb. Stephen Par, himself, who once served in prominent positions, if James Okuk is not reducing himself for the sake of benefits to his own stomach only.

The immediate response from James Okuk, who claimed to have been a political analyst and a lecturer at the University of Juba- South Sudan, on 24th of March 2015, which he entitled “Justifying the Fallacy of bashing both sides in South Sudan Conflicts: A response to Stephen Par Kuol’s article” , did not clearly address the critical points that were raised by Amb. Stephen Par but instead Okuk was more interest to air his personal problems such as how he escaped Mia Saba, how his house was looted and destroyed by the same thugs he is now praising. Okuk went ahead to oppose the two warring parties claiming that army amalgamation or integration will not resolve South Sudan crisis.

Okuk believes that the 1972 Ababa Agreement is the only solution and therefore Joseph Langu should be consulted. Good enough Okuk did not explain the 1972 army proposal, perhaps due to lack of details. Well, what the PhD fail to understand is that the 1972 army arrangment is exactly what was adopted in CPA and now aimed to readopted but in different error. In 1972 the anyanya retained its armies and only agreed to 1:1 ratio deployment in contested zones with hope to separate the armies if the South succeed, as Anyanya fought for Separation.

In other confused narratives, Okuk acknowledged that indeed targeted killings took place but he denied the catastrophe being refer as “genocide” and as well denied that those who got killed were from different tribes of South Sudan, not Nuer civilians alone. What a great lie? Critically, Okuk was more interested in “equality narratives” that all tribes were equally massacred and therefore all should be equally considered.

The Nuer would wish this really happened, in fact this is the question that the Nuer are asking, why was it only the Nuer that were targeted? And Bona Malwal Madut would response “because the Nuer are the problem to Dinka’s supremacy and domination”.

Does Okuk know the definition of the word “Genocide” or is PhD is yet to cover a lecture on that? To remain James Okuk once again, genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group or it can be defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. In fact, if we don’t refer what happened in Juba as genocide, what other word would be suitable to define the recent killings of thousands of Nuer civil population in houses due to their ethnicity?

Dr James Okuk might have been under pressure of job search when writing the article. He might have been forced to write in order for him to be look as Juba Intellectual by Kiir’s political sycophants, political orphans and thieves that may recruit him.

If not desperation, Dr James Okuk must see a Neurologist to examine this adverse mental disorder that has distort our good critics in a forth night. Where on earth will you find a PhD graduate talking like a mad person or a child of three years, if not in South Sudan where some people claim to have read books while their psychological blackboards are empty upstairs.

Absolutely, after reading the article I decided to doubt the intellectuality and thinking capacity of Dr James Okuk in Juba. Obviously, I came to know James Okuk recently in the Republic of South Sudan. James Okuk has been writing objectively before the crisis of South Sudan emerged on the 15th of December 2013 whereby Nuer were massacred in thousands in Juba.

Surely most of the people globally are aware of the number of civilians who were mercilessly murdered for their ethnicity. As individual, I have no claim on this and may not be worried of what Okuk thinks because it has been proven by AU, UN, UNMISS and the international community.

Who is Okuk to deny? If world admitted and government of South Sudan accepted, then who is Dr Okuk to talk nonsense? More so, all South Sudanese people have admitted that people were killed in Juba by some group of “village boys” that were instructed by the top leadership of the government of South Sudan. Who is James Okuk to deny the massacre of the Nuer Civilians? Is Dr James Okuk mind safe from disorder or something is disturbing Okuk?

In conclusion, primitiveness is about eighty percent (80%) in the Republic of South Sudan, people sometimes think negatively about other or went someone lack something to eat, once begin to think for new avenues for survival. Very disappointing and disgraceful scenario! God of heaven should help South Sudanese this time!

The author is an Independent Journalist and Columnist who has written extensively on issues of Democratization Processes and Human Rights in South Sudan. He can be reached at southsudanjournalist@gmail.com.


RED ARMY FOUNDATION PRESS STATEMENT AGAINST THE SO-CALLED RAF-IO MEMBERS
Issued on Thursday 26th March, 2015 at Freedom Hall, Juba, South Sudan

The Red Army Foundation, Juba

The Red Army Foundation, Juba

March 27, 2015 (SSB)  —-  The Red Army Foundation has received information and also came across a statement of a group calling itself the Red Army Foundation In Opposition (RAF-IO), falsely claiming to have split from the Red Army Foundation and joined the Rebellion led by Dr. Riek MacharTeny.

The Red Army Foundation would like to take this opportunity to inform the Government, SPLM, SPLA and the people of South Sudan that it completely distances itself from this misguided so-called RAF-IO Group and categorically in the strongest terms rejects and denounces such fabrications because the people who signed the statement of the so-called RAF-IO are not registered members of the Red Army Foundation and are not even known by the leadership of the Red Army Foundation.

The Red Army Foundation would also like to clarify that it has not yet established any Red Army Foundation office outside South Sudan and currently there are no officially registered members of the Red Army Foundation in Diaspora.

The Red Army Foundation, as clearly indicated in its Constitution, is a non-military organization that can never engage in rebellion and does not condone rebellion, especially senseless rebellions, and the Red Army Foundation is extremely surprised to hear that a group calling itself a Foundation can actually claim to be part of a rebellion, which has completely never been heard of, as it contradicts the essence and true meaning of a Foundation.

The Red Army Foundation believes in democracy as a core value of the SPLM/A liberation struggle and stands with the legitimate government of the Republic of South Sudan, which was elected and given the popular mandate to lead the Country by the people of South Sudan. The Red Army Foundation believes that power belongs to the people and any change of government or transfer of power should not be done by taking up arms or use of force, but should be done democratically by seeking the mandate of the people through elections.

The Red Army Foundation would also like to emphasize that the Red Army, as known historically by everyone, has no tribe because this is the way they were nurtured and brought up by the leadership of the SPLM/A during the liberation struggle. In fact, the tribe of the Red Army is South Sudan because the Red Army belongs to all the people of South Sudan and brings together people from all over South Sudan. Unlike the Red Army, the people who signed the statement of the so called RAF-IO are predominantly from one tribe, which makes them actually look pretty much like the White Army, not the Red Army, because if they were really Red Army, there would have been diversity.

The Red Army Foundation would also like to inform the Government and the people of South Sudan that the statement released by the so-called RAF-IO was not published on the official letterhead of the Red Army Foundation and the Red Army Foundation condemns the use of the SPLM Letterhead by the misguided Group calling itself RAF-IO, which was a flagrant attempt to mislead the public to believe that the group wasassociated with the SPLM led by the Chairman Cde Salva Kiir Mayardit.

The Red Army Foundation therefore would like to conclude by informing the Government, SPLM, SPLA and the people of South Sudan that this is just cheap propaganda and the usual mind games of the SPLM-IO, who are desperately seeking any opportunity to mislead the people of South Sudan and falsely gain support through such false fabrications, and we recognize that in this particular case, it is a deliberate attempt to exploit the historical patriotic legacy of the Red Army that is highly regarded by the people of South Sudan, because of the patriotic sacrifices and contribution made by the Red Army to the success of the SPLM/A liberation struggle.

The Red Army has been tried and tested before, during the SPLM/A liberation struggle and proven to be truly patriotic and committed to the cause of the people of South Sudan. The Red Army can never and shall never betray the people of South Sudan.

Red Army Oyee! God Bless South Sudan!

Signed:

Cde Deng Bol Aruai Bol
National Chairperson
Red Army Foundation

Cde Ter Tongyik Majok
Secretary-General
Red Army Foundation


Coup against “turn- to -eat philosophy” as Parliament extended its life without consultation from voters: The case of constituency No 13

By Michael Mading Akueth, Panyangor, South Sudan

Demo-cracy or Demo-crazy?

Demo-cracy or Demo-crazy?

March 26, 2015 (SSB)  —-   In 2010, there were serious debates about who should represent us in Parliament, South Sudan. The communities met and debate about it.

There were many leaders who had shown interest to contest in the election and their manifestos were amazing but because in the past someone from their areas were a member of parliament they were told that the chance does not belong to their payam.

The term which I called “turn- to -eat philosophy” was the set criteria for selection; peoples’ leaders who were very popular and result-oriented were turned away and the person whose his community have the turn -to -eat was chosen to represent us in Parliament.

They could argue that your leaders had represented us in parliament and government during the Khartoum regime and it is now our turn- to- eat.

We want to send our son to parliament so that we could be able to eat enough this time like the way you did. How did this concern me? I was not in the last elections and you are now accounting people who did not affect my life in away.

It was surprising that the spirit of choosing leaders according to their potentials had disappeared and the spirit of our turn to eat had taken over. What a tragedy?

The community that was known for visionary leadership had dropped her standard of leaders’ vetting from charismatic skills and service delivery to simple vetting of our turn- to -eat.

We were listening with surprise because there was no programmes which the leader was showing to voters for them to vote for him but he was simply saying it is our turn- to- eat.

He mentioned leaders in his opponent payam even people who are working in government as servants who were employed because of their skills to disqualify his opponent thirst for the seat.

He won for sure because he could count more people from his opponent side who are working in government and his opponent gave-up and allow him to go to parliament.

Now that you have stayed for 5 years and your term has officially ended according to our community criteria (turn –to- eat), Do you have a moral authority to continue in parliament for the extend period of three years?

You and your community set the precedent in the last election that you are not going to parliament to delivery services but it is your “turn- to- eat” since our communities had their chance in the past.

This was the judgment and other community members accepted the “turn –to- eat philosophy” as the guiding tool to reach consensus in any election.

Therefore, though the parliament has extended its life for three years, we don’t think it is honorable for the area MP for constituency 13 to continue serving in the extended period of Parliament because He is breaking the rules which took him to parliament in 2010.

I’m presenting my opinion here as a voter who had voted for him in the last election and who believes in promises as true covenant of love. He will be robbing our community if he continues serving in the three years extended period of parliament.

Since he is renowned lawyer who had been fighting for people rights and democracies; he will not accept to continue representing us in parliament against our wills. This is will be a clear promotion of impunity.

I want to remind him not to forget our criteria which took him to parliament in 2010 “turn- to- eat philosophy”.

-

The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing from.