Archive for the ‘Government of South Sudan’ Category

Public Announcement From The South Sudan National Security Service
Dear all,
Greetings from Juba, South Sudan,
The Department of Training and Capacity Building in the South Sudan Internal Security Bureau of National Security Service is recruiting new officers, NCOs, man and women into National Security Service.
Any South Sudanese or those who are interested to join, please open the attached PDF document.
Comrade Larco Lomayatdit
Juba – South Sudan

Sunday 08.12.2013
Daniel Awet Akot: “Those who were anti-Garang are now becoming anti-Salva, those who divided us in 1991 want to divide us now.”
James Wani: “The notion of anti-Garang or Garang boys is unacceptable and there is nothing as such… if this group is addressing suspended government officials with their title, is this not a rebellion? The leader who read the statement was founder of NCP in Khartoum in 1998… we cautioned the group not to inciting the army… the group are the one to be blamed for making South Sudan a failed state and at the same time most corrupt country on earth… we are only three months in the government but they were there during the Dura saga and when the country took a loan of 4.6 billion US dollars during austerity period, ”
Kuol Manyang: “The group press conference came at the wrong time… such statement was not well thought and can led the country into insecurity… 1991 scenario was started with such statement… it was wrong time to make this press conference by the group because it was soon after investment conference ended in Juba and at the same time the President was out of the country… the issue brought up over other people from other parties and other armed groups being included in the government is an incitement… the calls for rally on 14 December is disobedient or that mean the rally has a hidden agenda… if the Chairman of the SPLM didn’t call for the rally who else has the authority to call for a rally?”
Dr. Riek Gai: “The issue over NCP being in the government was not meant for another person but me Dr. Riek Gai… I was not anti – Garang, it was Riek Machar who said Garang MUST go first, when Riek rebelled in 1991, I was fighting alongside Garang… I was a member of SPLA – Torit negotiation team and left later for fears of being targeted because Riek was killing Dinka… Riek statement is very dangerous, it can slide the country into chaos, what brought the word chaos? Riek was trying to tear the country in 2010… but this time Riek must know that we are in different environment…”

The 2013 corruption perceptions index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in 177 countries and territories


His Excellency, the Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan in Washington D.C., USA should stop writing opinion articles in all mediums altogether and especially on the Internet. He is an embarrassment! On November 25, Ambassador Obongo penned an embarrassing article for a man of his stature, for the Sudan Tribune where he got all his facts wrong.

His Excellency wrote that:

(1)         “Murle population is estimated at 85,000 according to the disputed census of 2010.”

This is shocking because it appears, not only that the Deputy Chief does not know when the census took place, he does not even know the demographics of his own people. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (, the population of Murle was 148,475 at the time of the census, which was conducted in 2008 NOT 2010.

(2)         “In 2010 after the Republic of South Sudan gain (sic) independence…”

This is mind numbing and a bad joke that is not funny if this was an attempted humour.  This indicates a genuine lack of knowledge on behalf of His Excellency because the world knows that South Sudan gained independence on the 9th of July 2011 NOT 2010.

If the Deputy Chief of Mission does not know the year in which the country he represents, at a very high-level, gained independence maybe he should not be serving. Dhanojak Obongo should stop embarrassing South Sudan with such writings and focus on his work or he should be fired, period.

The Genius of Dr. John Garang: The Essential Writings and Speeches of the Late SPLM/A's Leader, Dr. John Garang De Mabioor (Volume 1)

The Genius of Dr. John Garang: The Essential Writings and Speeches of the Late SPLM/A’s Leader, Dr. John Garang De Mabioor (Volume 1) ON AMAZON.COM

The Governor of Central Equatoria State (CES) Clement Wani Konga has issued a provisional order banning the exchange of dollars in foreign exchange bureaus in the state. The provisional order cited number 35/2013 came following economical fight between the National Executive and the Legislature on devaluation of the South Sudanese Pounds last week by the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance.

The Genius of Dr. John Garang: The Essential Writings and Speeches of the Late SPLM/A's Leader, Dr. John Garang De Mabioor (Volume 1)

The Genius of Dr. John Garang: The Essential Writings and Speeches of the Late SPLM/A’s Leader, Dr. John Garang De Mabioor (Volume 1) on AMAZON.COM

The Genius of Dr. John Garang: The Essential Writings and Speeches of the Late SPLM/A’s Leader, Dr. John Garang De Mabioor (Volume 1) Paperback – November 15, 2013; by PaanLuel Wël (The Editor)




Don’t Get Derailed from your own History: Dr. John Garang Speaking on the History of the Sudan (1988) 

There is an exigency to go back to our historical roots, back to historical Sudan from the dawn of humanity to the present time. This is urgent and necessary because some people have been striving to erase us from history; they have been trying to derail us from our own history, from our own historical roots. Lest some people may get confuse and succumb to this misguided machinations from Khartoum that have been presenting the Sudan in terms of two parameters to the exclusion of the others—Islamism and Arabism. This ‘back to our roots’ initiative can be summarized in few points as follows. With respect to the history of the Sudan, there are some people, based on their own selfish interest, who say the history of the Sudan commenced with the arrival of the Turks in 1821. Others claim that the history of the Sudan started with the Mahdi, that is, when the Mahdist state (1885-1898) was established in the Sudan. There are some people, particularly among the Europeans, who insist that Africa history, along with the Sudan, began with European colonialism, that is, the coming of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or the Anglo-Egyptian condominium (1898-1956). Just here in Southern Sudan, there are some people that even go as recent as 1947 when the Juba Conference was convened to decide whether Southern Sudan should be part of the Sudan or to separate and remain an independent entity or join up with the East Africa countries. There are some, still, who argue that the history of the Sudan started with the invasion of the Sudan by the Arabs from the Egypt and the Middle East. All these chauvinistic narratives on the history of the Sudan are according to some vested interests of certain speakers, of certain sections of the Sudanese society.

The first thing to be said is that we in the SPLM/SPLA go as far back as we can in the history of the Sudan. According to recorded and unrecorded history, archaeological and written history, human civilization started right here in the Nile Valley—in the Sudan and Egypt. And so the Sudan, along with Egypt and the whole of the Nile Valley, is a major part of human civilization, as we know it. This fact again is something out there for anybody to check and to verify. This is important because the historical roots are very important and they cannot just be traced to 1947 or to 1955 to 1880s or to 1820s or nineteen hundred or sixteen hundred. So we in the SPLM/SPLA go all the way back to the dawn of human history, and remember and reconstruct whatever is remember-able and whatever is reconstruct-able, because it is from all these roots that we will create the New Sudan.

So our history is not as shallow as some people would want us to believe. Our history is rich and deep, and we must get into that depth and that richness, and coming from there, taking what we can take and leaving what we do not want. It is up to us, it is our choice. In order to construct from the past, the very past, the medium past and the present to construct the future, we must go back to and reconstruct the very past. So a creation of the New Sudan would mean the complete reconstruction of the past. In order to create the present and the future, we must correctly reconstruct the past, not with lies but with the truth, not by saying John Garang is a descendant of Abbas. No, we must go on to the facts and these facts are readily available in history for people who want to know the truth. So we have said that in order for us to have a correct assessment of our present so that we pass into the future, we have to go all the way back and come with our history and combine whatever is useful to reconstruct our history as it should be, not as some are trying to portray it within the prism of their prejudiced outlook.


There are two ways to view and understand our history as Sudanese people: the history as in the past and history as of the modern times. I call them Sudanese diversities. For this purpose, I want to go down the corridors of history to show that we, the Sudanese, are indeed the historical people and that the New Sudan has an anchor in history. Having an anchor in history is very important because if we cannot find an anchor in history, then we can create one, lest the struggle at the end of the day is meaningless. I will therefore present this anchor in history in terms of the present character of the Sudan and as it connects with our historical roots. The Sudan is characterized by two diversities: contemporary and historical diversities that go back thousand of years, indeed to the dawn of humanity. By historical diversity I mean that we did not just pop up as Sudanese from nowhere. We have been here, we have been there and we are still here now. And the proof of that is, of course, I am standing in front of you here. It means that I must have come from somewhere. When you look at the history of the Sudan, you can find it in old books. In the Bible, for example, where it makes references to Kush and/or Ethiopia; and these are interchangeable names for what is now the geographical Sudan. In the ancient times, we had the kingdom of Wawat, the kingdom of Irtet, the kingdom of Majda and the kingdom of Annu. Annu is believed by some historians to be the present Anyuak or Annuak people that were believed by ancient Egyptian to be the gods of the Nile. That set somewhere in the south to be the source of the Nile, and that was giving water to Egypt, and as the Bible says, Egypt is the gift of the Nile. So it is the gift of Annu or the Anyuak people of Southern Sudan to the Egyptian people.

The Genius of Dr. John Garang: (Volume 2)

You come down the corridors of history to the Nubian Christian kingdoms of Merowe, Makuria, Alwa and Soba. The first non-Jewish Christian or the first gentile Christian was a Sudanese. You read it in the Acts of the Apostles [Acts 8 V 27], as the Ethiopian Eunuch. That Ethiopian Eunuch has been researched and he has been found out to have been an official in the court of the king of Merowe. Merowe is north of Khartoum. As mentioned before, in 1821 was the Turco-Egyptian Sudan, the spread of an occupation of the northern part of our country by the Turco-Egyptian rule, down to the Mahdist state (1885-1898), down to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or the Anglo-Egyptian condominium (1898-1956), the modern independent Sudan from 1956 to the present. All these I called the historical diversities. As you can therefore see, we have a long history. People and kingdoms have lived, thrived and disappeared in the geographical area that constitute the present modern Sudan. Yet the present and previous rulers of Khartoum present a false picture of our country as if the Sudan started with them and as if the history and reality of Sudan consists only of two parameters—Arabism and Islamism.  Of course they argue this way so as to stake a claim to the Sudan and they do this to the exclusion of others. This is why there have been wars in the Sudan. Our contention in the SPLM/SPLA is that the Sudan belongs to all the peoples that now inhabit the country, and that its history, diversity and richness is the common heritage of all the Sudanese people. The attempts have been made in the past to try to push some people out of the rail of history and I am not accepting this. That is why I want to anchor our movement, and our struggle and the New Sudan, to anchor it deeply, in our long history. This is one form of diversity, the historical diversity.

The second form of diversity in the Sudan is the present diversity, the contemporary diversity. The Sudan has over 500 different ethnic groups, speaking more than 130 distinct languages. These ethnic groups fall into two categories, roughly the Africans and people of Arab origin in the Sudan, but they are all Sudanese people. The Indigenous African Sudanese—those whose mother tongue is other than Arabic—were 69% of the population according to the 1955 colonial census, while the Arab Sudanese—those whose mother tongue is Arabic—were 31% of the population according to the 1955 colonial census. Another fact that many people do not know or do not want to know is that indigenous Africans are more in the North than in the South: 39% of the total population as compared to the South’s 30%. Ethnicity is thus one major form of contemporary diversity. Another form of contemporary diversity is religion. We have two major religions in the country—Islam and Christianity, and traditional African religions. The Muslims are mostly in the North and constitute about 65-70% of the total population, while Christians and followers of Traditional African Religions constitute the remaining 30-35%.

These two forms of diversities, the historical and the contemporary, constitute the Sudanese reality, and thus, any form of governance must be based on, and must take into account, these two forms of diversities. However, all governments that have come and gone in Khartoum since 1956 have attempted to create a monolithic Arab-Islamic state to the exclusion of other parameters of the Sudanese diversity. They simply ignore or deliberately fly in the face of this Sudanese reality. This is the fundamental problem of the Sudan, and the justification for our armed struggle. What has happened is that a group of people in Khartoum, in 1956, hijacked the Sudan. They hijacked the Sudan and defined it in their own image, that the Sudan is an Arab-Islamic state. No, it is not. I called it hijacking because Sudan is a Sudanese state for the Sudanese people, not an Arab-Islamic state for Arabs and the Muslims.


This is our point of departure from those naysayers. Therefore, it is necessary for each of you to study, to learn what is available out there, without preference, about our historical roots and about our rightful place in the history of mankind. The fact that we are here in 1988; the fact that the various Sudanese nationalities are here—that alone, the reality of our presence in the Sudan today, shows that there was a civilization(s) here. Otherwise, we would not be talking today as Dinka or as Nuer or as Shilluk or as Zande or Latuho or whatever all the nationalities there are in the Sudan. It is the solidity of their cultures that has made them to be present today in 1988; otherwise, they would not be present, for they would have been lost like many lost nationalities of human race. So the assertions, the lies that are said, what is said that Sudanese civilization or state started in such and such a year should be far from our thinking, because the Sudan is rich with cultures that go very deep into the dawn of humanity itself. If we study these cultures in historical motion, we will find their richness and depth undisputable. This is an important point of departure that unites us, and it is in sharp contrast to the narrative of those who want to hijack the Sudan by making it in their own artificial image. This is because if you take the history of the Sudan from one point of view, because if you say it is Arab civilization or a Dinka civilization or a Nuer civilization or a Shilluk civilization or a Fur civilization or a Latuho civilization or Nuba civilization and you speak to that viewpoint only, that would be a sectarian culturalism because you are taking one of the cultures and defining the New Nation through a single cultural entity. Absolutely not, for you cannot create a new harmonious nation out of imposition of one culture on the rest, this is impossible. So we take that point of departure and we will be consistent with it.

I acknowledge that it is difficult to be consistent with it when people are confused, when people have vested interests, when people are sectarian, when people are tribalistic, when people are sectionalistic, then it is difficult to be consistent because the vested interests will divert people. But the real revolutionaries understand that point of view and they will go consistently with it. The language I am using here is of course an inflammatory language that states ‘don’t tell me about Arabs’. But this is not our language, this is the language of someone that is angry and he can be excused because he is angry for a reason. It is necessary to be angry in order to become a revolutionary. You must be angry in order to rebel against oppression as was mentioned earlier by comrade Yusuf Kuwa Mekki. After you become a rebel, you transform yourself into a revolutionary. So we will, and you must, accept this language as coming from an angry man and we understand why he is angry—he is protesting against his deletion from history.

Therefore, we will immerse ourselves into the Sudanese situation, we will transform the Sudanese situation, so that they believe in the objectivity of the New Sudan, in which there is no anti-Arabism, and no anti-Africanism, no anti-Islam or anti-Christianity but we form a new synthesis, a new synthesis that is a culture, that is a nation, that is a state, that will have its role to play on the African continent, in the Middle East, in the World, because we have to make our contribution to the human race and we have the capability to make this contribution. So this is the intellectual background of our objectives as a Movement—the SPLM/SPLA.

From this intellectual background anchored in history, in order to have success, we must envision what success is, what it looks like, what it feels like. So what do we mean by success? One, we must form a revolutionary state in Khartoum, and secondly, that revolutionary state must have a revolutionary army in Khartoum, because you cannot have a revolutionary state without the revolutionary army. It is a contradiction. Likewise, you cannot have a reactionary state and a revolutionary army because one would take the other away and it has happened in many places. For example, a minority cliques can stage a coup d’état, install themselves in power and proclaim revolution. They claim to have made a revolution while the whole army remains reactionary. There is General such and such and he maintains his position and Major General such and such still maintains his position, and he likes his position and the privileges that his position avails him and he has his local and international connections. It is a matter of time before the reactionary army gets rid of the revolutionary state.

The summary of this argument boils down to one objective: the establishment of a revolutionary army and a revolutionary state in Khartoum. This, more than anything else, is the true meaning, and our definition, of success. If we have not achieved these two objectives—a revolutionary state with a revolutionary army—then we are continuing the armed struggle until these two are formed because one would not succeed without the other, they are complementary, one is indispensable to the survival of the other. And it is not the SPLM/A only that is going to form the state because there are other revolutionary forces in the country. Our task is how to fuse together these revolutionary forces in order to establish these objectives of a revolutionary state with a revolutionary army. I gave you the other background before in order to arrive at the necessity of these objectives because without the revolutionary state and the revolutionary army to safeguard it, you cannot destroy neocolonialism, you cannot destroy religious fundamentalism, and you cannot destroy racism in the country.

Certainly, you need a revolutionary state with a revolutionary army in order to do these because any other situation won’t work, and won’t succeed, simply because say if we get rid of Sharia and there is somebody who is not a revolutionary and you tell him to cancel Sharia, he would think that he would go to hell and who would want to go to hell? He won’t do it because in his mind, there is a hell waiting for him. How do you convince someone to embrace going to hell? Of course we know that this is a misguided view but it is a fact we have to deal with; armed revolutions are conducted within the paradigm of the prevailing reality, whether that actuality is based on facts or on myths is beside the point.  So you need a revolutionary state and a revolutionary army in order to implement the revolutionary program. The revolutionary program also has to be constructed, and you need a revolutionary state and a revolutionary army in order to construct and implement the revolutionary program. This is our history since the dawn of human age and this is our noble goal and objective to the suffering people of the Sudan: to establish a revolutionary state with a revolutionary army to construct and implement a revolutionary program of the New Sudan Vision.


Press Release

President Kiir Regrets Latest Attacks on Civilians in Twic East County of Jonglei State

Juba, Oct. 24th,2013: H. E. the President condemns in the strongest possible term the recent killing of unarmed civilians in Twic East County of Jonglei State on Sunday 20th of October 2013 by armed groups operating in the area.

The President deeply regrets this senseless killing of innocent civilians that resulted into the loss of 79 lives, including women and children, while 78 others were injured.

In view of this incident, H. E. the President expresses his sincere condolences to the bereaved families on behalf of the government and the people of South Sudan.

H. E. the Presiden directs the relevant authorities to immediately provide necessary humanitarian intervention to the victims of these attacks. He also directs for immediate investigation into this incident where several lives were lost and the culprits brought to book.

Despite this unfortunate incident, H.E the President remains firm on his commitment to peaceful resolution of all sorts of conflicts while his
amnesty call remains in place for all other armed groups, including David Yau Yau

H. E. the President calls upon the general public and particularly the aggrieved communities to exercise restraint and remain calm while the law takes its course.

Self-determination is not given, one determine his future, we do have self-determination in the areas we have control, and if you believe that the Khartoum government has given you self-determination, then go back and ask Khartoum to withdraw its troops from the three capital cities of South Sudan–Juba, Malakal and Wau–and I (Garang) promise that I will not attack you. Your claim of self-determination of the South Sudan while in Khartoum means that you have surrendered. I also believe that when the people of South Sudan are given an opportunity to vote in the referendum, they will vote almost 100% for independence.”—Dr. John Garang de Mabior to Dr. Riek Machar in Gulu, Uganda, 1997


“…As for our brothers in Nasir, I would say it makes no sense to announce a coup in Nasir against someone sitting in Torit. We have no government physical structure to be captured. We have no government for someone to overthrow. All we can do is to disagree and live in different corners of the bushes of Southern Sudan. The objective of the Movement has been used as the excuse for Nasir betrayal. I know as much as they do that the South feels strongly about its quest for independence. There are valid reasons for their wish but the strength of passion is not the same as the practicality of the proposition at this time. We must base our approach on the objective realities facing us. The National Islamic Front (NIF) has dropped the hint that they would be ready to let the South break away if the Nasir removed John Garang and abandoned the call for the New Sudan. A little thinking could have made our brothers realize that the NIF was being as typically deceptive as their predecessors. When Southerners demanded a federal system as their condition for supporting the independence of the Sudan in 1956, the Arabs promised them ‘due consideration’. That promise was contemptuously disregarded after independence. Do we have to repeat the same mistake in 1991? Why would the government cede territory to them after the successful destruction of the SPLA? The very fact that the NIF detests the concept of New Sudan confirms that we have touched the right button….Dr. John Garang’s Discourse with Steven Wondu: New Sudan Vision as ‘a Strategic and Tactical Conceptualization’ Nairobi Kenya, 1992

Commander Dr. John Garang de Mabior Speaking to Senior SPLM/A Officers in Yei Garrison (29-30/06/2000), Part-one

Commander Dr. John Garang de Mabior Speaking to Senior SPLM/A Officers in Yei Garrison (29-30/06/2000), Part-two

South Sudan building a nation from scratch after independence, UN told

James Wani Igga, Vice-President of the Republic of South Sudan. UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz

26 September 2013 – South Sudan has had to build a country literally from scratch since it gained independence two years ago, Vice President James Wani Igga said today in his address to the high-level debate of the United Nations General Assembly.

“We must have made errors of judgment as we try to fix a war-devastated country,” Mr. Igga said, as he appealed for goodwill to continue.

According to the Vice President, the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) had been “relatively successful,” although the issue of the contested area of Abyei and the demarcation of the borders between South Sudan and Sudan continue to impede the full implementation of the peace accord.

Since South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in July 2011, the peace between the two countries has been threatened by armed clashes along their common border and outstanding post-independence issues that have yet to be resolved, notably the status of the oil-rich area of Abyei.

Speaking to delegations on his country’s relations with Sudan, Mr. Igga said that it has been “a mixture of cooperation and squabbles” but acknowledged that there is “no alternative to lasting peace other than harmony and cooperation.” He called on the international community to step up its role in narrowing the gap between the two parties.

On the disputed area of Abyei, Mr. Igga promised cooperation to implement an agreement on its final status through a referendum set for October 2013 by the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP).

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir visited Khartoum in early September where he met with Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, and the two leaders agreed on improving cooperation including the unhindered flow of oil from South Sudan through Sudan, he added.

A set of security and economic agreements – signed in the Ethiopian capital under the auspices of the AUHIP – include provisions on security, the common border and economic relations aimed at enabling the two nations to fulfil their obligations under a so-called roadmap for easing tensions and facilitating the resumption of negotiations on post-secession relations.

Turning to the eastern state of Jonglei, one of ten states in the country, the Vice President stated, “It has serious security and infrastructural impediments.” He went on to say that the Government is determined to transform the army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), into “a professional National Army that respects human rights and the rule of law and committed to the protection of civilians.”

He expressed gratitude to the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), which had helped the Government transform hundreds of former combatants into a police force “conscious of the rule of law.”

Mr. Igga expressed regret for the loss of lives of the Indian peacekeepers, the Russian helicopter crew and the Kenyan and South Sudanese relief workers in Pibor county.

He was referring to incidents in which UN peacekeepers and humanitarian workers have been caught up in the violence in Jonglei. An estimated 100,000 civilians in Jonglei alone have been cut off from life-saving assistance as a result of fighting between State and non-state armed actors, and the recent resurgence of inter-communal clashes, according to the UN.

The Security Council has called on Juba to expedite safe and unhindered humanitarian access for the timely and full delivery of aid to all civilians in urgent need of assistance in accordance with relevant provisions of international law.

The Vice President also said the country is being run according to “acceptable standards of competence,” and called on “experts” to appreciate the bigger picture of “how well the country is run outside Jonglei state.”

Government spending has been reduced by 40 per cent and non-oil revenue has been increased considerably, he added. Meanwhile, efforts are being made to address literacy rates among women, which is below 18 per cent, and to increase their political participation.

“We are determined to uproot impunity and corruption, a phenomenon which is a symptom of post-conflict States,” said the Vice-President.


Following the major reshuffle and downsizing of the National Ministries by President Salva Kiir Mayrdit, 20 National Ministers and 12 Deputy Ministers were appointed on 27th July, 31st July and 4th August 2013 respectively. On Monday 5th August 2013, the National Legislative Assembly in its sitting No.28/2013 resolved to appoint a Select Committee to vet the appointees of the president in accordance to Regulations 148 of its Conduct of Business Regulations 2011. The Select Committee composed of 10 members representing SPLM, 1 from each state of the Republic of South Sudan; and 1 member from SANU represent other political parties. The Select committee presented its report to the august House on Tuesday, 7th August 2013 approving all but the Minister of Justice and Deputy Minister of Information and Broadcasting respectively. The committee wanted more information from them.

This time around the vetting committee had a vigorous and rigorous process of vetting the appointees, focusing on receiving and reviewing the Curriculum Vitaes (CVs) of the appointees, interviewing each of them to confirm their CVs and any other relevant information about their previous experiences and performances and ascertaining whether or not the appointees are competent to deliver services to the people of South Sudan. This vetting process is the first of its kind in the Republic of South Sudan, hence; a turning point in the oversight mandate of the parliament.

The vetting process drew mixed reactions from the public. Majority, including the civil society, the UN and diplomatic community in the country applauded the National Assembly for this historic achievement. The parliament is being praised for having assumed its rightful and constitutional responsibility in scrutinizing the executive. Some people however, regard this as obstruction of the powers of the president; they argue that since the president has issued a decree of appointment of the ministers and their deputies, there was no need to vet them. This group of people might be ignorant of the constitutional powers granted to both the president and the parliament in the process of appointing and approving the ministers or just want to disregard the due process of law. Article 112 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan grant powers to the President of the republic to appoint ministers and deputy ministers, and Article 57 (h) gave powers to the parliament to vet and approve the appointees of the president. To refresh the knowledge of the public; Article 57 (h) says, quote “the National Legislative Assembly shall vet and approve appointments (of the president)”. There is nowhere in the constitution or any other law of this country which says once the president decrees the appointment of the ministers and deputy ministers it cannot be vetted by the parliament.

I mentioned the above because there are people including some of the MPs in the NLA who think that the Select Committee over-stepped its mandate and was involved in witch-hunting by targeting some few individuals among the appointee ministers and deputy ministers. This is particularly in the case of the appointee Minister of Justice, Mr. Telar Ring Deng whose approval was withheld by the Select Committee pending more information from him because of some concerns from the public. There were also attempts to discredit the committee by claiming that it was biased because the chairperson of the committee Hon. Abuk Payiti was not neutral because she is holding grudges with the Minister of Justice because her husband, Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba was one of the ministers dismissed by the president.

Other theories went on further to suggest that, members of the committee were influenced by some powerful former ministers to make sure that Mr. Telar Deng was not sworn in as Minister of Justice. Some also rumoured that the committee members have been bribed, each have been promised huge amount of money to fail the vetting and approval of Justice Telar Ring Deng.

The select committee chaired by Hon. Abuk Payiti is a neutral and competent committee, whose members are all committed sons and daughters of the republic of South Sudan. The committee was just performing its duties and exercising its mandate in accordance to the law. It is the prerogative of the Select Committee to investigate concerns raised against a candidate and clear them. The term of reference of the Select Committee is the Conduct of Business Regulations, 2011 of the National Legislative Assembly and the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011. Regulation 148 of the Conduct of Business Regulation 2011, gave powers to the Speaker and Hon. Members of the august House to appoint a Select Committee. The Committee has in its disposal the powers accorded to it in Article 57 (h) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011.

As to the process of vetting, the committee relied heavily on the criteria used by the President to appoint the ministers in accordance to Article 112 (2) and (3) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011.

On several occasions, the general public and MPs of the National legislative Assembly have been complaining about non implementation of laws passed by the parliament. It will therefore be unwise, unfortunate and hence unconstitutional for the same group of people to denounce and condemn the Select Committee for having done the right thing. There is no way the Select Committee could ignore its instrument of operation and just approve the appointees of the president without careful scrutiny and especially when there are allegations brought against some of them like in the case of Mr. Telar Deng and Ms. Rachel Nyadak Paul. The Select Committee vetted and approved the rest of the appointees because nobody raised concern or brought any allegation against them, otherwise, some of them would face what befell the two.

The Select Committee was not witch-hunting and will never indulge itself into this. In fact, all the appointees of the President appeared before the Select Committee of Parliament and were interviewed live on TV, hence; the process was very transparent. This is a credit to the parliament. The Select Committee used this vetting process so that each appointee convince the committee members about their credentials and their anticipated policies which they hope to implement once they take up their new positions. Throughout the process, the Chairman of the committee, Hon. Abuk Payiti provided strong leadership and guidance professionally without fear or favour. Therefore, allegation that she was biased is just an attempt to discredit and assassinate her character.

The Select Committee checked the background of each of the appointees against professional responsibility, and especially for the minister of Justice, it was more focused in the area of legal practice that encompasses the duties of the minister of justice to act in professional manner, obey law, avoid conflict of interest and put the interest of the public ahead. The scrutiny was more in detail because this is a person who will head the key ministry of justice with responsibility to make laws for the running of the country. These checks were used by the Select Committee as a means of evaluating qualifications, character and fitness.  Law-making is very crucial because it is all about creating systems of rules of conduct to govern society; it must be checked thoroughly and is not witch-hunting. This is where may be some members of the public and some of our colleagues in the parliament think that Mr. Telar Deng was or is being targeted.

Gone are the old days where appointees of the president used to be passed by applause without any scrutiny. It is time to change to confirm to the speech of the president on 9th July 2013 marking the 2nd Anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of South Sudan, quote “for a long time, people have been complaining and asking: why is there no change”. This is the time for change. The men and women who will be appointed by the president from now onwards to public offices must be subjected to thorough and rigorous scrutiny before they assume office.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the National Legislative Assembly will never be the same again. “The hope of a secure and liveable world lies with disciplined nonconformists” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hon. Joseph Ngeṛe Päciko (MP), represents Western Equatoria State in the NLA on SPLM Party list, a former Deputy Governor in the state and a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee for vetting the Appointees of the president of the Republic of South Sudan, 2013. He can be reached on email address  

Equatorians in the Republic of South Sudan held a second “Equatoria Conference” on February 14 and 15, 2013 at Nyakuron Cultural Center in Juba, under the theme: Consolidating Justice, Unity and Prosperity that came up with strong resolutions, one of them is Re-affirmation of the Equatoria Conference 2011 Resolution on a Democratic Federal System of Governance For South Sudan. Among others resolution is: a Resolution on Land-Grabbing, Security and Governance
The Equatoria Conference Resolutions which was signed by the three Greater Equatoria Region Governors, H. E. Clement Wani Kinga, Governor of Central Equatoria State, H. E. Louis Lobong Lojore, Governor of Eastern Equatoria State, and H. E. Joseph Bangasi Bakasoro, Governor of Western Equatoria State, is as well demanding the National Government in Juba to:
Ensure and guarantee that recruitment into service in Foreign and Diplomatic Missions is Gender Balance, And Duly Reflects Competency, Merit And National Character And Devoid Of Nepotism.
Equatorians are also appealing to the President of the Republic of South Sudan, H. E. Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit to Pardon Peter Abdrahaman Sule And Ms. Josephine Joseph Lagu Yanga.

Juba, Feb 20
South Sudan’s legislature is considering a bill that would extend the constitutional review and approval process until as late as mid-2015, following the expiry last month of the review commission’s mandate.
The country’s transitional constitution was ratified on 7 July 2011 and came into force two days later, independence day. It replaced the interim constitution that had been in force since 2005 during the period of semi-autonomy.
The National Constitutional Review Commission was appointed by the president, Salva Kiir Mayardit, and was tasked with submitting a draft constitutional text and explanatory report to the president within one year of its formation – a job not completed.
John Luk Jok, the justice minister, explained in a note to the legislature last week that the commission ran into problems including “lack of funds, logistical problems and lack of an appropriate working environment.”
The justice minister has proposed to extend the commission’s mandate until 10 September 2013, modifying article 202 (10) of the constitution to that effect. But he has also asked the legislature to reduce the time allowed to the National Constitutional Conference (NCC), which should follow the commission’s work.
According to the minister’s proposal, tabled as the Transitional Constitution Amendment Bill, the Constitutional Conference will commence sometime after the September 2013 deadline, “as soon as it receives the Draft Constitutional Text and Explanatory Report from the president.” It will have three months to deliberate and adopt the text. This represents a revision of article 202(3)(e), which had given the conference six months, making the deadline for the conference’s submission 10 December 2013 at the earliest.
Explaining this change, the minister envisioned a more limited role for the NCC compared to the original drafting commission, saying the commission would have to “organize and manage a wider-ranging national debate involving civic education,” whereas the conference would merely be a deliberative body of a more technical nature focusing on “content, structure and wording.”
After the NCC submits its draft text to the president, the president would cause it to be tabled before the National Legislature “at least six months before the end of the Transitional Period, for deliberation and adoption within three months,” according to the proposed amendment.
The date for final adoption of the permanent constitution would thus be three months before the end of the Transitional Period. Nowhere in the constitution, however, is “Transitional Period” clearly defined. This means that in the bill now before parliament there is no explicit date for adoption of the permanent constitution.
Presumably, however, it would have to be before the end of the mandate of the president and legislature, July 8, 2015; and with three months required for the legislature to deliberate, that would put a deadline for adoption of the permanent constitution in April 2015 at the latest.
Last Friday, 15 February, the assembly’s justice and constitution committee held a public hearing on the proposed amendment. MPs, commission members and members of the public speaking at the open hearing expressed a variety of concerns. Some noted that although the legislature had allocated budget for the activities of the review commission, the finance ministry had not disbursed to the commission the allocated funds.
Others expressed reservations that the extension period until September would not be long enough. The elections chairman, for example, proposed a period of two years, while the chairman of the national bar association said it would be better not to have any time limit.
Also under discussion was whether the president should be given power to restructure the commission, possibly reducing the number of members.

Republican decree number 25 for the year 2013, for the relieve of SPLA [Sudan People's Liberation Army] officers from active service and their transfer to the reserve list 2013 AD.

Title and commencement

This decree shall be cited as Republican Decree number 25 for the year 2013, for the relieve of SPLA officers from active service and their transfer to reserve list 2013 AD, and shall come into forces on the date of its signature by the president of the republic.

The decree

In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under article 153/2 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 AD, read together with section 13/B of the SPLA Act 2009, I, Gen Salva Kiir Mayardit, President of the Republic of South Sudan and Commander-In-Chief of the SPLA, do hereby issue this Republican Decree for the relieve of SPLA officers from the active service and their transfer to the reserve list as follows:

1. Lt-Gen Taban Deng Gai
2. Lt-Gen James Kok Ruay
3. Maj-Gen Muaj Jiang Deng Kuoch
4. Maj-Gen Simon Kun Puoch
5. Brig-Gen John Mayar Mayiik
6. Brig-Gen. Martin Onguel Mabior
7. Brig-Gen Deng Rokdit Mayar
8. Brig-Gen Simon Mading Ngor
9. Brig-Gen Morris Agang Kuek
10. Brig-Gen Machar Gew Deng.
11. Brig-Gen Patrick Raphael Samoi
12. Brig-Gen. Mamer Makuck Kuol
13. Brig-Gen Monykuer Mayen Anei
14. Brig-Gen Makuei Mathai Ruei
15. Brig-Gen Paulino Kon Dhieu
16. Brig-Gen Kong Ruch Araj Kudu
17. Brig-Gen Obuch Kur Jago
18. Brig-Gen Matthew Arop Oboy.
19. Brig-Gen Khalifah Babikir al-Tinjani
20. Bri-Gen John Kur Jok
21. Brig-Gen Dhieu Ngong Diak
22. Brig-Gen Yar Deng Aguek Tor
23. Brig-Gen Samuel Bullen Alier
24. Brig-Gen Kuot Ajak Arop
25. Brig-Gen Agoth Deng Amieth
26. Brig-Gen Bior Aguer Bior
27. Brig-Gen Richard Kur Bol
28. Brig-Gen Maker Makuei Ijong
29. Brig-Gen Malual Akol Mathiang
30. Brig-Gen Daniel Martin Athiek
31. Brig-Gen Deng Duot Ajok
32. Brig-Gen William Wol Akuei
33. Brig-Gen Manyok Yol Manyok
34. rig-Gen James Gai Ngong
35. Brig-Gen Zachariah Kuach Jok
36. Brig-Gen Anyieth Ajok Anyieth
37. Brig-Gen Majok Lam Makur
38. Brig-Gen Agany Kuach Agoth
39. Brig-Gen Garang John Bill
40. Brig-Gen Malual Monyluak Rou
41. Brig-Gen Nong Agoth Anei
42. Brig-Gen John Jok Nhial
43. Brig-Gen Peter Lou Matiu
44. Brig-Gen Steven Lonj Matir
45. Brig-Gen Victor Giler Salvatore
46. Brig-Gen Peter Pal Teny
47. Brig-Gen John Kutir Bayak
48. Brig-Gen Deng Deng Akon
49. Brig-Gen Siko Ochak Riek
50. Brig-Gen Sarah Ayak Maker
51. Brig-Gen Anyieth Chol Ater
52. Brig-Gen Achol Garang Akuong
53. Brig-Gen Jok Kuer Ruay
54. Brig-Gen Johnson Otor Kuoth
55. Brig-Gen Ajang Manhir Akech
56. Brig-Gen Deng Yai Deng
57. Brig-Gen Kuth Akuei Kur
58. Brig-Gen Wol Deng Diek
59. Brig-Gen Bano Ochala Alek
60. Brig-Gen Konj Madut Agoy
61. Brig-Gen Daak Nyiel Ruay
62. Brig-Gen John Gatkuoth Bithou
63. Brig-Gen John Both Luak
64. Brig-Gen Riek Guer Deng
65. Brig-Gen Peter Akuen Jok
66. Brig-Gen Kuoth Kun Thuok
67. Brig-Gen Michael Toth Jiath
68. Brig-Gen William Tiek Nhial
69. Brig-Gen Francis Othuro Atary
70. Brig-Gen James Juma Khamis
71. Brig-Gen Barnadhino Fernalado Ojeri
72. Brig-Gen Edward Zachariah Galgura
73. Brig-Gen Marjan Youhani Kuago
74. Brig-Gen Moses Mathai Luet
75. Brig-Gen Andrean Kuch Bol
76. Brig-Gen Salvatore Longar Gel
77. Brig-Gen Santina Al-Harah Atem
78. Brig-Gen Simon Riek Rieth
79. Brig-Gen William Gatkuoth Dhiew
80. Brig-Gen Stephen Gawar Manyok
81. Brig-Gen Stephen Yual Tutdel
82. Brig-Gen James Tag Lil
83. Brig-Gen Chuol Kagan Nyiel
84. Brig-Gen Chuol Lip Paal
85. Brig-Gen James Gatwich Lual Jok
86. Brig-Gen Wor Majok Pieny
87. Brig-Gen Peter Gathjang Ruay
88. Brig-Gen Joseph Bilieu Jar
89. Brig-Gen Peter Nyieth Chuor
90. Brig-Gen Simon Goth Nyiir
91. Brig-Gen Ter Torkit Rambang
92. Brig-Gen Simon Ujong Rieth
93. Brig-Gen Gabriel Maluth Kuel
94. Brig-Gen Victor Anon Lal
95. Brig-Gen James Henry Tarnieu Uyogu
96. Brig-Gen Joseph Deng Bior
97. Brig-Gen Otura Kaku
98. Brig-Gen Lado Budamuj Nangiru
99. Brig-Gen James Kuek Luach
100. Big-Gen Charles Oguenj Ijogoy
101. Brg-Gen Makuei Akech Ajou
102. Brig-Gen Alfred Majok Madut
103. Brig-Gen Guang Matayo Ukua
104. Brig-Gen Kuol Atem Bol
105. Brig-Gen Kuer Dau Atem
106. Brig-Gen Agustino Maduot Parek
107. Brig-Gen Deng Agok
108. Brig-Gen James Achien Akuei
109. John Malis Jar
110. Philip Lolori Ijina
111. Brig-Gen Peter Yol Agok
112. Brig-Gen Rizik Zachariah Hasan
113. Brig-Gen Efision Kon Guak.
114. Luis Lobong Lojore
115. Anderia Mayar Akoch
116. Brig-Gen Kuach Ator Anyang
117. Brig-Gen Gabriel Ayuk Achbel

Issued under my hand and seal of the Republic of South Sudan in Juba, this 14 day of the month of February in the year 2013 AD.

Signed: Gen Salva Kiir Mayardit, President and Commander-In-Chief of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, Republic of South Sudan, Juba.


South Sudan Defends Removal of Over 100 Senior Military Officers From Active
Juba — South Sudan on Sunday defended its decision to remove 118 senior military officers from active military service and place them on reserve docket, a move seen as an attempt to transform the security sector, according to its minister of 

NBGS Local Administrator Behind Bars

Posted: September 22, 2012 by PaanLuel Wël in Government of South Sudan

September 21, 2012 (WAU) – South Sudan’s security agents have arrested four people in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, generating political tension, officials told Sudan Tribune on Friday.

Santino Mou Akot, a local administrative officer is said to have been arrested with three others in Aweil, the state capital.

An immediate family member said Akot has been behind bars for the last four days.

State authorities have not explained the arrest an anonymous family member told Sudan Tribune.

Security sources working in the prison told Sudan Tribune that the arrests were made due to their criticism of individuals in the state administration.

Akot’s wife said on Thursday she spent three days wondering about the whereabouts of her husband before resorting to touring the detention centres in the area and finding him in a building previously used by the elections commission.

“He has not eaten since he was arrested on Tuesday evening. He has not even been allowed to change his clothes for the last three days. I went yesterday and asked whether I could be allowed to talk to him but the guards refused my request. They also did not accept that I bring him food though he really looks hungry, very weak indeed,” she explained.

She said she has heard from friends of her husband that a letter ordering his arrest was sent from Juba. “They say the letter to arrest him and other people was brought from Juba. He is now arrested with fourteen people. I do not know whether they are people with whom they are accused or people he found there,” she said.

A legislator who asked for anonymity told Sudan Tribune on Friday that charges brought against Akot were just political concoctions motivated by a need to silence him as a political opponent to other politicians.

September 15, 2012 (KHARTOUM) — Sudan has urged UN chief to press South Sudanese government to cease its support to the rebel Sudan people’s Liberation Movement North (SPLM-N) stressing such links hamper the ongoing efforts to settle the unresolved issues.

Ambassador Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman, Permanent Representative of Sudan to the United Nations met on Friday 14 September with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to brief him on the latest developments on the ongoing talks with South Sudan as the UN Security Council prepare to discuss the issue on 22 September.

The parties made progress on the different files except the border demarcation and the disputed areas while the mediation plans to hold a presidential summit on Abyei between Omer Al-Bashir and Salva Kiir on 21 September.

The parallel process with the SPLM-N, on the other hand, is stalled as the parties trade accusations of delay of humanitarian relief, plans to topple the regime with the support of South Sudan and Darfur rebels.

Daffa-Alla said he urged Ban Ki-moon to put pressure on Juba government to disengage politically and militarily with the Sudanese rebel group which fights the government in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. He stressed that such relation breaches the rules of international law.

According to SUNA, the Sudanese diplomat told the UN chief that Khartoum would not hold direct talks with the rebel group until the latter formally disengage politically and militarily with the newly independent South Sudan.

The two parties hold indirect humanitarian and political talks as they meet the mediation separately.

Sudan says the two former divisions of the SPLA in Blue Nile and South Kordofan are still receiving they salaries, weapons and ammunition from Juba. It further says the leaders of the Sudanese rebellion are instructed by the SPLM leader and South Sudan President Salva Kiir.

Juba and SPLM-N denied the accusations. Following the referendum on self determination of January 2011, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in the north Sudan established an independent structure as their comrades in South Sudan were preparing to proclaim their independent state in July 2011.

But Khartoum speaks about disengagement to highlight the close relations and the continued support they receive from the SPLM in Juba which is the ruling party.

South Sudanese top negotiator Pagan Amum arrived in Addis Ababa after a long stay in Washington for medical reasons.

Also, Princeton Lyman, US envoy for Sudan and South Sudan arrived to the Ethiopian capital where he met with the chief mediator, Thabo Mbeki to discuss the recent development on the talks.

Daffa-Alla told Ki-moon that the Sudanese delegation was keen to be in Addis on the date fixed by the mediation while the rebels belatedly arrived to Addis Ababa and left two days later to Washington obstructing the talks.

SPLM-N leadership is in a visit to the United States for talks with the American officials and to seek the support of members of Congress and civil society groups as the campaign for US presidential election has already started.

There is no smoke without fire? What prompted such a stern warning?


We, the government, on behalf of the people of Northern Bahr el Ghazal State, hereby warmly congratulate Your Excellency, the President, and the People of the Republic of South Sudan for the greatest achievement of the independence of the Republic on such a day one year ago.

This is one of the greatest achievements in the history of the world in the 21st Century of the 3rd Millennium. Not many leaders and communities have achieved such a vision through a protracted struggle over the last 200 years of our self-discovery as the first indigenous inhabitants of the land of the Black People, Bilhad-el-Sudan, in the then so-called `Dark Continent’ of Africa.

Therefore, we, from Northern Bahr el Ghazal, being part of the committed communities, which brought about this independence and still continuing to defend it by all cost and by all means on the borders with our former and current enemy, are assuring you and the whole nation that we will remain a formidable dam against any foreign aggression and its malicious agenda from now to the end of the world. So help us God.

Happy Birth Day to all the peoples of South Sudan, their friends and well wishers who are celebrating the making of our history in Juba and all the other capitals of the nation.

Long live The President!
Long Live the Virgin Republic!
God Bless South Sudan!

Lt. Gen. Paul Malong Awan,
The Governor with The Government and the Patriotic People of Northern Bahr-el-Ghazal State.
Aweil, South Sudan.

Maps and related documents pertaining to South Sudan

An Adobe Acrobat file Detailed Administrative map of Republic South Sudan with One Boundary with out Sudan pop 2.11 MB
An Adobe Acrobat file Detailed Administrative map of Republic South Sudan with One Boundary 2.16 MB
An Adobe Acrobat file Detailed Administrative map of Republic South Sudan WITH BOTH BOUNDARY 2.25 MB
An Adobe Acrobat file 1954 Map – Tribes of Sudan

17 June 2012


  1. Since it became public in early June, the letter of the President of the Republic, General Salva Kiir Mayardit, dated the 3rd of May 2012 in which he wrote to 75 current and former government officials that he accused of stealing 4 billion US dollars, has been the subject of intense debate. As the official Opposition party in the country, the SPLM-DC is duty bound to make its position on the matter clear.
  2. That the government that ruled South Sudan since 2005 is corrupt to the marrow is not news. We have said it loud and clear three years ago and there were muted voices here and there saying so, only to be met with strong denials by those in power. The only new thing now is that the President is trying albeit in a weak-kneed manner to pass the buck to others in his government. The whole exercise is meant to impress not South Sudanese but the nagging international community whose money that they gave generously in the mistaken hope of helping South Sudan ended up in the fat bank accounts of unscrupulous leaders of the Government in South Sudan.
  3. From the outset let us not be duped about the amount of the missing money. Since 2005 to date, South Sudan has received in excess of 20 billion US dollars as revenue from oil alone. This figure excludes the funds it got in terms of grants and loans in addition to its share of the national budget before secession. Since there is very little to show for in terms of services rendered to our people, where did most of that money go to?

Therefore, the figure quoted in the President’s letter is paltry, well below the actual amount embezzled.

  1. The tone and tenure of the President’s language in the letter is unmistakable. Says he: “an estimated $4 billion are unaccounted for, or simply put, stolen by current and former South Sudan officials or corrupt individuals with close ties to government officials”. In another paragraph he categorically puts it  that: “some [former and current government officials] have purchased properties; often paid in cash” and proceeded to state that he had written 75 letters to these government officials requesting them to “return these stolen funds (full or partial)”. Despite his futile attempt to beat a hasty retreat nothing short of denying the authenticity of the letter will make people take his latest statements seriously. Since he has not done so, it is obvious from the above quotations that anybody that has received the President’s letter is not only a suspect but is heavily accused of stealing public funds with all what that entails in the legal realm.
  2. With that lack of doubt in the President’s mind of the crime committed, it is mind-boggling why the President rather than proceed with his water-tight case against the “looters” of public funds ends up begging them to anonymously return even part of the money stolen! If the objective was to get back the $4 billion, this partial depositing, if it were to happen, to win the President’s amnesty, would not do the trick because anything above a zero dollar is “part” of the money and qualifies the depositor to full amnesty.
    1. In principle, the idea of writing letters to suspected embezzlers of public funds is none of the President’s business, less so to write off stolen government funds which belong to the people of South Sudan. The President has no authority to conceal the identity of thieves and write off the stolen money. Such an action in itself runs counter to a basic principle of criminal law, the deterrent effect. No criminal would want to be discovered in the act of committing a crime. Hence, making the names of those convicted of embezzling the money of the poor South Sudanese public, the so-called shaming, is the strongest deterrent for any would-be embezzler.
    2. The volte-face of the President was, we understand, a result of a passionate wheeling and dealing in the circles of the ruling party as a result of the last resolution of Parliament to suspend all recipients of the President’s letter. We know that most of the 55 Ministers and Deputy Ministers in the current government of the Republic of South Sudan and other stalwarts of the SPLM are in receipt of the letter. Suspending them would mean that the government and the party would be paralyzed and tainted, the very opposite of what the President had wanted to achieve. What goes round comes round!
    3. In light of the above our position on the matter is as follows:

(a)- Corruption is a cancerous disease that has robbed our people of funds that would have been used to provide them with the basic services of life-saving medicines, education and decent living; compromised our image inside South Sudan and abroad and had introduced a sub-culture alien to our values. It must therefore be fought with all resolve and vigor to eradicate it.

(b)- We unreservedly support the resolution of the National Legislature on Tuesday the 13th instant that all suspected of corruption, starting with those who were served with the President’s letter, be suspended from duty and be investigated by the competent legal authorities and those found to have a case to answer for be prosecuted. One is amazed to hear a Cabinet Minister say that this resolution is not binding on the Executive branch of government!

(c)- The government of the Republic of South Sudan must show by deeds, not words, that it is committed to its own slogan of “zero-tolerance to corruption”. The people of South Sudan will only believe them if some heads start rolling, something that has not happened in the entire life of the SPLM-led government. Our people learn by example not through rhetoric.

(d)- The current debate about the corrupt elements in our midst was started by none other than the President himself. Hence, he should not be seen to waver in his resolve to take firm action against those suspected of being involved in corruption; otherwise, accusing fingers will be pointed at him.

(e)- We appeal to our people in South Sudan to keep this debate alive. This is the only way to retrieve our stolen money and stamp out corruption once and for all. Our slogans should be: “Corruptions Kills” and “No Amnesty to Thieves”.

Dr Lam Akol,

Chairman of SPLM-DC.


May this note find you well. Attached, please kindly find the copy of the letter that RSS sent to the UNSC today.

Blessed evening,
Amb. Agnes Oswaha

RSS Letter to UNSC 22 April 2012.pdf RSS Letter to UNSC 22 April 2012.pdf
2831K View Download

RSS Letter to UNSC 22 April 2012.pdf