Archive for the ‘Junub Sudan’ Category

By Hon. Taban Abel Aguek (MP), Rumbek, Lakes State

The fruition of the CPA

The fruition of the CPA

March 31, 2015 (SSB)  —   Is it out of love or mockery that Africa appears to care too much about South Sudan? From the first day the conflict erupted in South Sudan, Africa has been suggesting possible remedies to the crisis in the country.

Apart from hosting peace talks in Addis Ababa, the African Union (AU) also promptly formed a five member commission of inquiry to “investigate the human rights violations and other abuses committed during the armed conflict in South Sudan and make recommendations on the best way and means to ensure accountability, reconciliation and healing among all South Sudanese communities”.

The commission of inquiry is composed of prominent and respected individuals with exceptional skills and experience. The Chairperson of the Inquiry Commission is composed of former President of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo, Lady Justice Sophia Akuffo who is the Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana, Prof. Mahmood Mamdani of Makerere University (Uganda), Bineta Diop who is AU Chairperson’s envoy for Women, Peace and Security, AU Special Envoy for Women, Peace and Security and Prof. Pacifique Manirakiza who is a commissioner at the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights in Banjul, the Gambia.

No doubt, this is a team of well placed African leaders that equally possess huge experience and tested competence.

Now, one wonders why a series of very dirty wars were allowed to rage on in Sudan long before the separation of South Sudan the former O.A.U couldn’t take such a step. Until today, another bad war is raging on in Sudan’s Nuba Mountains and Darfur region and the AU instead of investigating crimes committed – genocide included – chooses to protect the main proprietors of the crimes and conflicts in Sudan.

No investigative team of inquiry has been set for Sudan. And President Beshir stays insulated from the ICC by the AU. So, there are two Aus: one that investigates crimes in South Sudan and the other one that shields Beshir from going to the court in the Hague. But maybe for the AU loves South Sudan so much, there can be nothing else anyone can say than to appreciate such a concern.

The report of this Commission of Inquiry has not yet been made public. But there had only been a leaked report purported to have been prepared by AU. The ‘leaked’ report almost caused an outrage and misunderstanding both in the Government and the opposition camps.

Not because it carried such weird and witty recommendations like the axing of both the President and the rebel leader Dr. Machar in the formation of a transitional government, but it also looks shallow, unprofessional and lacking content to match the jurisdictions and standards of a veritable inquiry.

The AU, in person of Chairperson Dr. Nkosazana Dlamina-Zuma, has already disowned the report. That has helped a bit fixed the mess.

Regardless of the fact presented by the AU in delaying the report – for fear that it may obstruct peace process in Addis Ababa – the US, the EU and so many other affiliate NGOs, still call for publication of the official report.

That makes it quite perplexing how the same agencies and organizations that call for a speedy peace process also adamantly demand for the release of the AU Commission of Inquiry report when we all know that it could delay peace. As seen in the leaked report, any document that carries coined stories and discrepancies may likely bang the door closed on the Addis Ababa talks.

The leaked report of the Commission of Inquiry, since it now lacks any official backing and rightful authenticity, can be assumed a bluff. But the question remains: can the current team of experts investigating into the country’s crisis produce an honest, credible and unbiased report? And can this commission be fair enough in their findings and recommendations? Methinks No!

With due respect to each and every member of the Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan crisis with regards to ‘human rights violations, atrocities and so much more’ not many South Sudanese believe that this commission of inquiry is one that they should trust to carefully and honestly analyze the crisis, make proper findings and suggest the right recommendations on the conflict in South Sudan.

This is not because we may suspect the competence of the team. Neither do we think they can be manipulated by some interest groups with stakes in the war in the country.

We all know who President Olusegun Obasanjo is. He is a well respected African statesman who made a name in the making of both modern and the old Nigeria. He handed over power peacefully in 1979 after he lost elections to Shehu Shagari. In 1976, he ascended to power by the privilege of death as President Murtala Mohammed, who he deputized, died in assassination. But he could not hold onto power during the election. Nigeria, through him, saw a peaceful transfer of power. That he handed over power peacefully made him a darling of the West, particularly the US, Germany and Britain.

But just like Dr. Riek Machar he attempted coup in 1995. The coup failed and he was not as fortunate as Riek Machar who miraculously found his way out of Juba simply to embark on a rebellion in a matter of days. Obasanjo was arrested, tried and jailed for life. The West, because they were the architects of his failed coup, pressurized for his release.

Due to that pressure his sentence was reduced to 15 years. By a complete twist of fate, he was again a beneficiary of death as his arch enemy Gen. Sani Abacha died of an illness in 1998. A year later Obasanjo contested elections and won comfortably. Like an American President who served two complete terms he led Nigeria for eight straight years.

That Obansanjo is a believer of coups is not the point of concern. Rather, the issue – and relevance to the case of South Sudan – is his concept of reforms. Nigeria, in so many aspects, does not resemble South Sudan. So, Obasnajo’s reforms for Nigeria cannot marry up with the South Sudan reforms.

Still one asks himself if everything has worked well for Nigeria. President Obasanjo’s homeland, just like South Sudan, is until today deep in crisis. It has for a long time been engage in a series of insurgencies and is still held knee-deep in one of the worst corruption in Africa. The Boko Haram poses a big threat to Nigeria the way Riek’s rebels are to South Sudan. That begs the question: has Obasanjo put right his home country to even dare look into issues of other countries?

There is a belief that Obasanjo holds experience and valid solutions to Africa’s problems as he is taken to be a symbol of reform and democracy. Yet, Africa has moved much more than Obasanjo. It seems Africa is still being driven by personality cult.

Much as we hail President Obasanjo’s huge experience, there is a question of his age. It is my personal feeling that Uncle Obasanjo has not very much energy left in him. The Obasanjo of 1998 cannot be the Obasanjo of 2015. He can easily be outwitted and asked to sign a blind cheque for South Sudan. The commission of inquiry on South Sudan crisis can be manipulated under his watchful eyes by those that hold very dangerous views on South Sudan. And that might be the greatest fear of South Sudanese.

One such fear is the inclusion of Prof. Mahmood Mamdani of Uganda in the same commission of inquiry. Like Obasanjo, Prof Mahmood Mamdani possesses an intellectual power but that cannot stop us from interrogating his inclusion into this important commission. This is because Prof. Mahmood has a long held view that Dr. Riek, South Sudan’s rebel leader, is a reformist.

At the Annual Retreat of the National Resistance Army (NRM) at Kyankwanzi on February 11th, 2014, which was later published by the New Vision of Uganda on 16th Feb, 2014, Prof Mahmood Mamdani delivered a lecture on South Sudan conflict titled “No power sharing without political reform”. In the lecture, the well endowed Professor gave his analysis on the genesis of South Sudan crisis, its ripple effects and the way forward.

In some instances he made his views clear on Riek being a reformist – how he arrived at that only God knows – but there was never clear inclination anyone would easily put him in since he appeared spread all over and pointing the issues of the ethnicity between the Dinka and the Nuer. True to his writing, the British heightened ethnicity in South Sudan. But he equally has his own views and one dangerous thing among them is his criticism of the independence of South Sudan.

Prof. Mahmood made it clear that he was against the independence of South Sudan. He said, “The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 turned out to be a shoddy affair, rushed by those in a hurry to birth an independent South. The people of South Sudan are just beginning to pay the price for that haste.”

Poignant to the feeling of South Sudanese, Prof. Mahmood believes that South Sudan is a “child of the war on terror.” That explicitly means that South Sudan statehood was driven not from our own struggle but born out of the war on terror. There has been no abuse like this on the history of struggle of South Sudan.

In short, Prof Mahmud Mamdani is one guy that has long formed an opinion about South Sudan. He made his position clear that he is inclined to support Dr. Riek’s reforms. He continues to blame what he termed as ‘rushed’ independence of South Sudan’. Therefore, there can be no reason he could have been appointed into the team of inquiry on the crisis of South Sudan. According to global criteria on choosing an inquiry team should not have been a member of the team of inquiry for south Sudan. It is like sending a sensitive case of sheep to a wolf.

Looking already at the leaked ‘fake’ report of the commission of inquiry, one wonders if you don’t see the hands of Prof. Mahmud Mamdani. While Mzee Obasanjo leads by his good name, the dirt may continue to be done by the enemies of South Sudan.

Prof. Mahmud has also been fighting against the term limits of President Museveni of Uganda. His inclusion in the committee of inquiry on South Sudan crisis only helps him find another podium from which he could fight Museveni away from home.

So there goes the story of the AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan! South Sudanese have to waste not their time in laying hope on this commission. They should expect a bad report that is based on manipulations under the supervision of a helpless old man.

South Sudanese shall forever continue to give their respect to President Obasanjo as one of the living fathers of the modern Africa. But that people will agree with the report of an important inquiry committee may only come as a surprise.

Taban Abel Aguek is an MP in Lakes State Legislative Assembly – Rumbek. He can be reached at


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 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 Mamer Deng Jur, Australia

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia

March 30, 2015 (SSB)  —   Many people in my community claimed to be everything or to know everything. But anyone has to understand that they are ‘jack – of – all trade wheels – dealers’. Whatever they want themselves to be.

But I do have a belief that a ‘worse human being of all is a coward human’. Coward human is the worse enemy of any functioning community in the world.

Coward persons are easily spotted among the majority.Because they are always less confident when they talk, and many of them like very much to gossip a lot. In addition, they are bunch of liars.

A ‘poor planned wrestling activity’ had cost one person dearly: a historic wrestling day in Australia became unlucky day for one participant, Zico Bol Makuach Jok.

On 2ndof March 2015, I received a phone call from Bol Makuach Jok. He curiously informed me that, ‘he was wondering if I would be able to accompany him to his scheduled appointment with a legal specialist’. Which was going to take place on 13thof March 2015.

I was very pleased. Even though, I was really busy with other automatic life scheduled activities. Nowadays, people are badly enslaved by living. First, money is controlling every single aspect of life, especially when you are living in highly developed Western countries. Secondly, being a new arrival in the country is not an easy thing.

That day, I had to abandon some things; I was supposed to do. I did it for Mr. Jok, because he is a good bloke. I would have been a bad dude if I had let him down that day by not turning up for his an appointment.

On the letter, it was stated that, Mr. Jok was highly welcomed to bring along a third party to that appointment, which was organised by a specialist who was hired by the insurance company called QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited ‘LTD’. The specialist was acting on behalf of the insurance ‘QBE’ to investigate, and to take facts statement from Mr. Jok regarding wrestling incident, where by Mr. Jok was a ‘victim’, to narrate his story in three dimensions. How he ended up with a fractured bone on his left hand, on 26th and 27th respectively.

The reason being that, the information, which was supplied/provided to the insurance (QBE) by Bor Youth Association Incorporation, was ‘insufficient’. The leadership/organisers claimed that Mr. Jok was ‘volunteering’ for Bor Youth Association ‘multicultural activities when he took part in the wrestling march on 26th December 2014. They should have expanded it; what were these activities?

Therefore, I will give a little introduction about Bor Youth Association in the following paragraphs.

Bor Youth Association Australia

This association ‘above’ was formed in 2004 and is functioning until today in 2015. It was formed by a group of enthusiastic people from various clans within Bor County.

The idea itself to have an association came from a few individuals, and in particular our late brother Mac Achuak Mac who thought thoroughly that there was a need for a combined forum for youth from Bor County to discuss important issues yearly in what they called Annual General Meeting (AGM).

His colleagues supported the idea. Together they preached out this intellectual idea to all their brothers and sisters who were in various States and the Territories. This idea, ‘Bor County would have an association was first tabled in Adelaide, South Australia. All individuals from Bor County arrived into Adelaide in hundreds for the first time.


Constitutions are very important documents, because we live in very complex societies where many people have differences in views, opinions and other complex issues, which are very delicate to deal with by anyone.

Bor Youth Association in Australia Incorporation “BYAA INC” constitution was born on 27th December 2004. Named as ‘Adelaide Conference’. All the members who had attended Adelaide convention that year were the drafters of the constitution. These members, whether dead or alive today were the founding fathers of Bor Youth Association’s constitution.

On that day, people were divided into groups, so that they could come up with certain objectives for the association. That day, many objectives were projected from each table, but only twelve objectives were founded to be more uniting, sensible and meaningful.

These twelve objectives were drafted into this single document of (BYAA INC). Since 2004 and until 2015 none of these twelve objectives has been achieved. This document was straightforward and truly written in a good legal sense and manner.

I do thank those people who put it together as such. The weakness was that many people (members) were very poor in legal sense (layperson in legal sense) to understand this legal document.

But this document along the years had become an exercise book for our elected youth representatives (President, they like to be referred to as ‘President’) who had no legal background in that sense. But they might be good in mathematics and other stuffs of their interests.

Some of our youth (reps) after Mawut Biar (first president of the association) started amending the constitution without even consulting their partners of the constitution (the States and the Territories), as if this document was an accounting recording exercise book.

I hope that one day some of the objectives will be achieved, if legal minded personnel are accepted to lead this association for God sake, for better change and future of the association to thrive.

Event (wrestling)

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia

The wrestling took place on 26th December 2014, between the State of Victoria and the State of Queensland. The event (wrestling) was organised and sponsored by the ‘Bor Youth Association Incorporation’ of Australia and their partners (States and the Territories).

I heard that the turn – out was unbelievable. People turned up in hundreds if not thousands. On that day, spectators paid $15entry fees into the footy (Australian Football)ground where the wrestling would take place. I believed that, on the day, they had made a fortune out of the wrestling match.

Mr. Jok took part in this spectacular show, which hundreds of people watched (wrestling) on that the day of December. He was a Queenslander or among the ‘team’ of Queenslanders. His opponent was a Victorian or among the ‘team’ of Victorian. Mr. Jok told me that, ‘ during that time he was weighing 115 kilos and he reckon his opponent was weighing around 107 – 110 kilos’, as far as he could remember, ‘he thought that on the day he had wrestled very well against his opponent.

Mr. Jok said,‘he could remember that, he caught his opponent’s left hand’ tight and strong with his left hand, and then he aggressively pushed his right hand under his arm pit, and he then suddenly tipped him over to the ground. In those seconds, Mr. Jok defeated his opponent by forcing him aggressively to the ground.

Broken arm

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia, broken arm

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia, broken arm

But unfortunately, Mr. Jok landed on his left hand while still holding his opponent’s left arm, and then both wrestlers’ bodies’ weights sat on heavily on his left hand. That how Mr. Jok ended up with fractured bone on his left arm.

Mr. Jok informed the armies of organisers that his left arm was broken. They gave him first aid, and then after that the ambulance personnel arrived and Mr. Jok was driven to nearby hospital, and the wrestling continued as if it was a workplace.

Mr. Jok spent three hours in the hospital. And at last, the doctor showed him an X – ray of his left hand, and he was informed that he had a fractured bone. And for that reason, a plaster cast was applied on fractured arm in order to hold a broken arm in place, while the bone heals.

He was told that, the plaster cast would be on his arm for six weeks, and then after that he had to see his GP for further check ups. After these six weeks, Mr. Jok went and saw his GP. And he was referred to the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) for another further check up, because his GP was not crystal clear, why the bone was still not healing after six weeks.

The GP was blaming the first doctor who examined Mr. Jok when he was first taken to the hospital in Ringwood Victoria, after the incident. His GP argued that the doctor in Victoria had failed to recommend a quick surgery on the left arm.

On 23rdFebruary 2015, Mr. Jok had a surgery on his left arm, and then he was discharged on 24th February 2015. Mr. Jok is still in serious pain, but he is getting well. Such arm saga had affected him in many ways since from day one until today. He is a very strong young man; and he is stoic about this arm pain.

By the way, the question is, what was really insured by the chairperson and his armies of organisers? If that insurance was real but not fake, why is Mr. Jok struggling with his medical expenses, not to mention that he had lost enormous income.

He used to earn himself $1800 a week and now he had been away from work for four months, which was equivalent $28,800, if he was working. I do understand that, the leadership wanted to waive fraudulently that Mr. Zico Bol ’s accident had nothing to do with them at any cost.

Such dishonesty can be ascertained, on how the insurance form was filled out after Mr. Jok was in the hospital. On the form was it written that Mr. Jok was just ‘volunteering’ for Bor Youth ‘Multicultural activities.’ Because of this statement, the insurance thinks that they may not be held liable to compensate Mr. Zico Bol Makuach Jok.

Fraud case (misleading of participants to believe what was a bullshit lie)

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia, Zico Bol, with broken arm

Bor Dinka Wrestling in Australia, Zico Bol, with broken arm

I think Bor Youth Association both at Federal level and States level had failed badly, by mishandling Mr. Jok’s case. Prior to the wrestling, the participants were misled to believe that they were fully insured, and the event itself was also insured. So there was nothing to worry about.

This was Zico Bol had to say about the event and association, “I think it was a very poor organisation, (wrestling) and leadership and the armies of organisers were criminals, because they misled participants to believe their lies, that there was insurance. I wish we had a better leadership that was smart to tell the truth to the people even though such facts were not going to work for some reasons.

After my (Zico) incident, many States youth leaders stood up before the members of the association and claimed that they were going to help with insurance difficulties if there was any. But that was a bloody ‘empty promise. I thought we were a community-based association (non – for – profit) where we should be truly frank to one another for sake of our ‘objectives’, rather than lying to one another or members. In politic, many politicians lied to the voters so that they could vote for him/her”.


Thanks to Zico Bol for his honest story. His story will be a lesson to anyone who is thinking to wrestle in the near future. Youth leadership should have thought it out smarter, before they were blinded by pride, which led many people to make unwise decisions in many cases.

By Bol Madut Ayii, Juba, South Sudan

addistalksAn open letter to African Union

CC: Embassy of United States of America, Juba

CC: United Nations Mission in South Sudan.

March 29, 2015 (SSB)  —   The leaked report and proposal made by AUCISS prompt me to react and question its legality under the principle of international law, with this regards, the functions and powers of the AUCISS were not extended to call for the exclusion of the constitutionally elected president in the proposed transitional government of national unity but rather to investigate the atrocities committed during the crisis and the persons responsible.

Under the principle of international law, it is violation of the state sovereignty and peoples’ rights to meddle into the internal affairs of sovereign state. The proposal made by African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) is beyond its mandate and therefore amounts to ultra vires.

My legal argument is based on the followings;

Part A: powers and mandate of AUCISS:

The mandate of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan were the following:

To investigate the human rights violations and other abuses.

To investigate the causes underlying the violations.

To make recommendations on the best ways and means to ensure accountability, reconciliation and healings among South Sudanese communities with view to deterring and preventing the occurrence of the violations in the future.

To make recommendations on how to move the country forward in terms of unity, cooperation and sustainable development.

Having spelt out the mandates of African Union Commission of inquiry above, the leaked report by AUCISS which recommended the exclusion of the constitutionally elected president from the transitional government of national unity is a clear demonstration that the AUCISS acted beyond its mandate and therefore amounts to ultra vires.

What the AUCISS did to South Sudan is the same cause that led Morocco withdrew its membership from African Union and up to date, Morocco is not a member of Africa Union. Morocco withdrew from African Union due to the following reasons:

The AU recognition of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is a portion of Western Sahara that shows the bias of African Union.

The African Union is undoubtedly a corrupt and weak institution and includes countries of even worse human rights record

Part B: UN trusteeship

Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations (UN), designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence. With the independence of Palau in 1994, the council suspended operations.

The Charter does not specify the actual territories to be placed under UN trusteeship. Article 77 merely states that the system shall apply to three categories: (1) territories still under mandate,(2) territories “detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War,” and (3) territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

South Sudan doesn’t fall within the category of UN trusteeship,Article 76(b) of the Un Charter provides; to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement; as the definition signifies, South Sudan is an independent state and has its elected government, South Sudan is not under the mandate of any colony and therefore it doesn’t fall in trust territory.

South Sudan did not declare its inability to administer and run its administration and therefore, there was no voluntarily placement of UN trusteeship, lastly South Sudan gained independent as the outcome of the internationally recognized referendum and thus it was not just a detach from an enemy state.

With the above detailed conditions of placing country under the UN trusteeship, there are no legal grounds that qualify south Sudan to be placed under the trusteeship.

Again, the Charter is equally nonspecific on designating the administrators of trust territories,. It states simply that the individual trusteeship agreements shall designate the authority in each case, which may be “one or more states or the Organization itself.”

Therefore, it will give UN and its influential members such as United States of America a chance to nominate a person of their choice which might not be in the interest of the said trust country as well as international law norms.

During the World War 1, there were 11 trust territories placed under UN trusteeship, and seven countries were designated as administering authorities. These figures exclude the former German colony of South West Africa, which after World War I had been mandated to the Union of South Africa, because South Africa refused to place the territory under UN trusteeship.

Among those place under the UN trusteeship and their administers are;

In East Africa: Ruanda-Urundi administered by Belgium, Somaliland by Italy, and Tanganyika by the UK;

In West Africa: Cameroons administered by the UK, Came-roons by France, Togoland by the UK, and Togoland by France;

In the Pacific: Nauru, administered by Australia and on behalf of New Zealand and the UK, New Guinea by Australia, Western Samoa by New Zealand, and the Pacific islands of the Marianas, Marshalls, and Carolines by the US.

In September 1975, when New Guinea acceded to independence, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands became the only Territory on the agenda of the Trusteeship Council.

All these countries were placed under UN trusteeship because they were not independent and the objects of Article 83 of the UN charter apply to their territories.

Article 83 in its entirety doesn’t apply to south Sudan and therefore any unilateral attempt by AU and its counterpart to place south Sudan under UN trusteeship is of no legal base under the principle of customary international law.

Part c: Sanctions framework and United States of America resolution

The draft resolution of United States of America was unanimously adopted by UN Security Council without deliberations and was swiftly voted for, this make the writers to ask the distinction between UN and US? The interest of U.S as a member of UN is not the interest of the whole world, no doubt that U.S is the world super power but that does not imply impunity.

We are pessimistic that peace and reconciliation cannot be achieve by imposition of sanctions, moreover sanctions will hinder the search for peace and increase the suffering of the people of south Sudan, under international law, we are not aware of the country that attain peace by sanctions imposition and that sanctions is not the practical solution to south Sudan problem

Relatedly, US as a member of UN is at a right truck to raise a motion before the UNSC expressing its position and opinion about South Sudan but its opinion is not absolute rather than subject to debate on its merits.

As I have stated above that there is no different between US and UN, the facts of violation of South Sudan Sovereignty by AU,US and UNSC is of no doubt to what US did to Nacaragua where US supported the rebellion in Nacaragua by passing the budget in the Congress to back the rebellion.

In this case, Nacaragua brought a suit in the International Court of Justice ICJ and the court found US guilty, so in relation to this there is clear evidence that US and UN are supporting the rebellion in South Sudan directly and indirectly Example, the arrest of weapons in Lake state Rumbek in 2014.

To find the full text of the above cited case see Nacaragua v. United States of America(1984).

Travel Ban, Paragraph 9. Of the sanction draft resolution states; decides that. For an initial period of one year from the date of adoption

Of this resolution, all Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent

The entry into or transit through their territories of any individuals who may be

Designated by the Committee, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige a

State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory;

My question is, how will travel ban bring inclusive and sustainable peace in South Sudan? Of course the answer will be definitely NO because the denial of entry and transit of some individuals cannot be durable solution to South Sudan problem.

In conclusion I do hereby recommend the followings:

AU must refrain from South Sudan internal affairs otherwise we will have no option than what Morocco did.

US must revive its resolutions and make sure that there is different between it (US) and UN

UNSC must not sit idly waiting for US proposals to endorse without studying its effectiveness.

Removal of elected president through illegal means due to foreign interest will deteriorate the situation in South Sudan.


Drawn and Filed by Law Student from University of Juba and he can be reached through the following address; Bol Madut Ayii.  or  0956252721

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?:


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 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.