The Delicacy of the Issue Surrounding South Sudan’s Political Detainees
By Aleu-Mabil
“…we, the grass at the fighting elephants’ feet, need peace and reconciliation more than ever before. Despite this and the fact that peaceful resolution of this conflict is indeed utmost for almost everyone in South Sudan and the region, it should not be sought haphazardly or by hook and crook as some voices seem to suggest”
“The seven leaders should be allowed to travel to Addis and decide which side to join and represent in the conflict,” emphasised South Sudan’s ex-deputy president-turned rebel leader.
“This is because that they [the seven leaders] are the only delegation we have so far,” said an unnamed rebel official.
This is not the first time the rebel leadership makes such statements which do not only lack subtlety prior to making decisions to pass them but also gravely jeopardize the detainees’ status whether in detention or asylum. The release of these detainees should not be something that delights only the rebels but all those who support the government view of the conflict but think that the detainees are innocent of it or those who hold none of the stances about the conflict(rebels’ or government’s) but believe that these leaders should be ultimately released. Realities sometimes present themselves as paradoxes. Riek, desperate for support for his rebellion from his former senior party colleagues as his statements have been suggesting, should not manipulate calls for detainees’ release but should rather know the fact of paradox in the calls and should not therefore misconceive anyone’s call for the detainees’ release as support for his rebellion.
Kiir and his government, on the other hand should understand that these people were once liberators, equally as him, and should not therefore treat any call for their release as a sign of disagreement with his version of the coup or as support for Riek and his rebellion. As a government, they should not only speed up the constitutional processes required for such charges as those of which the detainees have been accused but should also convince the masses on the fairness of the outcome of such a judicial process for the detainees as well as why others who seem to deserve trial but have not been charged yet are/were left free. If this is well substantiated, then constitutionally conscious supporters of anyone who might fall a victim of a fair court ruling would rage but at least with a recognition that “no one, regardless of status or whatsoever, is superior to the law”.
It, therefore, requires subtle minds to impartially and wisely determine the “status” in the alleged/attempted coup and the “role” in peace talks of the political detainees (the four still in detention and the seven in asylum). As to the status, whether or not they were significantly/insignificantly part of the alleged/attempted coup is/was a matter of great concern to everyone with keen interest in the current crisis. To the role, it should be clarified as to what nature and at what level is the role that they can play in current peace negotiations.
In the former, the seven detainees were considered by government (temporarily or permanently) to have played no or insignificant role hence their release. This logically entails that they can never be classified as part of the ongoing rebellion. So, do they become pro-government stance (that there was a coup)? No. They may not either as there can be party, SPLM, leaders or South Sudanese intellectuals/politicians who are not clearly pro-rebels’ stance nor government’s stance for some reasons (possibly neutrality or lack of sufficient evidence against or for any particular stance) but strongly need a return of peace. Therefore, this status that has been accorded to them so far should be kept as it is but not endangered by themselves neither by anyone (rebels as their statements now succinctly show or mediators).
As in the case of role in peace talks and given the above consideration, the seven detainees in asylum will not play any role in the current Addis talks as they are out of the two labellings “government” and “rebels” on which basis the talks are being handled. As long as talks continue on such a basis, they will therefore have to wait until such a time when the talks will be shifted, if that could happen, to the party (SPLM) level and thence play their role equally with their counterparts, who are now not part of the talks as party leaders or else play a civil society role that will not risk putting them to any side of the conflict.
Just to think about it, how would it be if the released detainees join talks on the rebels’ side or if they subsequently decide to join ranks with the rebels rather than maintaining their innocence and helping in bringing about peace in a different way? What will happen to the remnant others now in jail if they ever join rebels? That will definitely be bad for the remaining four and would give government an upper hand to act as they deem fit constitutionally or logically just as it simmers in the statement earlier made by Minister Makuei Lueth. As a matter of common sense, nobody (or only those in support of rebels) would call on government to release the remaining detainees after those first released would have joined the rebels. Such decisions as the seven detainees joining the rebels negotiating team or rebellion would invalidate calls earlier made and would thwart efforts now being made to release them and to settle the conflict.
If Nyandeeng’s recklessness with her statements, which she has so far gone away with un-averted and with impunity, doesn’t suffice, then I am afraid to say that something must be too wrong with the top leaders’ thinking on both sides. Despite the fact that Nyandeeng’s statements warrant a punishment in the constitution, she was left freely although Pagan Amum was suspended and ultimately removed from his position on similar grounds. Anyway, it sometimes becomes puzzling for law abiding citizens and who want to see the law applied fairly to see that the constitution seems to be enforced only when in favour with interests of the authorities rather than on the basis of “no one is above the law”! It boggles my mind so much that talking about applying the constitution is just a contradiction or a talk worth no point. But as a last resort, the gravity of constitutional shot-offs sometimes compel those who want to see adherence to the supreme law of the land to air their views with the hope that such expressed views when considered would be a drop in the ocean.
Back to the key point and to conclude, we, the grass at the fighting elephants’ feet, need peace and reconciliation more than ever before. Despite this and the fact that peaceful resolution of this conflict is indeed utmost for almost everyone in South Sudan and the region, it should not be sought haphazardly or by hook and crook as some voices seem to suggest. This is so for such a manner will complicate/worsen already gone-bad issues and/or may achieve “politicians’ interest-tethered peace” rather than the real long-lasting peace and reconciliation for all the ordinary South Sudanese and the politicians alike. It is therefore important that Riek and his group shut up on the detainees’ issue and leave it to others if they have got no subtlety and sobriety to deal with it as they have already proved themselves.
Aleu-Mabil lives in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at aleumabil@hotmail.com
About Post Author
