LAM AKOL: A VENDOR OF OUR DESTINY.

By Rengo Gyyw Rengo, Jr.

February 1st, 2010

I read about the story of ‘Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), Norwegian politician, whose collaboration with the Nazis during World War II made his name synonymous with traitor. Quisling aided Fridtjof Nansen [Norwegian explorer, scientist, statesman, author, and Nobel laureate] on his humanitarian missions in the USSR and Armenia in 1922-1925 and later served in the Norwegian legation in Moscow. Returning to Norway, he entered politics, voicing strong anti-Communist sentiments. He served as minister of defense (1931-1933) in an Agrarian cabinet, but then bolted to found his own National Union, a Fascist party that received subsidies from Germany.

‘At the time of the Nazi invasion of Norway in 1940, the German envoy tried unsuccessfully to have King Håkon accept Quisling as prime minister, and the National Union was subsequently declared the only legal party. The Germans finally installed Quisling as prime minister in 1942, and throughout the war he collaborated with the Nazis and tried to inject their principles and practices into Norwegian society. Largely responsible for the persecution of Norwegian Jews, he also introduced terrorist methods in dealing with those loyal to the king and the legal government in London. Arrested, tried, and sentenced by a Norwegian court after the war, Quisling was executed on October 24, 1945.’

By all accounts and deposition, Lam Akol is Vidkun Quisling of South Sudan and its people. For all those who are familair with Lam Akol, the path Quisling took is exactly the same except trial and execution which I do not believe would happen. His fate should be left to moods of history, shame and rejection. Little is to be said about Lam Akol early upbringing except through his father to whom I attributed a positive statement below and perhaps monarchical lineage he hailed from among the Shilluk which explictly depicts him as a non-democrat and which increases his impudence of others. However, few people have positive reminiscences of Lam Akol at the university of Khartoum where he loved playing foulplays among his colleagues.  He has been in a class of people  who professed they love to be in opposition even when there is nothing to be opposed.

Not withstanding this, Sudanese society have had political seismics that engineered oppositions of various types, social, economic, political and religious from people who saw them in their own ways and perceptions and those who use them to oppress others. Therefore, Lam found his inherent unconforming nature to be compatible with the prevailing sitaution and registered heroism of being a rebel with the SPLM and SPLA in mid 1980s.

It was not long before his character like pregnancy as they say, could show. His antagonism and his belief in jettison of leadership earned him the theory of Jettisonism which I now bring to limelight. Jettisonology is a political school of thought of abandoning one’s own people’s struggle to join the enemy to work against the acceptable cause for personal gains and power. A jettisonist is a person who abandoned genuine cause to work with the enemy against his own people to overthrow them. Therefore the Southern Sudanese people should attribute this theory to Lam Akol as his political Legacy that he leaves behind for posterity. Jettisonism is the same as Lamakolianism, all authors’ proposal.

While in the Movement SPLM, he must have consented to the main objective, strategies and tactics agreed at the founding of the Liberation Movement in 1983 including the concept of the New Sudan with its two faces, of Southern Sudan and of New United Secular Democratic Sudan. The concept of the New Sudan as a process has its roots in a letter written on October 12 1957 by E.K. Mayom to South Sudanese legislative Assembly members to the second Assembly at Khartoum. Second Sudan parliamentary elections were then scheduled for February-March 1958 after the 1954 elections.

Mayom wrote in his letter that, “there is a Dinka story-[that goes] once upon a time, a man [had] a chance to find a multitude [of people] gathering round a dead animal, skinning it, and ready to divide the meat amongst themselves; then suddenly this gentleman asked to be given both one front and find less puls, the fat hump after skinning. Then a sorrowful laughter broke the silence. Then, one other person remarked back to him that “would it not be good if you [had] asked for a minor proportion such as ribs [12 pieces usually]? “Then, he replied that “then finish the skinning quickly, and give it to me on time, because I have a long way to go still!” When he left with his mentioned share, then, one of the people followed him afar and asked him why he demanded so much, that he looked greedy amongst strangers! He answered that if he had asked for a small share, then, he was NOT going to succeed in getting anything at all. In comparison, always the south should DEMAND so much so that in the end, we get something and not nothing”, Mayom concluded [Y. Wawa, 154 & 155]

Precisely, this was the reason behind the concept of the New Sudan that some people condemn today for political objectives than the context to which it was meant by the Founding Fathers. Mandela said no easy road to freedom despite easy talks about it. If words would have liberated us, the famous Aggrey Jaden’s statement made at Khartoum roundtable Conference would have resolved the whole problem of secession when he drew a distinction between the North and the South. Jaden identified the problem but not the modalities, strategies and tactics of getting there.  The goal would always be there but the strategies vary with times and situations [and all are contingent on enemy’s technicality]. Therefore, the SPLM focused on the strategies to which Lam was an accomplice against the government at the time of his joining in May 1986.

I noted two articles over this subject, one from Dr. Ambago  Ramba and a reply from Dr. Okuk, of course, they had a great deal of exchanges that desire one to venture equally into the arena. However, some of their contents would drag me away from statements made by Lam Akol. But I would like to clarify here that there is no sitting on the fence situation. A mere call for secession does not call for incriminating the process. For any case, better those who sit on the fence in the field while paddling or propelling than those who shout loquaciously without contribution in foreign lands and those who labour in pop talks locally. Sitting on the fence here does not mean neutrality as one colleague would want to look at it but stirring both sides for one fundamental objective of liberation. I do not want to answer too many things at ago.

Why I slot in the above quotations is to answer the continuous and boring discourse over who supports secession and who supports unity. And especially Lam Akol made it looked when he said, “those who claim to be more separatists than others should give themselves time to ponder how self-determination was reintroduced into Sudanese politics,” like he brought the agenda of self-determination.And I noted the word re-introduction. That means it had pre-existed. It can be disputed that self-determination never came from Khartoum as a proxy of Lam nor from Lam Akol’s own series of political parties since he had many. Equally, there are no proves to show SPLM was convinced by Lam Akol and his group to accept self-determination as a compromise over its earlier stand.Lam Akol and his colleagues were not even primary negotiators on any side of talks to have contributed to the debate on the explicit question of the referendum on self-determination. That is why he is calling for unity now.Political theftologists of recent, attributed self-determination to Khartoum Agreement and I hope Lam is not also thinking about Fashoda agreement as the basis for his stand or point of reference. All these are meant to divert the essence of the CPA. For whatever the case, we shall prove each other across a span of time.

I do not think that the question of self-determination was an alien to the general parameters and framweork of the struggle, whether explicit or implicit. My people hold the unsaid dear than the said especially when dealing with un-sincere partners. Introducing or re-introducing would be exchange of political cards within the general framwork far from political novelty. Therefore, I consider it a pre-determined cause because it would come when we do a.b.c.d. It was not inadvertently brought as a result of split to say it precisely or joining opposite camps. The claims of the split was effected in the name of lack of democracy, Garang dictatorship, lack of human rights and the issue of child soldiers-the Red Army, to which I belonged, that was according to the jettisonists’ pronouncments then against the Movement. Thus, with no margin to sophistry, it were the above that justified attempted Garang’s jettisoned. Lam should not forget his own documents which I have before me as I write.  This seems to be the implication of the statement. Lam absurdly failed as a zonal commander in Shilluk areas in late 1980s even when zonal commanders had high degree of autonomies.

Nevertheless, South Sudanese people know what they want even when they are let down by their own sons and daughters. Mayom in a single statement proved to be a person with a big strategy compare to those  who claimed to have the knowledge of the way. Our process has been like a woman who wants divorce by claiming to be a head of a family in a rigid patriarchical society even if she knows the man will not accept to concede. Therefore, through indomitable insistence, the man would say at the end of the day, “Go, leave me alone. You have hardened my life. I will remarry!” to disentangle himself away. You can not call for south self-determination while playing political harlotry with the North-politics of collaboration. It has unrhyming contradictions.

Supportively, even the North has never belief in a single day that New Sudan means unity of Sudan just the same way we have believed the North would fight to its last breathe to cling onto power, dictatorship, islamic laws and inequality to fend off blackman ideals of a new Sudan. It was wise we presented to them what they do not like and they will let us go. Always, times without end, they have held reservations besides opposing it adamantly. One senior Sudanese Arab presidential adviser Ghazi Salah Al-Deen Al-Attabani recently remarked that the SPLM’s proposed New Sudan project is incriminating proposal because it “criminalizes the history of Sudan and does not even recognize its independence”. With this, it justifies that we had and still have our own vision embroiled in the project of the New Sudan. So, it is not selling as some people think or thought of.  Scientifically, a theory proven valid stands until another replaces it.

So, who is this that want to reward himself that he has a better idea for Southern Sudanese people and at the expenses of who?

Deep down the heart of a southerner, he/she knows the veracity and viability of this method of New Sudan towards our total liberation. Dr. Ambago caught red-handed Lam Akol of retorting back his statement to sit on the fence once again without committing himself to either secession or unity, relegating his previous suicidal statement of condemning secession. That means, two things have contributed to that withdrawal of statements, one; consideration of personal ambition for presidency and second is that, South Sudanese people are no longer cheatable. Number of books Lam wrote about SPLM/SPLA and South Sudan people ingrained his treachery in permanent books of life. They were all about unity message and personal considerations. Certainly he is hireling against our cause.

With these realities known, Robert Francis Kennedy once said in his quote of the week, that, “one fifth of the people are against everything all the time.” Even without reasoning, they find themselves there. We are not without such people and also if there are unionists among us, then, there are those who use it as a political strategy and there are those disposed to benefits from such situation at individual basis or cohorts, whether South Sudan goes to the sea or not, they care less. But we can not judge these people with one-night statements. Their political case history tells us of who they are and what they stand for.  We can not trust their words let alone entrusting our destiny into their own hands.

Actually, the primary purpose of this writing is the stunning message Lam Akol uttered in an interview in the past weeks against SPLM leadership and therefore against secession. Lam Akol stunned the world and particularly southerners over his message of unity measured against the secession of Southern Sudan under the current leadership of Salva Kiir he chose to accused of being responsible for insecurity, tribal conflicts etc hence lending him fallacious conclusions such as independence could not be viable in 2011, without him [Lam] steering it in order to avoid the status quo of Somalia replicating here in South Sudan. This statement makes one chuckles a hundred times. James Wani once wrote about Lam Akol as follows: that, “a politician who did not obey others, who did not acknowledge the leadership of others was not a politician but a villain. You could not lead if you could not agree to be led.”

While Lam was advancing his cause for presidency during the said interview with international media, his sheer opportunism coupled with jettisonic attitudes towards leadership of others revealed itself fully. What brought such dangerous utterances? I must first quote him to open up the discussion. In his recent corrective comment dubbed as “Comment by Dr Lam Akol on the “Suicide thing” forwarded to this website by one Jerkuei Marek, [JAN 21/2010, SSN;], he said reporting of his interview that,

‘I continued that the present GoSS has caused a lot of insecurity that contributed to more divisions among the Southern community and that is why it should be jettisoned out in the upcoming general elections.

‘Then I added the comment that “under the present weak government in the South, calling for secession would be a call for Somalization’.

The earlier  reporters’ version read more or less the same. It read;

‘At the moment, with the state of hostility in the South, with the state of tribal conflicts, intra-tribal conflicts, any call for secession at this moment will be a call for the “Somalization” of southern Sudan,’ a reporter quoted Lam argument.

Now, what if indeed the current GOSS leadership survives Lam’s jettisons through elections, does he suggest that we better sacrifice our independence because a “correct leadership” is not installed in South Sudan? Are tribal conflicts monopolies of south Sudan? Were our people not fond of fighting each other even before the war? Can independence stop human differences? Why would anyone think it is GOSS that caused a lot of insecurity in the South instead of our perceived enemy?  Does this exonerate Lam Akol and his former or current masters? OK, what makes Lam Akol think he is a better option to avert or arrest such situation compare to Kiir? Should we think of jettisoning leaders and systems while on a dangerous journey? Is this not calling for 1991 Garang’s jettisoning? Will remaining in unity in fear of tribal conflicts after independence stop tribal conflicts in a united Sudan? If we have been fighting in the united Sudan, what difference will it make? Does a world make a man or does a man make himself and his environment, in relations to Somalia? I concede there are so many questions throbbing in the mind and probably answers are not with me but with the public lied to by Lam Akol and his myopic diversionary followings.

Dr. Okuk got puzzled with Dr. Ramba’s endorsement of somalization as long as we get our independence! I think that must be a shared view by many. The next thing Lam Akol and his followers talked about is the process [means] which has already been darkened, we goaded through the muddle and we kept our hope, despites deaths and induced socio-political calamities; we resolved that we shall reach there to the promise land. Is today worst than 1991? Were there no tribal problems during the post Addis Ababa agreement?  Were there no tribal differences before 1991? Why is this period becoming unique? Are tribal conflicts not in existence in Kenya and Uganda? Does that qualify them to throw away their independences? What time do we crave dearly for local unity if not today? Jesus said he who has not committed any sin should pick and throw the first stone! “Bilai”-stop your propaganda. We cannot blame what went wrong with our means to an end on one system. We have all contributed to it and we are still contributing to it and if we are to correct it, we MUST correct it together without exception.

I know I will be accused over what I have no apology for-being an ardent enemy of Lam Akol’s vision and his quest for presidency but that is it. It cannot be helped as long as I do not see credibility of genuine leadership in him. Furthermore, he must first clear his past tainted behaviours, vision, and deeds which leave him with extremely questionable image among our people including his so called SPLM-DC whose both headquarters and subsidies are obtained from Khartoum and Arab nations!.

DEFINITION OF LAM AKOL

Now, let me settle down on two things associated with Lam Akol, opportunism and cynicism of others’ leadership [Jettisonisation]. The opportunism is the practice of using situations unfairly to gain advantage for yourself without thinking about how your actions will affect other people. Therefore, Lam looks for needy and delicate situation to pursue his parallel cause instead of seeking consolidation with the rests to shake the blows together. This is typical of him.  This can be illustrated as follows:

On September 3, 1991, Lam said in a press release “… the political upheavals and convulsions in Ethiopia that led to the demise and collapse of the regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam late this May… not only triggered off major and dramatic changes in the alignment and balances of forces in the region-horn of Africa –but has set in motion deep and profound socio-political and military revulsions for the SPLM/SPLA… in this context, the geo-political changes, brought about by the events in Ethiopia do not only pose as a reverse or setback in the political and military sense but a blessing in a disguise for the SPLM/SPLA in that it has brought to the fore  some of the basic and fundamental internal contradictions whose resolution are crucial for the survival and viability of the SPLM/A and its forward progress.”

Lam concluded his opportunism with the following words as cited in James Wani’s book, “Secrecy of Diplomacy” 2008.

“From the foregoing it is amply plain that the crisis the Movement is in today is the making of one man; John Garang. He has been holding us at ransom dragging the whole nation into an abyss. We must join to jettison him out to save our people and our country from imminent defeat”

Lam’s defeat comes when his people are winning and his victory comes when his people are losing. For example, SPLA was winning the war against the government before 1991 and that is when he single-handedly saw defeat. Now, SPLM has won our referendum, its laws and waiting secession in calm mood, Lam has seen another defeat beyond the independence and wants to jettison out people’s success!

This time round, he has become opportunistic of the present situation that he described it in uncertain terms; in a doom manner which warrant two things according to him, overthrow of this incumbent system or sacrification of our independence. In all these situations, he presents himself as a solution; a very desperate idea whose time was buried with the witnesses and victims of his callosity and bad doings.

I emphasise again, knowing the referendum is near and sailing through under somebody’s name, he becomes uncomfortable because that leaves him at the periphery of history. Therefore he got a gut of saying,

‘I continued that the present GoSS has caused a lot of insecurity that contributed to more divisions among the Southern community and that is why it should be jettisoned out in the upcoming general elections.

‘… I meant to say that the present Government of Southern Sudan must be changed if secession is to achieve the very objectives Southerners want it for.’

Ofcourse, we need secession without preconditions whatsoever!

The second point I wanted to talk about besides opportunism over situations was Lam’s main pursuit – power at its zenith without which, he believes we better do without all that we stand for. Other leaders rather than him must be jettisoned out to create way for himself. Hence he espoused his ardent school of thought in “Jettisonisation”, a one man ideological process that does not fit into any of the conventional beliefs and ways of doing things.  Jettisonology is Lam’s political school of not accepting others especially those in leadership above him. This personal belief has been proven over and over again. Had it not been Lam’s belief in Jettisonology, we would have not registered 1991 as one of the darkest pages of our history and we would not have lost many lives as we did in the process of Jettisoning Garang and subsequent prostitutive quisling he got himself in, behind the stirred scene. Because of thinking to jettison Garang out of power, a futile attempt that changed balance of power from SPLM/SPLA to Khartoum and general setbacks to our liberation, Lam fixed himself into dishonourable pages in our socio-political annals.

Why I think he believes in Jettisonisation is how recent history of our Movement has veracitized this fact.

One of his letters to Peter Adwok, a fellow confidant had  read in part that,

‘following the last developments in Ethiopia, events here in  the field have been moving very fast. The struggle for democracy within the Movement has intensified and we have decided to jettison Garang out of the leadership of our Movement.  The necessary steps on the ground have been undertaken and it will not be long before the whole thing gets into the open’. [letter to Dr, Peter Adwok, on 6 August 1991 while in Germany.

All these depict a man and his daunting character. Of course, him suggesting that the current insecurity deserves more attention than South Sudan’s independence, he has made incorrect appraisals of our situation now. And that will weigh on him like an ominous doom. Relegation of the statements I think goes un-necessitated.

Let me say, no one admires dogs when they lick back their vomits! We keep them but we do not desire that habit. The fact remains that what was vomited out was a waste that deserves no re-consumption but dogs have the inherent guts of wolfing their vomits. Another peculiar thing about dogs is the legend of eating their first born forgetting the possibility of a failed second delivery! We have a society that eats itself. Some of our politicians want us to eat our first born-the referendum by their careless deeds of dis-envisioned. Lam Akol probably leads these groups.

Crude as it may be for one to resort to use of vulgar language to describe the situation, Lam has missed all he has dreamt for, all his life because he has provoked the sanity of our people and he will invariably continue to do so. True to the words of Gier Chuang Aluong who called a spade spade by naming the enemy its true name.

Now let me say why I call Dr. Lam a vendor of our destiny and a jettisonist. Over the last five interim years’ period, Lam has attempted to thwart our cause through his daunting anti-South Sudan projects.

a)     Lam is responsible for 1991 splits within the SPLM/SPLA, procrastination of the Cause and hundreds of thousands of deaths of our people.

b)    Lam failed our cause when he was a foregin minister with great absurdity by supporting the government he was sent against and endorsing systematic genocide in Darfur.

c)     Lam resolved to carry out secret dealings with the north when and after SPLM withdrew from the Government of National Unity to push for CPA implememntation in October 2007.

d)    Lam is part of South Sudan’s insecurity because he harbours clandestine armed wing which killed Ngok People and their legendary chief of the Dhongjol and insecurity around Malakal. Therefore, he is involved in fomenting tribal animosity to create opportunity for himself.

e)    Lam broke away from his people where he should have served better for the second time to form his so-called SPLM-DC.

f)    SPLM-DC has headquarters in Khartoum and receives subsidies from NCP.

g)   Lam condemns our independence!

h)   Lam opposes Beshir indictment for heinous crimes committed against citizens and went around as his spokeman against the ICC. This went against his people’s will and SPLM he took posture as a member.

i)    Lam supported arab arms trafficking into Gaza through Sudan to be used against innocent Isrealites people and blamed the SPLM of not supporting the north in condemning Isreal of erasing weaponry convoy to Gaza.

j)   Lam held clandestine and parallel meetings with other oppositions in el-Kenana to oppose the CPA.

k)   Lam now calls for jettisoning of Salva Kiir and GOSS for SPLM-DC to takeover and poses as a saviour-

Why on earth would anyone entrust the destiny of our people in  the hands of such dirty man and his non-entity party? Yes, our society like any other society is deemed to have problems but they should not be perceived like they have come to stay. They just need our concerted efforts to mitigate them and create stability.

Why would the SPLM-DC be preferable to the incumbent system? Putting Kiir on the scale against Lam, Kiir has got a bank of treasures to take home. What has Lam to show us? Putting SPLM-DC on the scale with the SPLM, SPLM-DC is spineless, clawless, legacyless and smell a photocopy and charlatan of the mother SPLM. It has nothing new to offer. In the throes of insecurity, Lam would not be the right choice to replace a hero like Kiir basing on their track records of performace, loyalty  to the people and rightful dutiful contributions.

Comparatively, tribal conflicts exists in countries with more than forty years of independence, let alone a nation with long record of disunity and socio-political mayhem like ours. Our people should check out the lie of the land before we are driven away by the prophets of dooms as this will help them,-our people make correct choices. SPLM will only go when there is a viable alternative and not only that, this can only happen after the independence which Lam Akol opposes. It is unwise to label the occurences of this era on GOSS alone.

There has been a great deal of euphoric joy  regarding the court ruling against the banning of SPLM-DC operation in South Sudan based on reasons of being associated with organized militia forces of its own.  A constitutional court as a matter of legal principle had to allot a right of political freedom, ignoring the involvement of Lam in harbouring armed movement.  Implying that the SPLM was left with the jurisdiction of filing a case against Lam in the same court or seeks other methods to contain the situation and defend the people of South Sudan, otherwise, a court could not permit unconstitutional existence of a parallel army outside the SPLA.  This, I do not call it a victory for Lam. Likewise; SPLM does not deserve to be labelled undemocratic when it inhibits such double-edge organization. There are other parties doing their businesses in South Sudan frankly and peacefully.

A year or two ago when SPLM-DC was formed, I resolved not to write along that lines even if that formation had caused a lot of fuss. I did it for one reason, that any citizen has a right to form a political party, and that being in the SPLM for Lam was not giving him enough room to apologise to South Sudanese over the remorse of the past deeds, after which he would be politically born again to resume fully and with confident the liberation of his people,-our people. I couldn’t be drastically wrong! Man’s rigidity corresponds with his lack of focus.

Still, I have always thought, even if humans are inherently bound to be political, politics requires some sort of decency and more so, those who play politics do it in recognition of their social backgrounds. There must be a constituency for launching. Political ground is a scrambling ground that belongs to no one. It is a converging point for those who have homes and not those “without” homes like Lam Akol. Politically speaking, he is not a true representative of either side, south or north which he claims to hold at balance.  So, Lam loves to play politics in its playground, but when all the players leave after the game back to their respective homes, he sleeps in the no-man field conspiring on how to endanger the next game!  And this makes him a politician without concern for the people or who does Lam REPRESENT in the national politics? He plays politics for his personal survival, interests and ambitions, thus, believes without him becoming a president of South Sudan, no secession.This is a sheer combination of opportunism out of delicate situation as well as desire for power that drive Lam’s misguided audacity.

AKOL AJAWIN: A FATHER WHO WOULD DISOWN HIS SON

But before that, I need to note something. I am one man commonly thrilled by history and those who shaped it positively. While on my routine of perusing through historical documents, I discovered there are contradictions in Ajawin’s family. Akol Ajawin, Lam’s father featured among the 1952 intellectuals who opposed the Cairo agreement between Khartoum and Egyptian government where southern safeguards were unilaterally purged out by the Arab Theo-political cartels. In a letter signed by local chiefs, members of parliament and intellectuals from Upper Nile, I noticed Akol Ajawin humbled contributions, though I cannot specifically attribute any concrete statement to him but the most important thing here is how he walked with his people, the southern Sudanese people of his time.

WHAT IS SOUTH SUFFERING FROM? GENERAL DEFINITION OF OUR PROBLEM

Gier Chuang Aluong, Minister For Internal Affairs, GOSS noted what has always bedevilled Southern Sudanese people, self betrayal and destruction brought about by lack of self-knowledge and self-awareness. The fact of recognising that we have no enemy except ourselves is a true definition of our problem. In Africa, when people find you climbing a tree, they do not help you up; instead they hold your legs and pull you down. It does not matter what important business was up the tree! So, we have discovered that those who kill us the most are not distant enemies but those with whom we are born with and those we trust.

Then, the blames go around and around. We look for enemies that use our people instead of cleaning our homes first. This makes our relationship with the north like a Christian and a devil relationship where a Christian blames everything that befalls him/her on a devil even in instances where there are no devils that have caused fouls to one’s faith path. Devils, if at all they are there, they response to what is in one heart and mind! They use a believer’s weaknesses! David Hume (1711 – 1776) Scottish philosopher and historian, once said, “their credulity increases his impudence: and his impudence overpowers their credulity”. Indeed, it is the overt credulity of people like Lam Akol that has increased Khartoum’s impudence over years against the South. Though, we have not been able  to accept our weaknesses, our insistence on our weaknesses would invalidate in the longrun the blames with which we shell our supposed enemy. It is the enemy within the lines that kills us at the back.

Gier noted that southerners are enemies of themselves while reacting to Lam Akol’s unfortunate utterance among the many scores he has stocked in life against our successes. We have a proven credulity which we must first kill if we are to move on.

No matter what language Akol uses, his deeds shall be interred with his bones! Prompted by one desire to call spade a spade, Lam Akol has maintained his doom against the people of South Sudan. What does the man want anyway? Every political movement must define its objectives correctly and every politician must have a clear belief or objective or ideology that is pro-his people. All these Lam is lacking. For him, political prostitution for petty gains has engulfed man’s entire life.

One funniest thing is the paradoxicity in his beliefs, accepting SPLM to the extent of using its name and at the same time, denying it. Why couldn’t Lam create an original idea, a complete new party? In 1991, after schisms, he named his new faction, SPLM/A-United. Is that not being opportunistic and being a political plagiarist?

WORD FOR DR. OKUK AND ASSOCIATES

Dr. Okuk wrote that “…Dr. Lam is clean from the shits of corruptions and many Southerners are now taking him seriously as the very one who will save the South from collapse and leadership bankruptcy.

“Majority of Southerners have now realized that Dr. Lam is the trusted one because he is courageous to challenge the evils of Kiir’s his SPLM bad rule in the South so that Southerners are not pushed against themselves to pass through Somalia in order to arrive to South Sudan only after all things have fallen apart.”[ JAN 21/2010, SSN;]

History adjudicates negatively against such misleading assertions. As for Dr. Okuk, South Sudan shall score many sins because of his type. How I wish to know two things about Dr. Okuk, his age and his upbringing. These two things feature in his muddle up writings full of incoherent topics, NOT in harmony with one’s age, experience and level of education he has. I think we must draw a line not have room for future apologies, typical of people who follow Lam and later beg for pardons in writings.

Dr. Okuk is either driven by tribal myopia and jingoism or he labours hard out of fantasy for Lam to create way for his future appointment into Lam’s cabinet after the current system is jettisoned, albeit we share one thing-secession and independence. Apart from this he goes bizarre.

There are a number of teething doctors who are going  through Lam’s school of thought, tribalistic, opportunistic, and treacherous, casting common man’s doubt about the type of education they went through. PhD graduates are becoming nuisance to our people. Let them go to class, lecture and leave politics if they can not conform to tenets that govern politics. They have shown to us that doctorate education is not worth our society since it brings dooms than enlightenment. How paradoxical and discouraging!

Intellectuals rationally ought to advise the government; develop concepts, theories and philosophies of governance. I thought they should be writing scholarly articles on how South Sudan should find her correct path in the world, on how system of governance can be improved, not about defending Shilluk in Pigi County, not about tribal sentiments, not about one’s own ethnic candidate and irrelevant condemnations of evolving system in South Sudan. Do these people know about the dangers of their writings on the unity of our people?  80% of the internet discourses are labouring hard on tribal theses and flabbergasted abuses which neither help the government nor create consolidative social ambience in the minds of South Sudanese. Then, what is the use of writing?  Today, you hear Isaiah Abraham fluctuative reasoning tainted with village talks. Tomorrow, you hear Dr. Ambago on his tribal lectures directed against certain group; today Dr. Okuk theses on Shilluk, Lam Akol and SPLM-DC. Tomorrow, Gatluak in USA, Dinka Boy, Raan Naath etc you name them.  You guys improve on your topics.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

I do not support tribalism, tribal conflicts, insecurity, instability, corruption and all that associated with bad governace in South Sudan. I do not equally support use of the above aspects as preconditions for our independence by Lam Akol and his group. I do not as well perceive Lam Akol as a right person to speak about anything good that our people need. As I said, through sheer crocodile’s tears, he wants to use such situation opportunistically to climb on to power- which is the pith and marrow of his wacky politics.

Independence has no pre-conditions. Presenting our situation in a Somalia manner would not help the opportunists to thwart either South Sudan’s independence or the right of the current government to accomplish its duty and objectives to the people of South Sudan.

Lam is a vendor of our destiny. He is a jettisonist of acceptable system. In my final conclusion, citizens of South Sudan  are like  lungfish [luuth]. African Lungfish have double lives, they can live comfortably in waters with the rests of fishes and aquactic life and when such environment ceases to exist, lungfish burrow themselves deep onto the ground where they would live and survive until the next season of rains.

Therefore, there goes the saying that those who do not know the secret of the lungfish should continue swimming in receding waters!. It is no longer the people of South Sudan who swim like “other fishes”, rathar they have lungfish secret against politicians like Lam Akol, his apprentice followers and all unionists. Bye!

Rengo Gyyw Rengo, Jr holds a bachelor’s Degree in Development Studies from Nkumba University, Uganda and currently in Juba, Southern Sudan disposed to serve his nation. He can be reached at rgrengo@yahoo.com 

About Post Author