Archive for June 4, 2014


For immediate release: 4 June 2014

South Sudan must urgently halt the issuing of new oil contracts, warns Global Witness

The government of South Sudan must immediately issue a moratorium on all new contracts in its oil industry, warns Global Witness in a briefing published today, as peace talks scheduled to reopen in Addis Ababa this week were once again delayed.

As world leaders struggle to find a solution to the violence in the world’s newest nation, Global Witness calls on them to join in demanding that South Sudan’s leaders call a halt to issuing any new oil deals and suspend any ongoing negotiations.

“Ordinary South Sudanese have seen their country blown apart over the last five months of fighting,” said Emma Vickers, South Sudan campaigner. “If President Kiir’s government is to ensure that the population’s future is not sold as well, it must issue this moratorium.”

South Sudan is the world’s most oil dependent country, with 98 per cent of government revenue coming from oil sales at independence in 2011. This income was earmarked by the government for the development of the country’s economy and infrastructure.

Since the outbreak of conflict, oil revenues have been diverted to finance the war, and there is a real risk that multi-million dollar payments made by companies to secure future projects will also fail to reach the development budget. New investors also face a chaotic and insecure situation in South Sudan, which threatens to drive down the price the government can secure for remaining oil assets, as well as undermining their ability to attract responsible investors.

“Oil revenues could be instrumental in funding the development of South Sudan and building its schools, hospitals and roads,” Vickers added. “It is critical that the government takes this step to ensure that what remains of the country’s oil is used to benefit its citizens when peace returns, rather than squandered on war or sold off on bad terms.”

In recent months, oil has fanned the flames of conflict, and triggered a major humanitarian crisis as government and rebel forces have fought for control of South Sudan’s most important asset. The awarding of any new concessions risks a further influx of armed actors to protect them in an already highly militarized and volatile situation. With thousands already dead and 1 million people displaced, the government has a duty to avoid any action that may worsen the violence.

South Sudan’s government has spent months developing laws which should ensure that the country’s oil sector is not a source of corruption or conflict. However, putting them into practice has taken a back seat as the war has worsened, and the rule of law has weakened.

“The government owes it to South Sudan’s citizens to call time on new contracting and to step away from the negotiating table,” said Vickers. “Until peace and the rule of law have returned, this is not the time for new deals.”

/ Ends

Notes to editors:

Read the full briefing here: South Sudan: the call for a moratorium on new oil contracts

Contact: Emma Vickers, South Sudan Campaigner +44 (0)7715 076 548 or +44 (0) 207 492 5838 or Sarah Morrison, Senior Communications Advisor +44 (0)207 492 5840.

Global Witness investigates and campaigns to prevent natural resource-related conflict and corruption and associated environmental and human rights abuses


SOUTH SUDAN CONTEMPORARY DEBATE: DO WE ADOPT FEDERAL SYSTEM OR DECENTRALIZATION SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE?

DO NOT CONFUSE A CAMOUFLAGED CALL FOR CONFEDERATION FOR FEDERALISM

DO NOT CONFUSE A CAMOUFLAGED CALL FOR CONFEDERATION FOR CALL FEDERALISM

DO NOT CONFUSE A CAMOUFLAGED CALL FOR CONFEDERATION FOR FEDERALISM

By Reng’o Gyyw Reng’o, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

South Sudanese, we already have a federal system in a form of a state headed an elected governor, elected state parliament, state cabinet/Council of Ministers, Constitution, flag, commissions and state parastatals, Police, counties, and capacity to generate revenues locally. What else do we want?

However, It must be mentioned in the National Constitution as a federal system, not the so-called decentralization. That is where the problem is. The government of the day is making citizens and oppositions suspicious for nothing when already we have a federal system.

However, let me ask , what type and form of federalism are we talking about? Ethnic? Territorial? Revenue-based?, Nigerian type? Tanzania type? Ethiopian type? American type? Indian type? South African type? Which one, do we want? Federal systems are not the same and can never be the same, because of other variances and factors.

It is the South Sudan government which is ignorant of the subject!

Federal system in South Sudan can NEVER be a problem. It is the type of leaders like Salva Kiir, Telar Riing Deng and the likes that are, and will always be the problem. Ethiopians are happy under a most extreme federalism, that is unique not only in Africa but also throughout the whole world,– that is an ethnic-based federalism with the right to secession.

I appreciate the late Meles Zenawi, rulingparty, the EPRDF and the Ethiopian people for their choice and consensus for crafting that type to suit their identity. But we can not adopt this type of federalism in South Sudan. That is Ethiopian. We need a South Sudanese type.

Ambiguity and euphemism aside, we need clarity of concepts, ideas and slogans from all parties. Be careful, I am seeing an aspect of confederation being camouflaged by some people under the call for a federal system. If it is not a call for a confederation, how will we describe the new federal system being advocated for today?

Denying to call the current system a federal system is my major problem. It is a complete federal system in all forms and descriptions. However, putting it in the Transitional Constitution as a decentralized system is what puzzled many people.

We have a history of a federal system as our historical identity. Following the Juba Conference of 1947, when the debate fell for Sudan’s unity, we did call for a federal system. This was violently dishonoured. We founded a Federal Party in 1957 led by Father Saturnino Lohure and his colleagues. When the Federal system campaigns was almost SUCCEEDING, the Arabs organized a military coup under Ibrahim Abboud and foiled it.

It is when well known hitherto that William Deng Nhial, a prominent South Sudanese Politician laid down his life in 1968 advocating for a federalism or self-determination for the South within the united Sudan.

Under Joseph Lagu, SSLM/A and the Addis Ababa Agreement, despite having limitations, South Sudan was granted an autonomy putting the whole Sudan into a Tanzanian type of a federal system with the Island of Zanzibar.

Under the SPLM/A, one of the central objectives of the SPLM/A stipulated in its Manifesto, was the creation of a federal system for the whole Sudan. John Garang was even extreme in calling for a federal armies in his 1972 “Negotiation Guidelines” to Joseph Lagu, his Anya Nya Movement Leader.

That was consummated in the CPA in 2005. The CPA created a Confederation between the GoNU and GOSS. It also created a federal system in South Sudan. How it turned to be a decentralization in the Transitional Constitution is the caused of the contemporary debate.

The “new permanent constitution” of South Sudan must just acknowledge what we have as a federal system and that will be enough to lay the debate to rest. Other minor details can be worked out gradually by both National and state parliaments.

Our leaders must wake up from indolence and political slumbering.

—————–

Federalism in South Sudan: Risks and Potential Benefits

By Joseph de Tuombuk, USA

The ongoing insurrection against an elected government in Juba has exacted an immeasurable toll on the people of South Sudan. The economic cost of the war are easy to understand: lost revenue, diversion of meager resources from productive activities to destructive enterprise; farmers driven from producing food to receiving food aid; lost lives and the list is endless.

However, what is hard to measure is where South Sudan would have been five years from now had this inexplicable conflict been averted through political dialogue. Faced with the horrifying consequences of war, our leaders are realizing that it is incumbent upon them to solve this problem in ways that will create conditions for lasting national cohesion and the shedding of our skin deep tribal allegiances. Our leaders should seek all possible ways to address the root causes of the conflict so that the current and many generations to come can enjoy the fruit of this effort.

South Sudan is not unique in its quick and tragic descend into armed conflict. When leaders fail to study the internal dynamics of their nations, it is easy to undertake a policy that unwittingly creates a bigger problem than it was designed to solve. Our leaders, either by ignorance or lack of grasp of our rather fragile and uneasy tribal accommodation, failed to prepare ground for future singular national identity.

It turned out that the only thing that united us was our collective distrust of jallaba. Our forefathers went to the 1947 Juba Conference acutely aware that they were in a weaker position to compete with well-educated and politically savvy northern elite. They made a simple demand: let South enjoy its autonomy and determine its political relations with North through a federal arrangement.

The demand for federal arrangement was motivated by fear of northern hegemony, or to put it in another way, we feared that the Arab would dominate politics, trample over our religious rights, and simply spread the policy of Arabization that the British had managed to curtail by governing southern provinces as a separate entity. Today, this historical legacy still permeates the every aspect of debate over federal arrangement. Can we design a purely federal system of government that achieves the following: a) rigorously promote a single national identity? B) Aggressively protect the right of minority tribes and accommodate their political inclusion? C) Could there be safeguards against a quick and nasty degeneration into regionalized politics?

When our political parties (more like the SPLM really) enacted the transitional national constitution (TNC), there was an opportunity to explore federal arrangement. Every legislator faced this opportunity cost. Those leaders currently clamoring for federal arrangement could have promoted this idea at the time, but they favored a strong central government with weak state governments. They believed at the time that it was not in the nation’s interest to divide the country into regionalized states, where some states are over 90% Dinka (Lakes, Warrap) and others well over 80% equatorial tribes (WES, EES, CES). To some extent, these fears were justified. Creating a poorly designed federal arrangement would have polarized our already fragile tribally-based politics.

The compromise was a strong central government with some semi-federal 10 states that would deal with its uniquely local issues. In theory, each state elects its government, including governors. However, the reality has been that central government has intervened in removing governors through an expansive interpretation of ‘national security needs’ clause of TNC. This created a situation where the governors were an extension of central authorities rather than accountable to their state institutions. Governors began to look like they served at the pleasure of central government rather than the local electorate. The state governments not only had to deal with constant fear of uninvited central government’s intervention; they also had no real source of funds other than transfers from the central government. These transfers were used to some extent to exert control over the affairs of states. The agreed upon relationship between states and the central government was no longer working as envisioned, thereby causing leaders to resuscitate the federal debate.

Given these inherent weaknesses in our current quasi-federal arrangement, it becomes imperative to revisit the issue of purely federal system of government that would allow our people to have more say in how they are governed and realignment of accountability. Instead of states being more answerable to the central authorities, they should be attuned to the needs of the electorate. With a rigorous and enforceable design, a purely federal system of government will allow the central government to focus exclusively on projects of national significance such as national highway and railway system, establishment of national and state universities, national security from external threats and to some extent internal spoilers, and many other functions that each individual state would find exceedingly difficult to achieve on its own.

While there are many benefits associated with a well-designed federal arrangement, there are potential risks. One is that such an arrangement would amplify our tribal differences and could create a situation where politics is defined as a contest among tribes rather than political parties. It would create a sense of distrust for central government policies that might be viewed as favoring particular states with strong federal presence by virtue of their numerical advantage such as the Dinka and Nuer. In other words, Upper Nile and Jonglei migh dominate federal government while Equatoria might be disenfranchised.

There might also be issues with an uneven economic development or resource sharing. Currently we have two states accounting for huge percentage of national revenues: Unity and Upper Nile and potentially Jonglei. These are the oil states. Other states are endowed with rich agricultural lands and stable security environment that they could feed the other states where insecurity hampers productive activities. If the oil states argue that they should not subsidize budgets in non-oil producing states, we could have a situation where this issue could polarize politics and contribute to weakening of a strong national identity.

As with anything in life, our desire for a federal arrangement could be beneficial but is not without risks. How we manage the risks is key to whether we can build a strong and vibrant federal South Sudan, or dig ourselves into more trouble than we bargained for. The key to managing risk is understanding what motivates those pushing for federalism. What are their real intentions? Do they really care about a strong national identity that trumps tribal scars, or are have they truly realized that our current quasi-federal arrangement is not working and therefore the need to redesign a system of government in South Sudan.

We could potentially design a flawed system that creates perennial instability in our country and that could be exploited by opportunistic leaders for their selfish political gains. Riek Machar, the leader of an armed insurrection, has already smelled the opportunity to enlist pro-federal Equatorians by pushing the federal debate into the current negotiations. It is not the first time this issue has been debated and Riek should not claim a credit. However, Riek’s motives are highly suspicious as he seems to pounce on the reluctance on part of Kiir’s administration to embrace federalism.

These are the risk we must guard against in our drive to establish a system of government that addresses our diverse population while forging a strong national identity. Notwithstanding these risk, we should not shy away from federalism simply because it can lead to more divisions among our people. We should work set up one that does its best to withstand any ill intention by parochial political leaders. By embracing federal system of government, the government could potentially take off the negotiating table an issue that is a powerful recruiting tool for Riek and band of insurgents. After all, agreeing on the issue of federalism is the easy part; setting up one that works best is the real hard work.

*The author is a South Sudanese residing in the United States. He can be reached at joe.tuombuk@gmail.com. All views represented are those of the author and not this website.

———————–

Bhar El Gazal Youth Oppose Federalism, Support Devolution

Bhar El Gazal youth opposed federal and call devolution system of government.

   The greater BHAR EL GAZAL CONCERN YOUTH meeting on 3rd in Panthou (one of the remotes part of Warrap) with all the Youth from different area of the regions to discuss the ongoing political development in the country, The Objective is to gather views from different Youth group in remotes areas;

We have finally resolved the followings:

  1. Peace process

1.1  This forum believe that the genie of the current problem  is taking more wider direction and other  interests getting involved on the peace process to target and eliminated particular groups/ regions and  Tribe based on the proposed interim constitution. this forum strongly warned and call for end of such tendencies to be linked to peace process

1.2  This forum believe that people of South Sudan must be united and live in peace and harmony as we all work for development  the youngest poor nation on the earth

  1. Federalism

2.1   After having studied the political and economic and social impact of federalism system of government ; we have resolved that

2.2  We cannot form a federal state at the backdrop of tribal conflicts, where tension between states and tribes is still at high level. the insecurity in the country where arms rebellion is becoming a habit

2.3  We cannot form federal state of governance in poorest country in the world with no industries, infrastructures and its economic dependent on revenues collected at the state borders; a situation that shall make some closed-borders states more at risk/Advantages than the others. This negatively major issues that can even provoke fights even at a larger scale

2.4  The federal government cannot control insecurity and across border conflicts as well as cattle ridding, the aspect of creating a civil defense will increased tension among the states.

2.5  This forum believe that the federalism that was fought for under the leadership of Dr. John was a federalism of new Sudan under a united Republic of Sudan

2.6  This forum may believe that federalism may be a good option but implementing now at interim period may lead to a possible rebellion by several bodies

2.7  The forum believe that federalism has failed in Africa and has been the key factors affecting federal states in Africa (Nigeria, Ethiopia)

2.8  This forum believe the current call for federal system is designed to delimited particular regions or Tribes from power rather that used of democratic process

2.9  The forum warns the federalists not to used rebellion as ways and mean to achieve a mechanism designed to target a particular region and tribe.

  1. Devolution

3.1  This forum call for unitary state with devolution of powers to states and local government

3.2  This forum after having studied the pure interest of South Sudanese and considered a numbers of issues have come out with has resolved

  1. CALL FOR DEVOLUTION SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT UNDER A UNITARY STATE as a get way for federal state after the maturity of south Sudan.
  2. The devolution system at unitary state shall created and pave ways to federalism.
  3. The devolution system shall equally divide the national revenues at equal bases
  4. The devolution government shall invest powers to state and local government
  5. This forum strongly believe that it is important for a central government to control security organs such as national police, National army, and other security organs

 

Sign:

Peter Mayen wën Majongdit

Sectary of the forum and

 Chairperson of Warrap Youth Intellectual forum 

————

Central Equatoria governor: ‘We stand for federalism’

Governor of Central Equatoria State Clement Wani Konga declared before a gathering of thousands of Equatorians yesterday strong support for a federal system in South Sudan, saying that this demand would not be changed.
He said the people of Central Equatoria state are for a federal system and that has been their call since the founding of the government.

Federalism is a system of government in which state or regional governments hold their own exclusive powers, which the national government cannot interfere with.

South Sudan’s national government currently has wide-ranging powers over state governments including the ability to appoint and remove officials, direct spending and revenue-collection, and set nationwide policies in fields such as education, healthcare and policing.

The call for a federal system that would devolve powers from the current national government comes ahead of the planned opening of fresh political talks in Addis Ababa that aim for a roadmap for peace-making and for formation of an interim government that would oversee a constitutional process and prepare for elections.

Governor Clement Wani on Wednesday addressed a gathering of over 3,000 civil servants of Central Equatoria State at the Nyakuron Cultural Center before, including ministers and other top-level officials. The aim was to brief them on the current stand of the state government towards peace and their involvement in the peace process in Addis Ababa.

He stressed that they would not back down in the demand for federalism, which he described as the will of the people: “We can talk and dialogue, but ours we stand for a federal system and our call will not change, because we have requested it by talking and not by the gun.”

But he also said some people have misinformed President Salva Kiir with reports about their call for a federal system in South Sudan, stressing that their position does not mean support to the armed opposition, which also has been demanding for a federal system.

He noted also that it does not mean that under a federal system other people from other states will not come to Central Equatorian land.

“If there is federalism it doesn’t mean people from Torit will not come to Juba, and from Western Equatoria and the same will Jonglei state – unless you are a troublemaker, [in that case] we will not allow him,” Konga said.

Governor Konga said they have formed committees, two from each of the three states of the Equatoria region, to help in the peace process in Addis Ababa. Konga said the committee has submitted their request to IGAD mediators among other international bodies to be involved.

Konga said if Equatorians are not involved in the peace process, there will be nothing called reconciliation or peace in South Sudan.

The governor further disclosed that a delegation of Equatorians will be sent to Upper Nile state to dialogue with people there. Though this was likely a reference to the opposition, he stressed that this does not indicate a shift in political allegiance.

“It should not look that if people dialogue with the people of Malakal that will means that I – Konga – am following Riek Machar. No, I am not going after Riek Machar.”

‘South Sudan is not for Salva Kiir, not for me, not for Riek’

The Governor of Central Equatoria State ­­further elaborated on what he saw as the past failure of South Sudanese people to support South Sudan as a nation but rather to be loyal to particular politicians.

“South Sudanese do not know that they have a country, people only know a few individuals, like Salva Kiir, Riek Machar and James Wani Igga – that’s all. There is no love for our county that is why a lot of our people died and many left just because of South Sudan”, Konga said.

The governor pointed that some people are ‘selfish,’ saying that the war would not have happened if not for the selfishness of some people.

“No, South Sudan is not for Salva Kiir, not for me – Clement – not even for Riek Machar. South Sudan is for all South Sudanese people

Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba Resigns from the SPLM ruling party

Posted: June 4, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in History, Press Release

June 1st, 2014

Professor Adwok Nyaba

Professor Adwok Nyaba

Comrade Salva Kiir Mayardit
Chairman of the National Liberation Council
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)
Juba

Thro’ Comrade Dr. Anne Itto
SPLM Secretary General (a. i.)

Subject: Resignation from the SPLM

“The moment the activity of an organization becomes divorced from all theory; from all rational synthesis of the period and the ways of thinking that mould it, the masses are quite right to abandon that organization. The cynicism of the leaders will be paralleled by the scepticism of the militants and sympathizers, who have become passive spectators of a series of about-turns, whose coherence escapes them and over which they therefore no longer have any influence.” Debray (1974) A critique of Arms.

Dear Chairman Salva Kiir Mayardit

While our people, the people of South Sudan, are passing through these difficult times in their long history of struggle for freedom, justice, equality and prosperity, it is not possible for me to remain unperturbed by, indifferent or insensitive to this unprecedented trepidation, immense suffering, fragmentation and internecine fighting occasioned by the events of December 15, 2013.

I am writing this letter to you as Chairman of the SPLM and as somebody, I have known since 1986. First, I want to discuss my concerns in respect of the current political situation surrounding the SPLM as the ruling party, and our republic of South Sudan. As a revolutionary, up to this point in time, I consider myself part of the SPLM and therefore equally responsible by commission or omission for some of the SPLM shortcomings, which have landed it into this awkward situation. In this connection, therefore, and without any reservation, chauvinism or shame I offer to self-criticize myself.

Mr Chairman, the vision of the ‘New Sudan’ and the political objectives of justice, equality, freedom and prosperity united us and indeed inspired many Sudanese, young or old, to join the ranks and file of the SPLM/SPLA since its inception in 1983. The dynamics of the political environment did not permit the SPLM/SPLA to realize its New Sudan vision and had to compromise for Southern Sudan in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. As a Liberation Movement, the SPLM need not abandon its vision and political objectives of building justice, equality, freedom and prosperity in Southern Sudan. This is because the ideals of social justice, equality, freedom, democracy and progress are equally applicable territorially to Southern Sudan as a subnational entity under the administration of the SPLM (2005 – 2011) as they were to the New Sudan. The only explanation must be that the SPLM had eschewed these concepts and jettisoned its vision of the ‘New Sudan’ in a paradigm shift to ‘Southern Sudan’ in obedient response to external forces. ‘New Sudan’ disappeared imperceptibly from the oral or written literature of the SPLM without any debate.

Mr Chairman, the SPLM emerged from the poorest and underdevelopment sections of our society namely the peasants and pastoral communities. Its objective was to liberate our people from centuries of deprivation and neglect accentuated by enslavement and political repression. The SPLM dominated the Government of Southern Sudan and those of its States since July 9, 2005. It had the necessary financial and economic resources coupled with resource injection from the international community during the interim period (2005 – 2011) to make a difference in the lives of our people. This was entirely under your leadership as the Chairman of the SPLM and President of the Government of South Sudan.

Neither the SPLM nor the Government of Southern Sudan had a socio-economic programme that could absorb the billions of US dollars that poured into Southern Sudan from the oil revenues. This explains how under your watch unscrupulous individuals laid their hand on, and stashed away in foreign lands, what you called in the letter to the ‘seventy five former and current ministers’, the missing four billions dollars. I did not work with the Government of Southern Sudan during the entire interim period. However, like many others who did not work for the Government of Southern Sudan, I nevertheless received the letter suggesting that when it became certain that the real thieves would not be apprehended – due to their proximity to your good self, you sent out the letter to smear the ‘clean ones’ in your government (2011-2013). Put in another way, the inclusion of other was to make it difficult to identify the real culprits.

Mr Chairman, membership of the SPLM was, and remains, an honour. It is revolutionary duty and right. I view it as a position of sacrifice not privilege; that explains why at every occasion we honour the memory of those who have paid the ultimate price in the course of the war of national liberation. I recall the relation of fraternity and comradeship we built, in the front line against the enemy, and that guided us to some extent in the liberated areas. These relations could not have emerged without the sense of equality, justice and freedom among ourselves as revolutionaries as well as between our people and us. The shunning of political organization and education in the SPLM, which projected militarism over other social and political processes in the course of national liberation, stunted the growth and strengthening of these relations albeit they remained superficial.

The CPA and the tragic death of Dr. John Garang exposed a sad reality in our relations in the SPLM. The comradely relations faded as the SPLM engaged in government. This shows that the nature of the revolutionary message the SPLM espoused since 1983 was completely at odds with the class origins of some of our leaders (messengers) in the Movement. It revealed that they had not fully converted to the liberation per se thus with the peace agreement and being in government, they indeed recovered their social reality and their natural relationship with their natural surroundings. The wheel had gone full circle, to where we began. The twenty-one years of chanting slogans of equality, freedom, justice and democracy was a façade to hide the atavistic reality of the political-military elite that emerged at the helm of the SPLM. The post CPA South Sudan beat a retreat into the eighteenth Century era. Thanks to totalitarian regime into which the SPLM has hardened and ossified.

The Republic of South Sudan was born against a background that reflected the sad truth that the SPLM had abandoned the ideology that propelled it to popularity both in the country and abroad. South Sudan’s current context of ubiquitous ethnicized conflicts, insecurity in the rural and urban domains driven by land grabbing with impunity, corruption, disappearances and assassination of political dissidents, stagnation and lack of development, and now the civil strife has made the spectators of our context wonder what could have happened to the SPLM.

It all started with the tragic death of Dr. John Garang de Mabior and your ascension to the helm in August 2005, when relations within the SPLM began to deteriorate and turn to the worst. Mr Chairman, you will recall that between August 2005 and October 2007, backbiting, double-crossing, double-talking and outright conspiracies against specific comrades in the leadership characterized the SPLM internal condition. This culminated in the attempts during the SPLM 2nd National Convention 2008 to remove Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon and Pagan Amum Okiech from their positions as SPLM first deputy Chairman and SPLM Secretary General respectively. The reasons for that attempt to remove the two leaders from the SPLM hierarchy were not sufficiently explained. The SPLM management of the General and Presidential Elections 2010 showed that the internal schisms had not healed resulting in the rebellion in Jonglei State. The apparitions of these machinations hovered over the SPLM wheeling and dealing until tragic events of December 15, 2013.

In fact, the tragic events that commenced with the mutiny in Tiger Battalion on the night of Sunday December 15, 2013 and their escalation into what is already becoming a civil war must be attributed to the political failure of the SPLM leadership to address the internal organization issues of the party. It is inconceivable that you reduced to a struggle for power the disputes over democratic reforms in the SPLM. Political and ideological differences in a political party are inevitable. However, they are resolved not through military confrontation but through democratic dialogue and debates aimed at uniting the ranks and file. That the struggle for democratic reforms in the SPLM has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of our innocent citizens betrays an inner tendency to dictatorship the very antithesis of liberation, which united us in the SPLM.

This tendency to transform into docile uncritical mass the people of South Sudan can be gleaned from the authoritarian outbursts of the Minister of Information and Broadcasting preventing the media and civil society groups to document and report the crimes against humanity committed by security forces between December 16 and 20, 2013 in the residential suburbs of Juba. The SPLM leadership and the Government of South Sudan have not to date acknowledged the massacre of ethnic Nuers in Juba. The SPLM government has not told the people of South Sudan the truth about what transpired on December 15, 2013 apart from the coup attempt attributed to Dr. Riek Machar. The people of South Sudan want to know the linkage between the coup attempt, which occurred in Tiger Battalion, and the massacring of the ethnic Nuers in the residential suburbs of Juba.

It was common knowledge that you mobilized, recruited and trained a private army hailing from Warrap and Northern Bahr el Ghazal, which you, on Saturday February 15, 2014, let the cat out of the bag while addressing the SPLM Youth League by these words, “the intention was to have a ‘reserve force’ to help the nation in the event of military action was needed. When these people were in the training, they were denied everything. They were denied salaries, weapons and all things they were supposed to get because some people did not like the idea.” This was blatant violation of the constitution. You cannot possess a private army besides the SPLA of which you are Commander in Chief.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss my situation and the decision to resign from the SPLM. Like all political parties the world over, the SPLM would comprise politically active members of our society. The activity they voluntarily engage in corresponds to exercising rights and duties accruing consequence to their membership of the party. It is a result of proving one’s political capabilities that one acquires promotion to senior positions in the party and given other responsibilities in the government. The SPLM consequent to its history and modis operandis emerged a military organization that eclipsed political activity from its inception in 1983 until the signing of the CPA in 2005. The talk of its transformation into a mass based political party came to nothing and the period between the SPLM 2nd National Convention and its third was wasted.

The post CPA period witnessed mass demobilization and depoliticization of the SPLM under the guise of South-South dialogue. The SPLM jettisoned its ideological stance and forgot its political objectives. Its internal situation deteriorated that the elections 2010 precipitated a tendency among many comrades to contest as independent candidates. We remember with nostalgia the rebellions of George Athor and David Yaw Yaw in Jonglei and the rigging out by SPLM of some of its influential leaders. The internal situation deteriorated further at independence of South Sudan 2011, with the massive influx into the SPLM of former NCP operatives and boot leakers, who have used their skills of leader worship in the NCP to seek power and influence in the SPLM. They have now succeeded to elbow out the SPLM senior cadres some of who joined its ranks in May 1983. The result is that the SPLM has lost not only its bearings as a national liberation movement but it has also become an oppressive machinery against the people of South Sudan.

People who fought the SPLM on the side of the enemy until 2005 now manage the SPLM affairs and are its decision makers. Their interest remained the destruction of the SPLM especially after the tragic death of Dr. John Garang de Mabior. They belaboured to heighten the SPLM internal schisms until violence erupted on December 15, 2013. This violence resulted in demise of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of our people. This war could have been avoided had you cared to listen to voices of peace loving people. Together with other comrades, I was arrested and detained briefly in connection with these events. What looked a compassionate gesture to release me turned out to be a wicked stratagem to incarcerate me in oblivion and obscurity. I am denied my passport and therefore could not be by the side of my wife, when she underwent a five hours operation in Nairobi Hospital.

The SPLM and Government propaganda depicted me as enemy and therefore many of my compatriots have been scared away from me. This is even after the government failed to prove before the Court its case against us for the so-called ‘failed coup attempt’. The National Security Service refused to return my passports to travel for specialized medical attention. They told clearly that I have to remain in Juba to ‘feel the heat’, whatever it means. My reading of this situation is that I shall remain the scapegoat for the December 15, 2013 events in view of the fact the other eleven detained political leaders have now all left the country courtesy of the President of the Republic of Kenya. I also read ‘feel the heat’ as instructions from you as the National Security Service only receive orders from you.

Given these facts, and in view of the fact that the SPLM under your leadership is prosecuting a civil war, I do not want, by virtue of being a member of the SPLM, to be privy to the some of the horrendous crimes being committed against the people of South Sudan. I, also, do not want to be privy to the transformation of the SPLM into a totalitarian machine, and an oppressive regime that is destroying South Sudan. I am therefore in all dignity and honour submitting my resignation from the SPLM as of June 1st, 2014.

Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba
Juba
June 1st 2014.

Dr. Richard K. Mullah Joins Riek Machar for the Second Time

Posted: June 4, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Junub Sudan

South Sudan Lawmaker Flees to Kenya, Joins Opposition

The administration of President Salva Kiir has become increasingly dictatorial, charges Richard Mulla, an independent member of South Sudan’s parliament. Mr. Kiir is shown here in a 2013 news conference.

A South Sudanese member of parliament has fled to Kenya and joined the opposition led by former vice president Riek Machar, saying his life was in danger in South Sudan.

“I was very insecure in my hometown of Mundri,” Richard Mulla, the lawmaker for Western Equatoria state, told South Sudan in Focus in a telephone interview from Nairobi.

“On May 6 this year, there were attempts to make me disappear by the security organs of the government, so I had to run for my life,” said Mulla.

He feared he would have been killed or lynched had he stayed in South Sudan.

The lawmaker said he knows of no reason why he was allegedly targeted by the authorities in Juba. But As an independent member of parliament with no affiliation to the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), Mulla said he has been a stern and consistent critic of the government of President Salva Kiir.

After fleeing to Nairobi, Mulla joined the opposition party led by Machar, saying it was the only way to remove what he called the increasingly dictatorial government of Mr. Kiir.

“I had to join (the opposition) because now I’m seeing that there is too much dictatorship in Juba. It has to be removed and the only way to do so is by joining the opposition,” Mulla said.

“If my own life was in danger, how could I survive if I come and speak to parliament?” he said.

Mulla said between 10 and 15 other South Sudanese lawmakers have also fled to Nairobi. All of them are believed to have joined the opposition, he said.

The December 15th Coup and Pagan’s Confession

Posted: June 4, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Malith Alier

By Malith Alier,

Pagan Amum, former SG of the SPLM

Pagan Amum, former SG of the SPLM

This country is awash with plenty to write about these days. The cholera menace, General Dau’s late term defection, negotiations in Addis, the rise of federalists, the creation of more States and Counties, endemic tribal feuds in Lakes State, Rizeigat and Miseriah entrance agreements into South Sudan, the Museveni’s unpalatable remarks about security in the country and the death sentence of a South Sudanese lady because of apostasy in Sudan.

These topics seemed to have pushed the most important matters to the periphery. The border, Abyei, fight against corruption, elections due in 2015, constitutional amendment and the issues of development are apparently shoved in to the silhouette. There is a slightest chance that they will resurface in their original form. Therefore, the blame lays on the December’s attempted coup and the subsequent insurgency masterminded by people who corrupted the system right before 2011 emancipation from Khartoum regime.

Pagan Amuom is not a simple politician by the standards of South Sudan politics. For somebody to hold a position of a Secretary General (SG) in a ruling party is not a simple feat. The party’s power strings for good or for worse lie with that particular person. He was only subordinate to the party’s Chairman. This made him a power broker not only in the party but also in the country.

Pagan is a populist politician in the context of the whole country saved for the Shilluk kingdom. His oratory skills are unmatched. Fluent in both English and Arabic, he sways masses like no other on important occasions such as SPLA Day. On the other hand, what is not known are his organisational skills since he was accused of failing to transform the SPLM as a party rooted in the liberation struggle. He was taken to court at one point because of allegation of corruption.
The December 15 coup exposed the dysfunction and malcontent masked in the SPLM party for so long. The implosion within the party has affected the whole country tremendously. The African political story has it that the party of liberation monopolise power for a long time as it becomes a force unto itself. It happened in many countries and this country is no exception.

However, the unravelling came so quickly because the party miserably failed to whip in to line those with different ambitions other than that of the party. Few people imagine that opposition was going to would take this twist for the worse. The logical path would have been that those within the SPLM with different ideology would form a party of their own and sell themselves to the electorate. However, they chose a shortcut to the chagrin of us all.

Pagan in his famous response to allegation that the group of 12 has not yet decided which way to go, join rebels or government argued that the group has decided neither to join the rebels nor the government for various reasons. He reckons that the rebellion is doomed and the country’s leadership has failed the nation. This is a welcome move by the suffering people of South Sudan despite the rebels’ belief to have secured their release by putting pressure to the government on the table in Ethiopia. This, they think implies automatic joint with the powerful former top government officials.

The other interesting part of the famous letter is the confession that it was Pieng Deng and James Mai, the Police IGP and the SPLA Chief of general staff respectively who saved their lives (Pagan and the group) during the crisis. Therefore, they owe their lives to these two gentlemen. However, this actually ignores the fact that the country’s highest office did not sanction such. People like the IGP and Chief of staff would have not succeeded in their defence. more confessions are likely to follow not only from Pagan but also from other detainees. Confessions about stashed away cash is perhaps to least to surface after the SPLM government has been branded as a kleptocratic government.

Let this author remind the former SPLM SG that many south Sudanese who are badly affected by the current conflict caused by misunderstanding in the SPLM party believed that it must be a crazy party which exports chaos but wholeheartedly takes care of the powerful culprits in its system. Despite lost of precious lives, destruction of property, displacement of millions; no single hair was lost on the real SPLM members in the government or outside it. This explains why they all want to cling to dear mother SPLM, the “all-caring.” Virtually, we have SPLM main, SPLM in Opposition, SPLM former detainees and SPLM DC, a total of four parties using the same name. a mutation indeed!

The SPLM in government under Salva Kiir, the SPLM in Opposition under Riek Machar and the SPLM former detainees under Pagan or Rebecca Chol have one thing in common, clinging to power if given a chance. For those who cling to the SPLM name most likely developed insatiable appetite to access and remain in power beyond imagination.

The reconciliation within the SPLM conceived in Juba and facilitated by the ANC and EPRDF in Addis Ababa is one of bizarre attempts to reconstitute the rats and mice of that party. It is a waste of precious resources that should be used somewhere else. Thank gods, the main Opposition members boycotted it. It was a white wash.

In conclusion, the country is now in a lawless state because of the makings of a group out of touch with reality. After being in the government for years harvesting unlimited produce, this same group brought about misery and the country is now a laughing stock in the region. Within a couple of Christmases after independence, killings, destruction of cities and defections in the army characterise our existence. The SPLM as a ruling party bears responsibility for all this chaos.


Ambassador Dr. Francis G. Nazario

Executive Director, Office of the Minister
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & international Cooperation Juba
Date: 02/06/2014

We have all been following the unfortunate eruption of conflict in our beloved country on December 15th, 2013 that continues to unleash devastation and inflict untold suffering on the civilian population in South Sudan. It started as an armed clash within the ranks of the Presidential Guard Unit at the former headquarters of Joint Integrated Units (JIUs), but was deliberately used as a pretext to target members of particular ethnic group in Juba and its environs. Scores of innocent civilians were indiscriminately targeted and killed during the first few days.

This subsequently turned into a full-blown armed conflict engulfing the whole country and taking an ethnic dimension.

Dear Compatriots;

The civil war which is currently raging in our country has so far killed over 10,000 people, mostly from the civilian population and forced over 1 million persons into internal displacement camps run by UNMISS in Juba, Bor, Malakal and Bentiu and close to half a million who took refuge in neighbouring countries including Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda. Both the IDPs and refugees are now living in dire situation without proper shelter and suffering from lack of food, clean water, medicine and sanitation. As a result, thousands of them have been prone to malaria, water-borne diseases and of late cholera.

Dear Compatriots

The current national crisis is a blessing in disguise in that it has exposed to us all the type of political elite we have in our country. It plainly demonstrated to us that a significant section of our political elite only understands the logic of war, and tends to resort to arms to solve national problems. Five months have passed since the outbreak of the violence that is still continuing unabated in a manner, which threatens to drive South Sudan into the edge of the abyss. As such, I have resolved not to keep quiet anymore. As a concerned citizen of South Sudan, I believe it is time we started to critically look into the root causes of this war with a view to addressing them in a comprehensive way.

Dear Compatriots.

The current leadership governing our country now lacks vision and mission to manage the political, social and economic affairs of our country. It has systematically undermined the institutions of governance and made a mockery of the rule of law. Moreover, it has severely curtailed the freedoms of speech and shown utter disregard to human rights. Under its watch, corruption has been institutionalized. This has substantially curbed the ability of the government to deliver the basic social services to the people of South Sudan.

Under the current government, violations of human rights have become the order of the day. Freedom of media has been suppressed, with journalists being consistently harassed, intimidated, arrested, and even assassinated. Nepotism and tribalism have been entrenched when it comes to appointments to positions of responsibility and high authority.

Most government institutions, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Cooperation for which I am working has been undermined. The ministry is being systematically undermined through the continued interference and uncalled for meddling of the Ministry of National Security and Office of the President.

These issues have previously been highlighted by members of SPLM Political Bureau (PB), being a simple dispute within the ruling party. It could and should have been easily addressed through dialogue en lieu of being allowed to turn into an armed conflict. Sadly, the conflict turned into the bloodiest war south Sudan has ever seen.

Dear Compatriots;

The agreement on the cessation of hostilities signed in Addis Ababa on 9 May between the government of RSS and SPLM/A-in-Opposition has never been respected. This bears evidence to how both parties entertain the idea of ending the conflict militarily. This shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The war must stop now. A political solution to the current conflict needs to be found without delay. The political dialogue should start immediately; solutions, which are to be found, should, necessarily address all the grievances and root causes to the current national crisis.

Unfortunately, the current leadership in Juba is neither capable, nor willing or ready to bring peace to the country now. Hence it must immediately go.

Given these facts, I can’t continue to associate myself with such leadership and government. I remain loyal to South Sudan and am ready to work with anyone who is ready and willing to bring peace and national reconciliation; who is willing to build a united, democratic and prosperous South Sudan.

Under the current situation, I find it extremely difficult to continue assuming my responsibility as a nationalist, who has always vowed to support the legitimate aspirations and just cause of the valiant people of South Sudan.

It is extremely difficult to continue to serve a government that is insensitive to the needs and suffering of the people of South Sudan.
I am therefore announcing my decision to quit the government. My aim is to work in the relentless pursuit of peace, national reconciliation and prosperity for all the people of South Sudan.