Lam Akol at Loggerheads with South Sudanese Opposition Leaders in Addis Ababa

THE POLITICAL PARTIES OF SOUTH SUDAN

Delegation of the Political Parties to the Addis Ababa Peace Talks

Date: 18 August 2014

Press Release

1. Today, some members of the political parties delegation to the Addis Ababa Peace Talks pulled out of the talks claiming that the whole delegation has done so. This is a wild claim. None of them is the Spokesman of the delegation and hence none has the right to speak on behalf of the delegation.
2. We know that these colleagues of ours came under considerable pressure from the government delegation so as to toe their line in boycotting the talks which they want to be bilateral with the SPLM/A-IO. The choice was deliberate as they are members of parties represented in the current government. Therefore, theirs was a stark choice between sticking to their principles as expressed in the position paper of the political parties, or abandon that and remain in the government. They chose the latter. We consider their departure as a purification process.
3. The excuse they gave that the Leader of our delegation together with others met the Leader of the SPLM/A-IO cannot stand on its feet. He was delegated to meet the SPLM/A-IO in a meeting held by the delegation on Friday the 15^th instant in order to persuade them not to reject the multi-stakeholder format of the talks. Indeed, meeting the SPLM/A-IO Leader took place on Saturday evening.
4. If that was the reason for pulling out of the delegation, they should have raised the matter in a meeting of the delegation. They never did. Instead, what we saw was suspicious activities from their side which never escaped our attention.
5. This is not the first time that our delegation and other stakeholders agreed to meet the Leader of SPLM/A-IO. It will be recalled that when the launching of the 4^th session Phase II of the talks could not kick off when the delegation of SPLM/A-IO stayed away on the 16^th and the 20th of June, it was resolved that a team made up of the Leaders of delegations of the four non-warring stakeholders meet the Leader of SPLM/A-IO to persuade him to let his delegation join the talks. These colleagues of ours never objected to the idea then. Our delegation did brief the political parties about the 4^th session including this matter in a meeting held in Juba on the 26^th June 2014. The report of the delegation was adopted. In our opening statement on launching the talks on the 20^th of June, we made it clear that our delegation was ready to engage all stakeholders either singly or collectively. This meeting is in that context in the search for peace. We wanted to do the same with the government but they said they only meet us in Juba and the only party they can meet here is SPLM/A-IO.
6. We only lament that they let the South Sudanese people down when all are striving to find a solution to our crisis. However, we wish them well in their endeavours. Their departure will not affect the position of the political parties on the resolution of the current crisis as tabled before the IGAD mediation on Friday the 15^th It is worth mentioning that the seven members that form our delegation were elected by the eighteen political parties of South Sudan who took part in the Symposium that was organized by IGAD mediators in June this year.

Signed by:

********************

Delegation of the Political Parties to the Addis Ababa Peace Talks

Date: 18 August 2014

Dear Mr Kornelio Kon Ngu and Colleagues leader of the political parties.

       Subject: Report about the withdrawal of four members of the delegation

1. Today, four members of our delegation declared their withdrawal from the Peace Talks and declared that they will not return unless the government delegation gets back to the Peace Talks which it boycotted on Saturday the 16^th The four are:
2. Martin Tako Moyi – Chairman of UDSF,
3. Bishop Gabriel Roric Jur – Member of the NCP South Sudan,
4. Wilson Lodiong Sebit – Vice President ANC, and
5. James Aniceto Batikayo – Chairman of NDF.
6. Today was the first day the talks broke into three committees:
7. The Political Committee,
8. The Economic Affairs Committee, and
9. The Security Affairs Committee.
10. We had divided our members into the three committees as follows:
11. The Political Committee: Martin Tako, Gabriel Roric, Dr James Mabor, and Taban Luka as Secretary;
12. The Economic Affairs Committee: James Aniceto, Wilson Lodiong, Ismail Suleiman, and Malok Majak as Secretary;
13. Security Committee: Albino John and Dr Justin Ambago.
14. Leaders of delegations were not to take part in the work of committees. This is why my name did not appear in the list.
15. These four colleagues chose to make their announcement of withdrawal in the Committees above. In the Political Committee, Martin Tako announced that the delegation of the political parties was withdrawing from the talks until the Government delegation rejoins the talks and he and Gabriel Roric immediately withdrew from the meeting. Dr James Mabor stood up to correct the record by stating that the delegation of the political parties did not withdraw and will continue in the talks until peace is achieved and the suffering of our people is brought to an end. There was shouting in the room from other delegates that “these are government people”. In the Economic Affairs Committee, James Aniceto stood up and asked the Chair (from IGAD) whether the government delegation was coming. The Chair answered that they have boycotted. Immediately, James Aniceto and Wilson Lodiong withdrew from the hall. They were followed by the Secretary, Malok Majak.
16. In a well orchestrated scenario, the four held a press conference in front of SSTv crew that is Addis with the government delegation. Martin Tako and Gabriel Roric spoke. Both of them said that they were withdrawing because Dr Lam Akol met Dr Riek Machar together with others from the Former Detainees without authorization, and also because they cannot be in the talks when the government delegation is absent. Tako added that Dr Lam Akol will never again be his Chairman of delegation.

The facts of the situation

7. These colleagues did not raise these claims in a meeting of the delegation at all. That was the first time for us to hear about them. The claims are not true.
8. First, meeting other stakeholders in the talks was a decision we took since we arrived here on the 3^rd of August. All of us met the Civil Society delegation in the 1^st week of August and I was delegated by our delegation to reconcile them, and I met them on the 8^th of August. We were to meet the Former Detainees but the meeting was adjourned twice (all from our side) due to other concurrent meetings.
9. Regarding meeting SPLM/A-IO delegation, it will be recalled that the 4^th session of the peace talks was adjourned on 23^rd of June because they boycotted the multi-stakeholder roundtable requesting to have bilateral talks with the Government delegation only. This time the Government delegation bought the idea, but it was hesitant to say that publicly (See our Press Statement dated 7^th instant). Therefore, we were seriously concerned that the two warring parties may decide to block out other stakeholders. Therefore, our delegation took a decision to dissuade the two parties from this dangerous move which, if realized, would definitely block out our contribution to the peace talks. However, the Leader of the Government delegation declared in a meeting with the mediators where the Leaders of all delegations were present that his delegation will not be talking either bilaterally or multilaterally unless in the presence of SPLM/A-IO. In answer to a direct question I put to him whether this meant that he and his delegation cannot talk bilaterally with the delegation of the political parties, his answer was in the affirmative adding that they can engage us in Juba! This left us with only SPLM-IO among the warring parties to talk to.
10. We met as a delegation on Friday the 15^th instant and in that meeting I was delegated to meet Taban Deng, the Leader of SPLM/A-IO, to impress on him the need to respect their commitment to multi-stakeholder roundtable conference as the format for the talks. In a meeting of the Leaders of delegations with the mediators the next day (Saturday), I went with Martin Tako. In that meeting which started at 9:00 am, all agreed to form the committees referred to above, except the government delegation (Nhial and Makuei) which asked for adjournment in order to consult. They were given time until 12:00 noon.
11. When we were getting out of the meeting, I asked Taban if we can meet while we were waiting for the 12:00 meeting. He agreed but added that he wanted Pagan Amum and Deng Alor who were just in front of us (coming out of the same meeting) to be preset. I agreed and I told Martin about this. Indeed, the four of us met and the point of discussion was the necessity of having multi-stakeholder talks. In fact, we managed to persuade Taban to drop his insistence on the bilateral talks. After that I briefed Martin in the presence of Dr Justin Ambago about the outcome of the meeting and we all agreed that it was a great achievement.
12. The time for resumption of the meeting came and passed. Nhial and Makuei came after lunch whereupon they went straight into a meeting with the mediators only. After they left, the other Leaders of the delegations were called in to be told that the government delegation, instead of consulting on the committees, came in with new two conditions if not met they will not take part in the talks. These were:
13. That the matrix of the CoH agreement be signed first before any talks on other issues, and
14. The sufficient consensus as came in the Rules of Procedure to be amended to be only the two warring parties (in Rules of Procedure it was the two warring parties and two other stakeholders). This means bilateral talks and other stakeholders do not count.
15. This matter was discussed. Taban told the meeting that the issue of the matrix of CoH agreement was no longer in the hands of the Leaders of the delegations of the warring parties as it was referred to their two principals, and that if the Ugandan troops withdrew today he will sign it, adding that the mediators were informed about all this. After deliberation, the meeting resolved unanimously that the demands of the government delegation were unrealistic and that the peace talks should continue in the form of committees even if the government delegation chooses to stay away. This means Taban kept his word with us. Martin Tako was with me in the meeting. However, Taban said that he may find it difficult to persuade Dr Riek for them to be present in a meeting where the government delegation is absent, and hence wanted all of us to go meet him on this matter. We agreed and I told Martin who said he was going to the toilet. The four of us were driven to where Riek was staying. As Taban predicted, it was not easy to persuade Riek that this was a necessary step towards multi-stakeholder peace talks. He finally agreed. This is why SPLM/A-IO was in the meetings of today. We never thought this was at all a secret meeting to be “discovered’ as it was only about peace.
16. I briefed the delegation as soon as I came back that evening. Martin Tako, Gabriel Roric and James Aniceto absented themselves. Some of our colleagues told me that James Aniceto may be unhappy because of certain issues. On Sunday morning I tried to meet James Aniceto in his room and could not succeed, but met him in the afternoon. I apologized to him if I did not notice some of the things he complained about. He looked pleased and it appeared as if things went back to normal. He actually, attended the meeting of that evening which the two above plus Wilson Lodiong chose not to attend.
17. On Sunday afternoon, immediately after the prayers (conducted in our Hotel), I saw Martin Tako, Gabriel Roric and Wilson Lodiong leaving the hotel and headed for the hotel where the government delegation is accommodated. It is reported that James Aniceto joined them later. The two came back late and did not attend our meeting at 9:00 pm that evening. James Aniceto did attend the meeting. When I raised the issue of the two gentlemen he sprang to their defence and that we should give them the benefit of the doubt! The meeting agreed to finalize members of the committees (as above) and asked the members of each committee to prepare position papers on their subject to be discussed at 8:00 am before they go to the meetings that will commence at 9:00 am on Monday, today.
18. Martin Tako, Gabriel Roric and James Aniceto did not attend the 8:00 am meeting but Wilson Lodiong did attend. Actually, Martin Tako was downstairs (we were meeting on the 1^st floor) and his tongue slipped near one of our colleagues that there will be a surprise that morning. It immediately occurred to me that they may have chosen to declare their withdrawal from us that morning in the meetings of the committees. I alerted our colleagues to this possibility. So when they made their announcement today it was not entirely a surprise. We issued a press release to refute their claims (attached).
19. The four wrote to IGAD today and I suspect the government delegation would want them to be here in order to discredit our delegation.

Conclusion:

8. From the foregoing, the claims of the four are not true because:
9. I was authorized to meet the delegations of the warring parties so as to dissuade them from bilateral talks and meeting Riek Machar was in that context, and
10. The matter was known to at least Martin Tako who was in the meetings with me on Saturday.
11. This is definitely the work of the government delegation, especially Makuei and Joseph Ukel. They have never been happy with us from the moment we had a position paper on the peace talks. They just want us to be following the government without opinion. That the same stand in the position paper was reiterated when the delegations made their presentations on Friday, angered them more. Hence, they started to work hard to dismantle our group. This is the background to the defection of the four. They were threatened with dismissal either personally (Martin) or the ministers of their parties (Lodiong) or denial of any possible future ministerial positions (Roric and Aniceto).
12. We are not against the government in anyway. Nevertheless, it must understand that we do have views that may differ with theirs. Otherwise, we could not have been different political parties.

Recommendation:

1. Since the seven delegates were elected by you, the general assembly of the political parties, it is your right to replace them.
2. We recommend that you select four to replace those who have defected and write to IGAD to that effect. The government would not certainly like that, but I do not think they can, under the present circumstances, prevent them from travel.

Kind regards.

Lam Akol

Chairman of SPLM-DC

Leader of the Delegation.

About Post Author

PaanLuel Wël

administrator

PaanLuel Wël is the founder and editor-in-chief of PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd, a news website that covers news, opinions, analysis, history, culture and literature of South Sudan and the world. Founded in July 2011 by PaanLuel Wël to create a platform for free expression and constructive dialogue, the website features articles from various contributors, including columnists, commentators, poets, authors, activists and academics. PaanLuel Wël believes that media can play a vital role in informing, educating and empowering the people to participate in nation-building and social transformation. He also believes that media can foster a culture of dialogue, tolerance and diversity among different communities and groups, and hopes to inspire and mentor the next generation of South Sudanese writers and journalists.

See author's posts