South Sudan: What is the most prudent way to handle the Sentry Investigative Report?
4 min readBy Samuel Reech Mayen, Kampala, Uganda
September 14, 2016 (SSB) — My simple advise to the President’s press secretary, Mr. Ateny Wek Ateny and those who feel legal action should be taken against Enough Project is to lower their tempers and approach the matter with moral clarity. First, if our leaders’ lawyers intend to sue the Sentry on its report, the first question should be what rights have been infringed?
If it’s defamation which damage ones reputation in the judgment of reasonable members of the public, the potential plaintiffs will be required by the court to prove four elements; firstly, whether the accusations refer to the plaintiffs (the leaders accused); Secondly, whether the matter has been published; thirdly, whether the reputations of the leaders have been injured; and fourthly, whether the accusations made by enough project is false.
Of course the first three ingredients are undeniable. The names of the potential plaintiffs have been mentioned, the accusations have been published and the public is already condemning these leaders with some calling for their resignations; an indication that the Sentry report is receiving applaud from those who are against the government.
But the proof of the fourth element which is the falsity of the matter might be challenging. Because the voluntary investigators are learned, the evidences adduced are probably irrefutable. The Enough Project will not waver to prove to the court that whatever the accusation they made in the report is true. As learned lawyer, Ateny and his colleagues know very well, a true statement negate the claim of defamatory right. Should the lawyers of our leaders sue for defamation, it will lead to an endless suit of submission and re-submission of evidences. There is a need to guide against this drama.
This does not mean that our leaders are guilty of corruption but there are better ways to challenge the Sentry report instead of suing on defamatory ground. The report can easily and sufficiently be rebutted in political terms.
In reality, the investigation was not meant for all the corrupt officials of South Sudan but a tool designed to humiliate, confuse and fight the present government. The leaders to be investigated were defined prior to the investigation. It is therefore a politically motivated exercise which must also be counteracted politically.
For example, politically, people are wondering whether President Kiir is the richest President in the region. On the same note, How many countries have the assets of the ruling presidents been exposed in such a manner? Do the assets and allegations made show the whereabouts of the alleged stolen $4 billion? What is the important of the report? If it’s about the war, did Enough Project investigate the assets of Assad Bashar of Syria? And … Etc.
Besides the expected well articulated government response to these accusations, Legal action cannot be ruled out. Enough Project should not go empty handed. It needs to be rewarded with appropriate price to deter it from over poking it nose into foreign matters in unhelpful manner. It needs to be sued for INCITEMENT. In the current state of fragility, South Sudan can easily slide into worst violence if such statements are made. The Sentry Report is simply calling the citizens against the government. It’s not in the interest of peace but purposely to stir the country into more chaos.
The author resides in Uganda and can be reached at: mayenreech@ygmail.com or +256 775 448 755
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing.
About Post Author
