A Call for a Federal Government for South Sudan (Part 1)

By Simon El Hag Kulusika, Lusaka, Zambia

Sunday, October 25, 2020 (PW) — I have written numbers of articles on the subject. I want to repeat some of my suggestions as reminder as well as an iinvitation to debate. Debate is called for owing to a statement attributed to President Kiir which he made sometime ago on whether the people wanted a federal system or not! A simple answer would be ‘yes’! But in academic discourses “yes’ is misleading as it’s devoid of any evidence to support it.

A doubtful testimony is that the President’s statement if proven to have been made, would tell us that the current system of governance is other than a federal system or federalism as found in USA, India, Canada, Mexico, South Africa,etc. Also the statement raised doubts about the desirability of federalism for South Sudan in the absence of popular demands for a federal system of government.

It’s important to repeat that the system we inherited from Khartoum is not a federation. But a devolved system as exists in UK, Egypt, Ghana, Angola, Zambia, etc. Khartoum did not believe in federalism, but only in appeasing the regions by giving them some powers that could be withdrawn by a stroke of a pencil. South Sudan does not accept that type of governance. Because it denies genuine participation in governance matters.

A foundation of equality, freedom and development. The federal system we are advocating for South Sudan is supported by the socio – political  systems prevalent in southern Sudan before the coming of foreign intruders including slave traders and successive governments of Khartoum. For example, the Dinka and Nuer had and still have a Confederal system. The Ma’di were ruled under a confederal system, or quasi – federal system, because each clan is independent from the others.

The Ma’di king is just a figure head. The Achol had and still have a strong king (Ruwot) presiding over independent clans and powerful rain – makers  (Won Kot).The Shielluk had and still have a monarchical system with powers devolved to the regions. The same can be said about the Zande. In both system the princes in the regions acted or act autonomously, except in military matters.

Lotuka and other ethnic groups have centralised kingdoms or quasi – federal or Confederal systems. In these and the others mentioned previously, power sharing would appear to be the dominant festure of governance. Why do we want to destroy these systems rather than improve them by the adoption of federalism to promote equal and effective participation and solidarity, and pave way for national integration?

The federal system we advocate has numbers of characteristics of which the most important are:

1. Shared sovereignty and shared powers.

2. Two levels og government where power is not concentrated with one.

3. They have same citizens,but with different jurisdictions.

4. Each level of government has defined and clear power to enact laws, execute these laws, operate a judiciary.

5. Disputes to be resolve by the courts.

6. The prohibition of unilateral acts such as dismissal of Governors, states senior officials. At national level all senior officials of the government can be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Upper legislature. They can be dismissed by the President following the outcome of judicial inquiry.

7. The constitution shall provide for specific nature of the Republic as ‘Federal’.

8. There shall be three list of powers: a. National powers. b. state powers. and c. Concurrent powers.

9. Natural resources shall be shared in reasonable ratio by all the states. These natural resources shall be managed by the national government in conjunction with states government to accelerate national economic development.

10. The states shall have judicial system: traditional tribunals, magistrates court, high courts and courts  of appeal. Appeal from a state court of appeal goes to the National Supreme court.

11. All cases involving constitutional interpretation must be referred to the National constitutional court. The states shall have no constitutional court.

The people through their representatives must include in the national and state constitutions clear safeguards regarding the federal system so that no one  or authority may attempt to abolish the federation as by people established. 

In the past I made suggestions for the establishment of 26 states. I gave my reasons. But in this article I have revised that figure.I am now suggesting 21 states as follows: Bentiu state = 2; Central Equatoria State  = 2; Eastern Equatoria State  = 2; Jonglei state   = 2; Lakes state = 2; Warrab state  = 1; Western Equatoria state = 2; Northern Bahr Al Ghazal state = 3; Western Bahr Al Ghazal state = 2; Upper Nile state = 3.  Total 21 states.

To conclude, federation enhances power sharing and prevents overlapping of what is to be done as this is set in the list of distribution of powers between National and state governments. It increases participation in the management of the country by officials who are closer to the local people. This makes government manageable as people tend to know each other from the locality.

And they can find suitable solutions to local problems than those sitting in Juba.It pays great attention to different cultures and adopt policies to cater for these differences which the national government may ignore or overlook. Policies are formulated based on options of officials who are from the community and knows their needs for education, health care, security, and what type of power station to put depending on water resources available. 

The federation provides a challenge to the people of state to be innovative and sometimes do exprimentations in order to develop the state.

The author, Prof. Simon El Hag Kulusika (ZAOU, Lusaka), is a concerned citizen of South Sudan, Arapi, Pa-Geri County, Eastern Equatoria State of South Sudan. He can be reached via his email address: pa352128@gmail.com or Lusaka phone + 260973711250.

About Post Author