Archive for: November 2013

Independent South Sudan represents Hopes & Uncertainties

By John Juac Deng, WINDSOR, CANADA, NOV/02/2013, SSN;

In our revolutionary armed struggle for freedom, representative democracy was as vital an aim as independence; the two were inseparable. It was not our purpose to rid South Sudan of the Arab authoritarian colonial system in order to substitute a South Sudanese political tyranny; we wanted to free our people from arbitrary rule, and to give them freedom to choose the kind of government they felt would best serve their interests and enhance their welfare. Our long armed struggle was fought to make our people free to practice the religion they chose, to give them the liberty to associate in whatever groups they wished, to create an atmosphere in which they could say, write and think freely, without harming their neighbors or jeopardizing their new state.

Unfortunately, the men who proclaimed the new republic followed independence have disregarded these authentic ideals of the armed struggle, making them assassins of freedom. So the current image of independent South Sudan is analogous to a ship sailing for a new land that runs into gales and storms and this image represents the hopes and uncertainties. The real revolutionary fervor has been dampened, and betrayed by the SPLM nationalist party’s conservative vision of reform. Beneath pomp and slogans, the old Sudan’s colonial state apparatus has remained intact; this has prevented realization for the liberty and equality for all South Sudanese citizens.

In fact, the leaders of the ruling body, led by Kirr Mayardit, have not swept away the old order that was employed by the Khartoum regime to suppress South Sudanese’s aspirations for independence and freedom.
But they have secured freedom for their own circle, not for the country folks, with their axes and blackened hands. This reminds us of Machiavelli’s view of human nature emphasizes that men are ungrateful liars and neither noble nor virtuous, and he warns of the dangers of political motives that go beyond concerns with the excise of power.

Most South Sudanese constantly complain that South Sudan suffers contradictions that are dulling its vitality and creativity; certain powerful individuals from Mayardit’s repressive regime inner circle often limit individual liberty unnecessary and the result is a total submission, which is more dangerous than present social disorder in the new nation. John Lock, an English political thinker once wrote that: “I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom.”

Liberty is the idea that there is an area of human thought and action that is private, and within that private sphere, all individuals have the right to make choice for themselves. According to the principle of liberalism, then, we are free to do whatever we wish provided there is no law prohibiting us from doing so. We have the rights, which means that we are free to decide for ourselves whether we will or will not do something. This freedom to decide for ourselves about such matters as which ideas we should believe and what religion we should practice is an essential element of the liberal understanding of politics.

And from these initial freedoms, flow a number of others, notably freedom of expression and freedom of the press. But what provides the philosophical foundation for the principle of liberty? In contemporary liberal democracies, there are two schools of thought that dominate: natural rights and utilitarianism. Natural rights school argues that individuals possess certain rights: life, liberty, property, or privacy because they are human beings. These rights, now often called human rights, are rights that all human beings possess everywhere, and always, whether they are recognized or not; they are”inalienable” rights in that they cannot be given up or taken away.

According to the natural rights school, these inalienable or natural rights establish both the purpose and the limits of political power. The purpose of the government is to secure these universal and permanent rights and no government is allowed to act in a manner that violates them. Utilitarian justification for liberty is fundamentally different. For utilitarians, the importance of liberty derives from its usefulness as a means of promoting human happiness, but utilitarians do not believe that there are universally and permanently valid ed natural rights; they argue that rights are created within each regime in response to circumstances.

It is important to appreciate, however, that utilitarians believe the articulation of rights to be guided by certain ground rules, and the most important of these rules would be the famous” harm” principle elaborated by John Stuart Mill, another English political thinker. According to the harm principle, governments cannot interfere with the actions of individuals so long as those individuals are not harming others. Mill argued that happiness was most likely to be achieved if all individuals were allowed to develop their own individuality as fully as possible.

The full development of our individuality requires that we each be left as free as possible to explore our own ideas and to act on the basis of those ideas. Provided we do not harm others and even harming ourselves is within the province of liberty. So the harm principle means two points for the contemporary South Sudanese politics.

The first point is that the onus of proof should be placed on the SPLM led governess and its provincial counterparts to show why any law that limits individual freedom is necessary. The second point is that such a law will be valid ed only if it is necessary to prevent some direct harm to other South Sudanese. They should not pass laws forbidding citizens to smoke or drink when they are acting in ways that harm nobody. But when their actions, such as driving while drunk, the government is allowed to invade their liberty for the protection of others’ rights.

The list of specific rights that South Sudan’s citizens should now be enjoying in the post-independence period is a long one, but it is possible to summarize the essence of those rights in three general principles. The principle of the liberty draws a deep distinction between the private sphere and public sphere. The public sphere includes those areas of human activity where the governmental authority regulation of our conduct is necessary to protect the rights of everyone, while the private sphere includes everything lees, and the government should not interfere in these areas of our lives.

Further, the government of South Sudan may legitimately tell its citizens how fast they may drive a car or what kind of guns they may own, but it has no right to tell them what religion to believe in or whether they should refrain from engaging in era-marital sex. Canadian Prime Minister, Pierore Trudeau, once articulated this principle of liberalism in his famous remark that” the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.”

An understanding of this ideal begins with the recognition that the individual is paramount. The individual does not exist to glorify government; government exists to enhance the individual. The government by people is based on the individual’s rights to speak freely, to organize in groups, to question the decision of the government and to campaign against the government. Only through free and uncensored expression of opinion can the government be kept responsive to the people and can governmental power be transferred peacefully in South Sudan.

Elections, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees are meaningless unless all South Sudanese citizens have the right to speak frankly and to hear and judge for themselves the worth of what other southerners have to say. Despite the fundamental importance of free speech in modern democracy, some South Sudanese politicians and public officials believe that speech should be free only for those who agree with them; a national newspaper owned by those who disagree with them must not be permitted, even in peacetime to criticize the government and its ministers and this indeed is ridiculous.

Mayardit’ regime should proscribe all discrimination on the basic of ethnicity, religion and other politically irrelevant characteristics. The effective protection of the various rights of South Sudanese depends on the principle of the rule of law; and at a minimum, this principle would enable ordinary people to count on law and order, for without the protection of an effective legal order, their rights would be in jeopardy. The rule of law should also stipulate that Juba government and other governmental authorities are not themselves above the law, and both the local and the national courts apply the law equally and impartially.

Every action taken by the new rulers in the control of public power should be grounded in some legal authority because they are arbitrarily treating people.” Everyone is at the mercy of these powerful leaders who are running our new country on the barrel of a gun and recognizing no limitation on their capacity to act,” a senior bureaucrat disenchanted with Mayardit’s autocratic style of leadership, said in a telephone conversation.

Thus, insisting that the new rulers act on the basis of the established legal authority is a crucial mechanism for guaranteeing individual liberty in the new nation. The laws protect liberty; the purpose of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom in political society; where there is no law there is no freedom.

The annulment of 2015 elections is unconstitutional

Most advocates for democratic reform were surprised when President Mayardit announced in September that South Sudan’s first general elections since independence would not be held on schedule 2015. But Mayardit’s comments did not surprise me; in one of my articles published in, I pointed out that since accepting reform is an admission of failure or fallibility, Mayardit and his die hard supporters may put up all sorts of arcane reasons to block the reform and that is what they did.

I had long suspected Mayardit’s desires to perpetuate himself in power; he resorted to subterfuge and chicanery to fool South Sudanese and advance his secret agenda; he also violated Article 100 of the transitional constitution that states” the tenure of the president starts from 9 July 2011 to 9 July 2015.”

It means elections must be before that, but Mayardit’s comments have casted further doubt over the timely conduct of the election. Despite this constitutional violation, the opposition parties in legislative assembly and civil society have failed to organize citizens against the unnecessary delay of the poll. Could one assume they have not realized that Mayardit has disenfranchised the entirely population? According to some insiders, opposition groups and civil society have a different attitude of mind and different challenges; civil society is not cohesive and internal squabbles and disunity are among the multiple disadvantages that have dampened the opposition effectiveness.

Obsessed with remaining in the driver’s seat of the new state vehicle, Mayardit and his party officials subvert the electoral process and outmaneuver a fragmented opposition to stay in power, even though they are failing to govern themselves within their own party organization. They have their own internal logic and ethics and their driving motivation is self-perpetuation and self-aggrandizement, but poverty reduction and promotion of economic growth are least among their priorities.

Finally, disagreement between individuals is of the very essence of human personality. As long as we are different persons, there will be some of us who like one thing and some who do not; some who desire one order of society; some who believe to be realized in one set of circumstances and some who disagree with that judgment.

The course of action taken and the form of society thus brought into existence are determined largely by decisions of the government. The government has its hands upon the controls of the apparatus of coercion and is therefore the immediate authority determining social policy; the nature of the decisions taken by the government depends upon the character of the persons forming it.

Consequently, there can be no control of society by the common people, unless it is possible to change the personnel of the government and of the legislature. The first and most obvious characteristic of political democracy is the existence of a government responsible to the people and a membership of the legislative assembly upon the free vote of the people.

The people must have power to dismiss a government from office, but the existence of this power requires liberty. If liberty is to exist, there must be a real choice before the people and this means the steady maintenance of freedom to oppose the government of the day. Unless the existing opposition is free to prepare itself to take over power and the government surrenders it peacefully after an electoral decision against it, there is no choice before South Sudanese people. So what does the future hold for the world’s newest nation? This is what South Sudanese will have figure out themselves.

John Juac Deng
Sudanese journalist/writer

Can Western Bahr el Ghazal State Emerge from its Political Crisis?

BY: Elias Uchalla, RSS, NOV/03/2013, SSN;

The Governor of Western Bahr El Ghazal State, Rizik Zakaria Hassan, lately has been talking about according pardon to all sons and daughters of the state who he believes were behind the Wau December 2012 crisis, where peaceful demonstrators were shot to death in broad daylight followed by internal tensions.

On two occasions recently, one at Juba University and the other at Chief Amabile Ucin’s house in Wau, the governor said he pardoned all those who wronged him and asked those who fled home to return.

One wonders what is going on. The act of pardoning in itself is an act between two parties, the aggrieved and their aggressor. It is the aggrieved to pardon the aggressor.

To put this straight the question we need to ask is, who was the aggrieved and who was the aggressor? Those who left the state back then were people exercising their democratic rights and the governor turned to crush them with an iron fist which resulted in deaths.

Feeling threatened thereafter, they fled and many others had their lives disrupted.

As the aggressor the governor cannot pardon any one. It is the governor who needs to seek forgiveness and be pardoned by a number of people some of who are listed below:-

1. The relatives of those who lost their lives
2. Those who are still in jail
3. Those who were coerced and harassed
4. Those who lost their jobs
5. Those who fled the state
6. The communities he turned enemies against each other
7. Those who lost their properties
8. The girl who refused to marry him. (She was brutally beaten and her hair uprooted, by security forces who came home to arrest her brother).

The second question is, can you ask for pardon if you are still abusing people? The Bible says ‘repent and your sins will be forgiven (Act 3:13).’ This means acknowledge your mistakes and turn away from them.

The governor is asking for pardon while there are still people in jail. He celebrated the death penalty sentence, passed on some innocent civilians by inviting the judges for dinner to his house.

He is still sacking people from their positions regarding them as opposed to him. He is still marginalizing citizens, for instance, in the absence of the Speaker of the Assembly, who is abroad for treatment, it the constitutional right of the Deputy Speaker to represent him until his return.

However, due to the fact that the deputy is Hon. Ukungere, the governor preferred to appoint Hon. Paulino Pinyi, a member, as a speaker temporarily until the arrival of Hon. Mayar Achor.

Govenor Rizik is still pointing fingers at others as those who triggered the problem. Is he someone who has repented and deserves forgiveness?

Pardon, as a word was not in the governor’s vocabulary during the escalation of the situation back in December. He refused all initiatives made for peace; whether by the religious leaders, women groups, or other community members to calm the situation.

All he wanted was to create an environment where people get killed and he was not satisfied by the number of casualties to this point.

From what we have seen in Wau, Governor Rizik is a devil. He is actually equal to Belzabul because he uses deception to trap people into committing mistakes.

The people of Wau will remember that Anthony Sokone and Sebit Arkangelo were called to a meeting back then in December 2012 and since that day they never saw the sun, and are still in jail now. This is the devil’s way of doing things.

Learn from your history and do not forget because as George Santayana said, “Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.”

Recently when the governor dissolved the cabinet and in the process of forming a new one, a government aide spoke to Sudan Tribune that the governor knows some ministers did not support him during the crisis and those are the ones who will not be included in the new cabinet.

Can this governor be honest for once? Just think of that, this is another way to deceive people. He always lures his colleagues to support his deceit and then dumps them. Here are some examples:

Morris Yel: who previously served as Director General in Warap State before moving to the Western Bahr el Ghazal State government, was the official go between for the governor and Juba administration during the escalation of violence, and he got all the support Rizik wants.

All meetings regarding the violence were held at his Africana Hotel. He funded his brother Tito to transport the youth from the Greater Bahr el Ghazal states to attack residents of Wau on the 19th of December.

Rizik Dominic: He was the spokesperson of the government and it was his words on Miraya FM inciting communities to create acts of genocide against each other that flared the violence of the 19th of December, where more people were killed and houses burnt down.

Juliet Raphael: Was completely silent and absent; but we understand she was sick and needed Rizik’s money desperately to undergo treatment.

Rughaya Madut: Was preaching that the youth in the demonstration were armed.

Michael Geba: Was deceived to quit his job in UNMISS to become the first mayor of Wau Town. Only when he was about to sit again on the chair, Rizik pulled away the chair and he fell on the ground instead.

The governor deceived these people into making mistakes just like the devil tried to deceive Jesus by tempting him in the desert ( Mat. 4:1-1). The difference is that these people failed the test due to greed and ambition.

The most important questions to ask is what is all this pardon about?

1. Could the governor be wounded on his back by a more powerful person and since he cannot see the wound he wants someone to tend to it?

2. Has he realized that his lies can no longer be covered?

3. Is he trying to rally people behind him as he is thinking of running for elections?

4. Or is it the fact that the President found out that he too was deceived by Rizik’s action that has put him on odds with the people of the state?

Beware of any sweet words by the governor. Those who want to embrace this pardon and shake hands with the governor will be “Shaking hands with the Devil.”

By: Elias Uchalla

Achievements & Failures of ex-Governor of Jonglei State, Kuol Manyang

BY: Malith Alier, RSS, NOV/02/2013, SSN;

Historically, this country called South Sudan had a shortage of education unlike other neighbouring African nations that attained independence much earlier leaving current South Sudan in the doldrums of subjugation of colonialism masterminded by the self-confessed Arabs further north to the Mediterranean Sea.

Nevertheless, South Sudan had no shortage of leaders on the other hand. Leaders, traditional and modern are described as good or bad depending on what they do once they were in authority. The former leader of the SPLM/SPLA, Dr. John Garang, was described as charismatic and visionary— characteristics for which he is still remembered.

Other leaders lack vision, uncharismatic, brutal, dictatorial, unpredictable, inconsistent, faint hearted, greedy or corrupt. Leaders identified with these negative attributes may not rise to the challenge that comes with leadership. Other leaders behave like fire but fire is a bad master and a good servant so goes the saying.

This article is going to examine the achievements and failures of the former Jonglei State Governor and the prospects of more failures or successes in his new assignment as Minister of Defence.

It was in the prevailing state of lawlessness. when General Kuol Manyang Juuk, the new Governor, was sworn in on the 17 December 2007 in Bor before Salva Kiir Mayardit as a security Governor.

Below are his major failures and achievements as security Governor of Jonglei State. This is the period from 2007 to 2013. Note that this is not his biography.

1. Waves of massacres from 2008-2013. Everyone in Jonglei, the whole country and even abroad can testify that the State security worsened from 2008 up to the time of departure of the security Governor.

These happened on the watch of the saviour Governor and the other organs concerned with security in the State Government. People became helpless.

The governor who has long been accused of behaving like he was in a metal engineering workshop was yet to execute the best of the jungle laws, some people in Equatoria referred to Jonglei State as Jungle State perhaps because of lawlessness there.

One question remained unanswered. How long will the de facto rulers (Kuol Manyang, Muonyaciek Deng) of Bor continue to punish their subjects albeit arbitrarily?

The State Security Council chaired by the Governor pressured the three Payams, Anyidi, Makuach and Kolnyang Civil Administrators, CAs and Chiefs to collect the 418 heads of cattle to be handed over to Murle owners. The governor was gratified because this was his usual way of doing things. He had no regard for the courts of law.

This issue was clearly a failure of parliament which should have intervened and pass a no confidence resolution on the governor for not implementing or upholding the State constitution particularly the separation of powers.

What is lacking is the leadership and planning necessary to solve the Jonglei crises once and for all. The former Governor was heard on many occasions crying for nonexistent security roads to fight the insecurity.

This was simplistic and hypocritical at most. There were lots of construction equipment and trucks left behind by AYAT Construction Company at his disposal. If he were serious about these claims he should have used them to construct those security roads for security personnel use.

There are also the main roads like Juba-Bor-Malakal Highway, many feeder roads joining the three Counties of Bor, Twic East and Duk and the Bor-Pibor-Ethiopia Highway. Why he did not make maximum use of these roads is a question answerable by him only.

Despite all these failures and blunders, the president maintains his confidence in Kuol Manyang Juuk Chaw.

There are two explanations for this. It might wrongly have been thought by the leadership of the SPLM that if the last hope has failed then nobody else was capable of unveiling a coherent strategy for solving the devastating crises in Jonglei.

Secondly, the former Governor was thought to be the power behind the throne. Therefore, whatever, weaknesses or failures he has could easily be overlooked. Otherwise his State was the worst in terms of inter-tribal killings, cattle theft, child abduction, revenge killings and active rebel activities capable of threatening national security and possible destabilisation of the whole country.

The double standard by the President not to act in case of Jonglei explains the sacking of Lakes and Unity States Governors who were less incompetent than Jonglei State Governor.

The SPLM government often accused Khartoum of instigating policy of “destabilization” but failed to do something about those perpetrators of destabilization.

The Governor, who had acquired big swathes of land and built a cattle pen on one of them in Bor town, was not happy with those survival reactions by the youth and the community. He blamed youth for running away from the countryside where they could farm and to be idle and play games in town.

The youth in turned blamed him instead for failure to provide security in villages as this was his responsibility to which he replaced the first Governor, Philip Thon Leek. His administration was therefore, marred in blame and counter blame in Jonglei at large and in Bor County in particular.

Failed peace accords. Hundreds of peace accords have been signed among the warring communities from the past. Most of them were not honoured. This was the also the case after CPA where hope for complete peace was high on the agenda in the country.

If one was looking for an axis of too many dishonoured agreements, then Jonglei State was that axis. Nobody could alter this fact though many peace-loving people still profess hope to call for those conferences of which as many lost hope. Some observers remarked that the sponsoring organisations are playing the devil’s advocates.

The second action was a voluntary or forceful disarmament of civilians initiated by the Federal Government in Juba. This was to be done by the SPLA, the country’s national army. It was not made clear prior to this exercise what methods the army will use to collect lethal illegal guns in possession of civilians. Later, it became clear the army resorted to its old tactics of forcing civilians by intimidation and torture to confess those with illegal arms and their whereabouts.

No sooner had the orders been given than the army started torturing women, children and younger people to concoct evidence of gun ownership in the State. This approach however, did not work throughout the Counties.

The failure to carry out effective disarmament campaign in the State later evolved to something of a national threat, the rebellion of David Yau-Yau. He recruited the youth who churned disarmament and became a ready-made fodder for his ends.

The question here is should a failed disarmament campaign be blamed on the Governor? The answer is absolutely yes. This is because he did not provide adequate leadership-guidance to the troops and the Commander-in-Chief.

He was sitting in Bor and most of the time commuting between the Bor Town and Juba without touring the Counties to see for himself how the campaign is progressing.

He further, failed as Governor to request Murle leaders to condemn violence as mentioned earlier around and help persuade their people to surrender all lethal guns and munitions to the SPLA and other security forces.

This time as always, the president turned a blind eye against this chaos. Some people were of the view that the failed Governor should have been removed before commencement of disarmament. How can you be part of the solution if you are part of the problem? The exercise would have been done successfully had the President taken this approach.

2. Nepotism. It has been alleged that the former SPLA strong man was less corrupt compared to his peers in the Movement and that he was more of a selfless nationalist.

This is far from the truth. During the olden days of the Movement, there was nothing anyone could lay their hands on except priceless weapons and munitions.

The fact that he appointed his son’s brother-in-law to head the Ministry of land talks a lot about him.

It has been argued that even if one is a close relative to the one appointing authority but is qualified she/he deserves that position like everyone else. After all you are all citizens of the same County/State/country.

This argument in South Sudan has been abused and will continue to be abused if action is not taken now.

Appointing close relations is what is termed as nepotism. It later breeds conflict of interest. For example if the wife of the former Governor is a land dealer, she will go right to her son-in-law and request for any piece of land anywhere in the State and you know that the request will be granted.

Consequently, in case of issues arising because of that land, the Governor will be there to defend the indefensible leading to a cover-up and kleptocracy.

The predecessor to the son-in-law was accused and dislodged from the Land Ministry simply because he did not enjoy any nepotistic relationship with the Governor of the day. This act of appointing a relative attracts criticisms justifiably because the links are apparent there.

May be because of this, the former Governor was accused of owning large swathes of land in Bor. True leaders or those in charge of government institutions must avoid appointment of close relatives to head strategic government institutions because of unintended outcomes.

His wife is also rumored to own two markets in the City apart from numerous real estates in the same City.

Ironically, the Governor was not happy with some communities because they resisted his land schemes. He in particular singled out the three Payams of Bor County i.e. Anyidi, Makuach and Kolnyang Counties that hosts the State Government.

People of Anyidi Payam insisted that land must be distributed on first-come-first-serve basis. That is to say if you are found on a piece of land then that piece should be allotted to you but not someone from elsewhere.

This argument is logical on all occasions considering the urban settlement after the CPA and more importantly the movement to towns because of displacement in rural Jonglei. This argument further curtails massive displacement of poor residents who can hardly afford simple construction materials leave alone modern construction materials.

Due to these developments, the former Governor unleashed a “cold war” on the residents in Machuor suburb (Hai Machuor) because of resistance to force land acquisitions. They have been denied clean piped water channelled to other parts of the City. Second, the suburb was not surveyed. Thirdly, they have been denied power available to all in town. In short, the land became a Governor’s family issue.

3. Expulsion of MSF and Moldovans running Bor Civil Hospital and Dr. John Garang University respectively. One of the appalling things is the chasing away of a friend in deed. This was allowed to happen in Jonglei under the watchful eye of the former military Governor of that State.

Both the MSF and ASCOM were doing a job no one was able to do effectively.
MSF, as many know is a humanitarian organisation dealing with health matters around the globe. It was instrumental in Bor Civil Hospital where its Doctors performed surgeries and treatment of other diseases not taken care of by the State government hospital. The hospital has two sections one for MSF and the other for State Government.

Some Doctors with conflict of interest were believed to have orchestrated the expulsion of this vital organisation. They operated private clinics thought to be in competition with MSF.

As for ASCOM, some people from education side with self-gratification motive agitated the takeover by the ministry of higher education. This was a kind of early indigenization albeit haphazardly executed.

Many independent watchers thought that this kind of takeovers were too early particularly for those institutions founded and fully funded by foreign investors. This is one method of scaring away investors in a country as young as South Sudan among others.

4. Disorganized and stalled land distribution programme. The land distribution process was well before his time as second Governor after CPA. It only became apparent that this distribution was carried out without law in place (2007-2011) because land law was only passed in 2012. Nevertheless, the distribution stalled for political reasons during his term.

The Minister of Physical Infrastructure, John Amuor Kuol was dismissed because of some quarters were not satisfied with land distribution programme.

Land allotment was now a clandestine business after the first land Minister vacation of office. At this juncture, those who wanted land had to use unconventional means to acquire it. The former Governor further allowed the scramble over land jurisdiction and ownership among the State, County and Payams to flourish.

Many may argue that the emotional land issue is not only confined to Jonglei or Bor County. It’s all over South Sudan. The inhabitants or indigenous people believed that they should have more say over land particularly where Capital Cities are located.

This argument seems logical because they should be compensated in the event of displacement. Their holy sites must be respected like other citizens whose lands are not accessible to the government.

In case the above land related issues are not adhered to or ignored, the local inhabitants may turn violent and reject expropriation of their land without consultation.

This was true during the tenure of the first State Governor who was told to relocate the State Capital to Gediang by Bor County communities. The State government was rumoured to be support of the relocation idea but there were many reasons why it was left in suspense till today.

Gediang is a remote area unlike Bor which is well served by river Nile and main roads from Juba and Malakal. Hence, the relocation was shelved indefinitely.

5. Lacking coherent political philosophy. The current SPLM leaders are by any measure default leaders. Everyone knows and understands perfectly what happened on “The Long and Painful Road to Freedom” as captured by Arop Madut in a book with the same title.

The past Southern leaders during the twenty or so years did not go to the bush for various reasons; the potential misunderstanding in the bush, lack of guaranteed victory over the enemy, education imbalance, generational gap and many more. These scared off the intelligentsia and after Addis Ababa accord leaders like, Gen. Lagu, Alier Kwai, Aru Bol etc. who ruled the South until the second rebellion.

It has been rumoured that some shrewd professors and doctors argued rightly that the most ignorant rebel officers will likely eliminate them once they join the legion in the bush. The few who went to the bush along with the rebels were not accorded leadership chances because of fear. They were also considered bourgeoisie.

In the middle of the war, it was apparent that it was led by crazy guys who grew dictatorial and fragile in mind so that some returned to the enemy back in Khartoum and vice versa.

These events of acrimonious divisions and defections to the enemy further exposed the movement to be run by a very few with scanty leadership qualities.

The former Governor is among this bunch. He is a no nonsense man with poor political and philosophical sophistication. The guy is addicted to commanding methodology to the point of neglecting other skills in other professions…. say politics.

This phenomenon was confirmed during his time as Governor by a lady who was quoted by the media that she blamed herself for voting for a Governor who failed to deliver. She blamed insecurity, unemployment, poor roads, disorganized land distribution among other campaign promises on the Governor.

Because of his forceful nature and lack of political sophistication, the former Governor, Kuol Manyang, became more and more unpopular with his Bor Dinka communities.

He was perceived as great liability particularly for failing to tackle the destabilizing insecurity in the whole State. After all he was a security Governor by all accounts of his appointment and subsequent backing by the SPLM during 2010 election.

6. Cleaning the State payroll from ghost workforce. The former Governor took it upon himself to clean the State payroll that was full of ghost names as one of his objectives.

The government of his predecessor was barely two years since peace accord. It inherited a payroll that looked like a charitable affair. It contained all sorts of names of those not in a position to perform their duties together with non-existent personnel. This crippled the State government activities.

It was a war on corruption though in a small scale. He received a presidential award for it.

7. Keeping Bor City cleaner relative to other States Capitals. Juba, both an administrative and a commercial Capital of South Sudan have been variously described as a big village. Juba City was thought to be standard bearer of cleanliness in the whole country however, it failed that test. In the case of Bor City, the former Governor descended on plastic bottles and bags to keep Bor Town clean. He banned their importation and sale in Jonglei in general and Bor Town in particular. Many people around the country were impressed about Bor Town cleanliness relative to other similar towns.

He is not the only one who deserved praise here. The Bor County Commissioner was actually the implementer of this policy hence deserved the accolade. This is a typical local government area of jurisdiction and was below the functions of the State Governor.

7. Encouraging Youth to join government and development efforts. This was seen in the way the Governor tried to lure the returnees from abroad in to his government. Notable, is the appointment of Bor Mayor in 2013 who is a Youth returning from Australia to take part in development efforts. However, this appointment has serious shortcomings constitutionally.

A Mayor according to the National and State constitutions should be directly elected by the city residents. This constitutional requirement had never been fulfilled in the whole country.

It also been alleged that a serious lobbying took place at a political level to appoint him with such little experience useful for the work of a mayor.

8. Conclusion. Leaders come and go but government and the area of administration remain. History however, is the one to judge past leaders either favourably or unfavourably.

It is okay to lobby for leaders to be brought to certain situations but it is something different altogether whether those leaders will live to the challenge. What people have not realized is that, leaders cannot be solely judged by their past highly rated performance.

The former Jonglei Governor keeps on riding on past performance without regard to present and/or future.

The former Governor was tasked to bring solutions to an already volatile situation but his past achievements were hardly replicated there. The security situation in Jonglei morphed from bad to worse contrary to expectation. No one at that stage was able to do something differently perhaps many thought that the end of the road was reached.

The rafts of fundamental failures of the former governor dwarfed his small achievements. His achievements were too thin to do good for dear Jonglei. This is the likely scenario even with new assignments in future. The guys are too old to learn new tricks.