Archive for: October 2015

We, the people of South Sudan, are the majority

From: Alex , Germany, OCT/18/2015, SSN;

At this juncture where our nation State of Affairs has been hijacked by the devilish Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) who are capitalizing on our country’s present status quo to remain the way as it is without peace and stability, because peace meaning for them accountability and sharing power with others the twosome most detested by them.

Now, it is up to US the South Sudan ‘Silent Majority’ who are all yearning for peace to let the JCE and their affiliates to continue subverting our beloved county or tell them… hey guys… your time of playing liberators has elapsed, besides, you have wasted the chances South Sudanese have been giving to you for that matter, so enough is enough.

Moreover, I would like to call upon all those who are naively up to date continuing to give the benefit of the doubt to the president Kiir particularly, after the issuing of the scandalous Establishment Order of creating 28 states and unrighteously annexing the Fertit land to the Dinka to deliberately demonstrate to the “unnamed Fertits ethnicities“ that they are a citizenry unworthy of their ancestral land!

I want to tell those peace loving people that it is the time for them to rethink and reevaluate their allegiance to president Kiir because, he the president Kiir is not like before, he has turned himself into a committed Dinka leader who would do anything in his power for the sake of his Dinka people.

He has demonstrated it by grabbing other people’s land, giving a deaf ear to the international body who are calling for peace in our country, dishonoring any promises he has made or even derailing the CPA.

President Kiir now has two bosses whom he must take orders from them, one, Uncle Museveni of Uganda and two, the fiend JCE.

It is a we thing, that is why I am appealing to all those who have South Sudan People at their hearts… Jiengs included, to step out of their comfort zones and recognize that our oneness must remain intact.

This is because the integrity of all the 64 tribes of South Sudan is our most powerful tool to emancipate ourselves from the grip and wickedness of the president Kiir and his felonious Jieng Council of Elders, Darfuri mercenaries and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda because they are the true enemies of the South Sudan People.

Let it be known that all the above aforementioned complicit entities are perishable but the tribes of South Sudan must coexist and cohere harmoniously with each other in a peaceful South Sudan.

It is time to move on and walk the walk.

If Kiir nullifies the E/Order creating 18 more states, there’ll be a worse war!!

By Majok Arol Dhieu, Rumbek, South Sudan, OCT/17/2015, SSN;

It is the toughest issue to reverse and let the president be forewarned in advance. The lost boys overseas have made it clear with their international communities that the president must put the order on moratorium or be null and void.

Let me give you an example that “if your father calls you and gives you pocket money, later on he says that he wants the money back while you have wasted it partially or completely, honestly there will be a great conflict here because you are treated unfairly and you are being ashamed by your own father as you might already have informed your friends for a gathering.”

For those who claimed the nullification of the order, you are completely waging the worst war. Let President Kiir either face you or face us, seriously, because we have been requesting our own state before politicians talk about federal system of governance.

There are other people somewhere in South Sudan who were waiting for the order eagerly, and if the president makes a grave mistake to nullify the establishment order, then the war that will break out will be worse compared to the Machar current rebellion.

Who are now better, those from outside or the people within? Obviously the people within are better because if anything happens in the country such as war among nations or within, they will take up arms and defend their country compared to those who went away for their safety.

The Presidential order establishing 18 mores states is excellent and perfect and we are waiting the president to come up with implementation immediately although the creation of states seems to open up a Pandora’s box since others are complaining to have their own states and others are complaining not to be annexed to another state.

This is not the first time for South Sudanese to do it and possibly let me take you through what happened when President Jaafar Nimeri issued a Presidential decree to divide South Sudan into three regions in 1983.

Equatoria with James Joseph Tombura as the first Governor, Bahr El Ghazal under Lawrence Wol and Upper Nile under Daniel Khot Mathew.

Instead of South Sudanese to applaud president Nimeri on his wise decision, he was flooded with letters of criticism because each and every politician wanted to be governor especially being designated first governor was something not common.

This was the reason why Nimeri imposed sharia law on South Sudanese because he became hostile
and unfriendly with South Sudanese leaders.

Likewise, the same thing could easily happen, if we cry and ask something and later on reject it if given, then any leader in any area of South Sudan can simply impose unwanted law on South Sudan people.

In every website, there are multiple articles condemning president for creating 18 more states. What I personally realize is the same situation that happened during Nimeri regime that those outside the government are the ones that should rule better than those in office.

It has been the practice of South Sudanese people to become politicians even at the age 20 years who cannot manage their own affairs leave alone the multitude.

Many South Sudanese including the writer of this article have observed that the western administration was just aiding and abetting the leader of the SPLM/SPLA-IO.

To create more states has been a public demand for those who might be thinking that this was single-handedly done unless perhaps Riek wanted to do it himself for the purpose of his
public campaign.

We have all members of parliament whose mandate is to represent their respective constituencies. Why many writers do post articles that say the president has made it by himself without consulting the people of South Sudan?

Should there be a need for the president to go abroad and ask refugees on what to do with state affairs?

The writers from outside are just writing their articles to exercise their skills in writing only not because there is some logic in their writing.

What is wrong if you are given consent to have your own state and manage its resources alone?

The writers must need a total transmogrification in their writing to place peace in the hearts of South Sudanese or if not, it is clear that a gag will be placed on some of the writers’ mouths whether inside the country or outside.

The author is a South Sudanese and can be reach at e-mail address:
majongaroldit@gmail.com

Sharing unbaked cake: The constitutionality of the order creating 18 additional states in South Sudan

Dr. Remember Miamingi, Lecture of law, Pretoria University, South Africa, (Article previously published somewhere, OCT/02/2015;

On 2 October 2015, the President of the Republic of South Sudan issued Establishment Order Number 36/2015. Through this order, the President decreed the creation of 18 new states out of the existing 10 states. This brings the total number of states in South Sudan to 28 for an estimate population of 8 to 10 million people.

A quick comparison might throw more light on these figures: China, with over 1 billion people, has 22 states; India, with a population of over 1 billion, has 28 states; and Brazil, with a population of over 191 million people, has 26 states.

China has a land mass of 9,571,300 sq. km; India 3,156,596 sq. km; and Brazil 8,547,404 sq. km. South Sudan has a land mass of only 647,095 square kilometers.

This order has received mixed reactions in South Sudan – commendation and condemnation. Those who praise the Order do that on the ground that creating more states will engender greater participation of people in government, reduce dominance by the central government, minimize marginalization of minorities, and checkmate ethic hegemony by major ethnic groups in South Sudan.

Those who oppose the Order, do so mainly on the ground of procedural irregularities, disrespect of the constitution, poor and suspicious timing of the decision, capacity deficits of the state structures in South Sudan, and the fear that creating states along ethnic lines might encourage ethnic chauvinism and exclusivity in a country wherein ethnic cleavages already pose significant challenges to nation building.

Thus, according to the critiques, this creation of more states only satisfies parochial and patrimonial needs of those in power.

Even though it is worthwhile to discuss the reasons for and against the Order as outlined above, I will, in this opinion piece, limit myself only to the constitutionality of this Order.

Therefore, my preoccupation is whether by issuing the said Order the President acted in violation of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan (TCSS) and, if so, whether such a violation amounted to gross violation of the TCSS for which the President should be impeached.

An auxiliary issue of the relationship between the Order and the Compromise Peace Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan that was signed by the Government of South Sudan, the Armed Opposition and the SPLM Leaders (Former Detainees) in Addis Ababa and Juba on 17 and 26 August 2015 is something I will discuss in another piece.

1. Introduction
The Transitional Constitution of South Sudan (TCSS) organises the country, politically, on the basis of two main principles: Unity in diversity, and democratic and decentralisation system of governance.

Government is enjoined in article 36(2) of the TCSS to put national harmony and unity as a primary consideration in policy making.

All levels of Government must promote the principles of decentralisation and devolution of power through policy and practice according to article 36 (1) of the TCSS.

To advance these two principles, article 162 of the TCSS divides South Sudan into 10 multi-ethnic and decentralized states.

The TCSS does not have specific provision(s) dealing with state creation. It is not clear whether the existing 10 states could be merged into few states or broken down into many other states.

The TCSS is silent on the specific process and or criteria for creating new states. However, article 59 (a) grants the Council of States (a Second Chamber of the Parliament) the power to, specifically, initiate legislation on decentralization and other issues of interest to the States.

In addition, article 59 (g) gives the Council of States power to approve changes in State names, capital cities and boundaries.

A clear understanding of the scope and nature of the powers of the Council of States with respect to state creation is pivotal to an effort to assess the constitutionality of the Order by the President purporting to create new States.

Article 59 gives two types of powers to the Council of States with respect to decentralisation of powers in South Sudan: An originating mandate and a subsidiary power of approval.

The Council of States is mandated to exercise specific power to initiate legislation that affects the current system of decentralisation or the interests of existing states.

The power of approval insinuates that there could be another body that is conferred with additional powers that could affect the boundaries of existing states, for example.

My feeling is that organs of Government with the powers to initiate amendments to the TCSS are implied here.

In the absence of specific constitutional provisions dealing with the creation of states under the TCSS, cumulative reading of the TCSS suggests that state creation in South Sudan can only be undertaken through two ways:
1.— Through a legislation or through a constitutional amendment. If it is to be done through legislation, then that should be done through this original mandate of the Council of States. If it is to be undertaken through amendment, then it is a concurrent mandate between the Executive and the National Legislature. In this case, the Executive or the President could exercise its powers to initiate amendments to article 162 (1). The amendment procedures must comply with the provisions of article 199 of the TCSS read together with article 59 (a) (g). Hence, a process of state creation that is not undertaken through these two ways is undertaken outside the purview of the TCSS and is, thus, unconstitutional.

2.— The constitutionality of the Establishment Order Number 36/2015 for the Creation of 28 States:
According to a copy of the Order circulating in the media, the Order drives its authority from the 2011 TCSS, as amended in 2015. The Order cites articles 36(1), 166(6) (a) (b), 101(b) (f) (k) and (u) as providing constitutional authority for the President’s action. Article 36(1) provides for the principles of decentralisation and devolution of powers as political objective of State policy.
Article 166(6) (a) (b) provides for the following objectives of a local government: self-governance and bringing the government closer to people.
Article 101(b) provides for the power of the President to supervise constitutional and executive institutions. Article 101 (f) provides for the power of the President to initiate constitutional amendments and ascent to and sign into law bills.
Article 101 (k) provides for the power to establish independent institutions and commissions. Article 101 (u) provides that the President may perform other functions as may be prescribed by the law.

With the exception of article 101(f), the rest of the provisions of the TCSS cited in this Order do not purport to confer on the President the power to create states or alter the boundaries of existing states.

Article 36 is a guiding principle when undertaking lawful and or constitutional acts and not an authorising provision.

Articles 166 provides for the objectives of existing local governments and nothing more.

Article 101 (b) provides for the President’s oversight roles over existing entities.

Article 101 (k) does not refer to states but institutions and commissions anticipated under articles 142 (f), and article 101(u) is only relevant if the act is provided for by a law.

The only authorising provision that could ground the President’s Order in the TCSS is article 101(f). The President has the constitutional power to initiative an amendment to the TCSS.

The amendment route would be that the President will introduce a proposal to the National Legislative Assembly one month in advance of deliberation by the House. That proposal would have asked for the amendment of article 162 (1), in this case.

This article provides that South Sudan shall be composed of 10 states. Then each House of the National Legislature would debate the proposal and, if passed by two-third majority of each House, then the President can sign the amendment into law.

So the answer to the question whether the Order is constitutional or not depends on whether the Order is proposing an amendment to the TCSS or it is a self-standing and self-executing Order.

Order 1 Paragraph 2 of the Order provides that this Order shall enter into force 30 days after the signature by the President.

Order 10 paragraph 1 provides that this Order shall not be amended save by another Order by the President.

Cumulatively, therefore, the legal effect of Order 1 and 10 of the Order establishing 28 States is that it purports to be a self-standing and self-executing Order.

Therefore, this Order, for all purpose and intent, cannot be said to be an amendment to the TCSS.

There are two immediate effects of this conclusion:
—– First that the Order is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void to the extent of its inconsistence with the provisions of the TCSS.
—– Second, article 162(1) is still in force and South Sudan is still consisted of 10 States.

3.— The implications of the finding of unconstitutionality.
In issuing an Order that the President is fully aware is in contravention to the TCSS, the President has committed a gross violation of the Constitution.

In addition, by issuing the Order as self-executing, the President is either in violation of ***article 2 of the Constitution that confers sovereignty on the people,
***article 3 that asserts the supremacy of the Constitution, article 55 (a)(b) that gives the powers of amendment and to enact legislation to the National Legislative Assembly,
***article 59(a)(g) that puts the power to create and approve changes to state structures in South Sudan on the Council of States,
***article 162(1) that provides that South Sudan is consisted of 10 states, and
***article 199 that provides for the proper amendment procedures to the TCSS.

Or the President has through the Order abrogated and suspended those aforesaid provisions of the Constitution.

The second main implication is that the President has lied under oath. The oath of the Office of the President provides, in part, that he “shall obey, preserve and defend the Constitution and abide by the law”.

By issuing an Order that violated the Constitution, the President has failed to keep true to his Oath of Office and, therefore, lied under Oath.

4. Way forward:-

1. The President has the option to resign.
2. In the event the President fails to resign, the National Legislative Assembly should commence impeachment proceeding against the President on the basis of gross violation of the Constitution and perjury.
3. In the absence of the two above options, article 4(3) of the TCSS should be activated. According to this provision “Every citizen shall have the duty to resist any person or group of persons seeking… to suspend or abrogate this Constitution.”
END

Pres. Kiir’s creation of 28 states is consistent with provisions of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan 2011

By Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Lawyer, Kampala, Uganda, OCT/16/2015, SSN;

Following the announcement of Presidential Order No 36/2015 for the creation of 28 states in Republic of South Sudan instead of the existing 10 states as provided for in the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan (TCSS) 2011 (amended 2015) there have been various reactions from all corners of South Sudan and abroad.

However, they’re mixed, some in favour of the decree while others aren’t. Those against have gone to the extent of declaring the action of the President illegal on various grounds.

Some of those against claim that the creation of new states is an indirect method of grabbing land by the President for Dinka, his tribe mates, while others argue that it is contrary to the spirit of the recent peace agreement signed in Ethiopia or in short, it’s unconstitutional.

Some of the groups advancing the above argument are NGOs forming a coalition against the presidential decree, which include: Assistance Mission for Africa (AMA); Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO); Citizens for Peace and Justice (CPJ); Dialogue Research Initiative (DRI); EVE Organization for Women and Development; End Impunity Organization (EIO) and Gardet Pentagon.

In the press release of the above-mentioned Organizations that is currently published in Sudantribune website on 8th October 2015 they asserted that the creation of New States is contrary to the provisions of the TCSS.

According to them, it violates the rule of constitutionalism, which ‘poses serious legal and political implications on ground of procedural irregularities, which is the violation of the TCSS, 2011 (amended 2015) when read together with the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan.

In their opinion, the timing of the decision to create more states is unfortunate and could lead to increased burden on the already over-stretched economic status, national revenue and human resource capacity deficit that exist in South Sudan.

Finally, they argued that the creation of states along ethnic lines will encourage ethnicity and exacerbate the already existing conflict among South Sudanese communities and lead to total loss of efforts made to rejuvenate the destroyed social fabric of our nation.

After advancing their arguments against the Presidential decree they concluded that the president should reverse the decision.

Their arguments are really self-defeating and contradictory in nature. As they pointed out in that press release, “the Republic of South Sudan is politically organized by the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan, 2011 (amended 2015) on two bases to reflect on: unity in diversity and democratic and decentralized system of governance which is reflected in some provisions of the constitution”.

Of course without intending it, they have finished off their argument by making the statement referring to Article 36 (1) of the TCSS as quoted in the above paragraph. By quoting Article 36 (1) they have defeated their argument indirectly. Article 36 (1) provides a basis of decentralization or federalism, which supports the declaration of 28 states.

For instance, Article 36 (1) provides that “All levels of government shall promote democratic principles and political pluralism, and are to be guided by the principles of decentralization and devolution of power to the people through the appropriate levels of government where they can best manage and directs their affairs”.

The term “they can best manage and direct their affairs” is crucial in this argument and without prejudice it is in support to the decision of the President to create more states.

However arguing erroneously, the above-mentioned organizations argued that the Unity of South Sudan can only be achieved by holding citizens together no matter how much they struggle over limited resources that will lead to more hatred among themselves.

The way South Sudanese had suffered since 2005 was immeasurable. The land grabbing was common in big towns due to the lack of decentralization.

The lack of both decentralization and strong government policy on property rights was one of the sources of problems that were affecting all South Sudanese in all circles which in turn was becoming a major source of hatred among different tribes in South Sudan.

Due to the above unfortunate situation, some South Sudanese saw themselves as discriminated in their own country while seeing some other tribes as land grabbers whom they consider to be worse than Arabs.

Thus it is important to point out that the action of the President by creating 18 more states is within the confines of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan, which is being misinterpreted by the above-mentioned coalition of NGOs.

For instance, these NGOS in their press release quoted article 162 to support their argument yet Article 162 (1) of the TCSS, 2011 (as amended in 2015) read together with Article 36 already mentioned above is the basis of the decentralization that created South Sudan into ten states that are governed on the basis of decentralization.

With due respect, I wonder why did they quote Article 162 in support of their arguments yet it is consistent with the action of the President because the president is promoting the principles of decentralization or federalism that many South Sudanese have been longing for.

It therefore implies that they quoted the law wrongly just to drive their personal interests’ home, which is the basis of injustice itself.

Finally, in trying to show that the action of the President is not supported by law, these NGOs acted as if they are in support of rebels, adding that TCSS, 2011 (amended 2015) does not have an express provision for creation of new States, hence killing their own argument and leaving themselves naked in the legal world.

The question is: if there is no express provision in the TCSS, 2011 that prohibits the creation of new states, why is the action of the President declared illegal?

My general understanding of law is that where there is no law prohibiting any act, any act done in the absence of such a law is not illegal.

The premise of the above general rule of law is common law. In the same way, since there is no law that prohibits the creation of new states or the action of the President to create new states, the new states created are validly created in law.

In other words the action of the president in adding 18 more states to the existing ten is in line with the provisions of the TCSS, 2011. On this ground alone, the action of the president of creating new states is not illegal since no law clearly prohibits it.

Moreover, Article 101 of the TCSS, 2011, empowers the president to declare anything and such thing he declares is legal in law. The reason is that Article 101 appears to have its basis in the doctrine of state necessity which provides that anything which is illegal is made legal because of necessity.

In my understanding, Article 101 was purposely intended as a means through which the President of South Sudan can protect the interest of South Sudanese in any area including the creation of new states if it is in the best interest of South Sudanese and to meet their timely needs where necessary.

In relation to the above argument, it has to be pointed out that the role of the Council of States, which the NGOs mentioned above tends to put above the powers of the President of South Sudan as one of the way to show that the action of the president is illegal is misinterpretation of the Constitution.

As provided in the TCSS, the main role of Council of State as seen from the implication of Article 101 read together with Article 36 and Article 162 of the TCSS, 2011 is advisory role.

They just wait for the decision of the President to approve it and since the decision of the president is beyond their powers, they cannot reject anything that the president has decided unlike the President who can veto their decision as it was seen in the case of General Matur Chut. General Matur Chut is currently a governor of Lakes.

In 2014, Council of States passed unanimous resolution to force the President to remove Matur Chut but the president ignored it and the Council of State did nothing.

Because of the foregoing argument, it must be pointed out that although the law gives Council of States powers of approving new states, the law further gives the president more powers over and above that of Council of State to create new states and then Council of States approves.

It is due to the above argument the Council of States is not expected to oppose what the President has decreed.

Based on the foregoing argument with due respect to the NGOs who argue that the action of the president is not premised in law, it is regrettable to point out that they have misinterpreted the Constitution in regard to the powers of the President to issue decrees as provided in Article 101 of the TCSS.

Article 101 by implication if read objectively puts the President above all including the Constitution.

This is the reason why he can decree anything before the parliament debates it, otherwise in normal Constitutional and Democratic Countries, presidents do not have any powers to remove the elected governors or even dissolve State Assemblies elected by the people, which the president of South Sudan can do by the virtue of Article 101 (r).

Thus the argument that the president of South Sudan does not have any power in law to create new states is baseless and does not hold water in light of Article 101.

It does not hold water because the fact that there is no law which bars the president from creating new states and instead there is a law that allows him to act above the parliament means that President’s decision cannot be invalid in law unless the law expressly provides so.

In fact based on the general rule of law as stated already and which is entrenched in Article 19 (4) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, any action which is not prohibited by law is not illegal in itself.

It is therefore important to point out that reading into the existing law the illegality that does not exist therein is illegal because the illegality will never be accepted by the law to be part of it or to create a new law.

The above argument brings me to one thing that I hate most. I hate someone who reads and applies the law subjectively.

Any person that reads the law with intention to bend the law in order to satisfy personal interests always fails to understand the law in full since he or she does not appreciate the law.

As a matter of fact, failure to understand or interpret the law objectively is the cause of injustice itself and South Sudan will never progress unless we give the law its intended meaning objectively.

The argument that the declaration of 28 states is a violation of Peace Agreement is baseless because it is not premised in any law since there is no clear law that prohibits their creation.

NGOs and other people who oppose the creation of new states are trying to create the law where one does not exist.

The attempt to go around while gathering scattered dried leaves of law in order to piece them together to come out with the principle on which the action of the president can be nullified upon is unworkable.

The people who are opposing the creation of new states are being driven by personal interests to satisfy their primordial needs. As a result, they are trying to use the unbending law to put their agenda through, which is impossible; the will of the people must prevail.

The creation of 28 States is out of the will of the people of South Sudan and it cannot affect the peace process since people need peace. Instead, it may support the stability of South Sudan which is the basis of peace.

The reason being is that majority of South Sudanese are happy with the action of the president. In addition, people were the ones who requested their creation and the president was acting on that request.

Thus, what the NGOs, other external powers and rebels have not understood is that peace in South Sudan can only be achieved when all citizens are happy but not through the imposition of one externally.

As I wrote it sometime back in one of my articles, peace is a culture that can be cultivated through achieving happiness of the people but not through satisfaction of the external powers and rebels. Of course, even if rebels think that they have valid reasons such reasons cannot be accepted in the civilized world.

Hence, what the president did by creating 28 states is the basis of making people happy, which is the beginning of peace. Peace does not mean the absence of war, it means people being happy and feeling the sense of belonging.

As we all know, all along, some people in South Sudan have been discriminated in most of the states but rebels and some NGOs have never raised their hands to fight such injustices but when people are being made to feel happy they are out condemning the action of the president.

In short, it is important to sum up by stating that all South Sudanese should critically analyze the behaviour of rebels and some of the NGOs that hate the creation of new states, which is the basis of the happiness of South Sudanese.

The action of the President of South Sudan in creating new states should be applauded because it is valid and all South Sudanese should support him.

Moreover, all external powers should know that peace can only be achieved when South Sudanese are satisfied not when the rebels, IGAD, TROIKA and the USA are satisfied.

After all, majority of South Sudanese are happy with the creation of new states. The president should not change his mind.

NB// The Author is a South Sudanese Lawyer doing Bar Course in Uganda (Law Development Centre in Kampala Uganda). He can be reached via: juoldaniel@yahoo.com

We Need a Pro-Federalism Coalition in coming elections

BY: Dr. Lako Jada Kwajok, OCT/15/2015, SSN;

One of the provisions in the recently signed peace agreement is the introduction of amendments to the current constitution through the establishment of the national constitutional amendment committee (NCAC). It will be tasked with drafting a constitutional amendment bill that will incorporate the amendments into the transitional constitution of the republic of South Sudan (TCoSS).

The TCoSS originated from the work of the technical constitutional review committee chaired by John Luk Jok who was then the minister of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development. The review was mostly deletions to all references to united Sudan in the interim constitution of South Sudan (ICoSS).

The national legislative assembly (NLA) played little or no role at all in the drafting process. It is evident that the TCoSS was based on the ICoSS which carries considerable resemblance to the Sudan constitution that we know is far from secularism.

The presidential powers were enhanced in an unprecedented manner. In general, the TCoSS was tailored to president’s wishes a thing John Luk Jok himself must have regretted when his relations with the president turned sour.

There is a misconception among a significant number of our people that the peace agreement would usher in a new dawn of equitable governance based on federalism.

Unfortunately this is not the case and things will not change much during the period of the transitional government of national unity (TGoNU).

The NCAC will be composed as follows chaired by a representative from the IGAD mediation team – government of South Sudan ( GRSS ) 2 members, SPLM/A-IO 2 members, SPLM-Leaders or former detainees ( FD’s ) 1 member, other political parties and civil societies 1 member and IGAD representative 2 members.

As stipulated in the peace agreement, the TGoNU shall initiate the establishment of a federal and democratic system of governance during the transitional period.

Although it states that in the event of contradiction with the TCoSS the provisions in the peace agreement will prevail, it did not explain what happens when disagreement arises among members of the committee which is quite likely.

It’s a well known fact that the government rejected federalism when tabled by SPLM/A-IO for discussion during the peace talks in Addis Ababa. In the presence of reservations about the peace agreement from the government side, the prospect of a smooth process towards realisation of the permanent constitution of South Sudan is almost non-existent.

Nonetheless, the peace agreement gives our politicians an opportunity to come up with a federal and democratic constitution for the republic of South Sudan. This can only happen if people rise above their personal, party and tribal interests.

It’s too optimistic to envisage this happening any time soon given the prevailing unhealthy environment among the political parties. What would most likely happen is a division within the NCAC into two camps each presenting opposing proposals that would drag on beyond the prescribed 18 months for completing the task. The member from the FD’s would most likely side with the government.

As for the political parties member, the only hope for SPLM/A-IO to pick up an ally is if the member is from SPLM-DC or UDF. It is not clear whether the amendments are passed by a consensus or by majority voting.

The process could easily reach a deadlock if amendments are put to voting. Hence it is unlikely that the amendments would amount to any appreciable degree of federalism.

Also there is a confounding factor here which is the presence of the IGAD represensitives. It is quite hard to discern the position of the 2 represensitives in regard to introduction of federalism in South Sudan. However we do know that apart from Ethiopia, the rest of the IGAD member states do not follow federal system of governance.

Most are authoritarian regimes like ours therefore the IGAD representatives would be more sympathetic and supportive of the government views within the committee.

With the expected fresh amendments the TCoSS would be anything but an authentic federal constitution.

It’s important though for SPLM/A-IO, being the spearhead of the federalism supporters, to make it clear to the world that should the amended constitution fall short of people’s aspirations which is a full-fledged federalism, then it will be only for running the TGoNU.

It will then be the duty of the elected government backed by people’s mandate to write the permanent constitution of the republic of South Sudan. Thus all supporters of federalism should avoid being complacent about the coming elections.

Good preparation and full engagement in the political process is required from all. It is not enough to voice out your support for federalism because this alone will not help you in your quest for it. You need to identify your means to achieve it and do whatever in your capacity to make it happen.

It’s now clear that the only way to establish a federal system of governance is if SPLM/A-IO wins the elections at the end of the TGoNU. Therefore all the supporters of federalism should back SPLM/A-IO now and in the coming elections.

Some Equatorians have doubts about the commitment of Dr Riek Machar to implementation of federalism once in power. Those doubts are unfounded given the well known position of SPLM/A-IO in regard to federalism.

It has been shown during the peace negotiations as SPLM/A-IO had wanted adoption of federalism during the transitional period that was rejected by the government. The deputy chairman, Alfred Lado Gore is a strong supporter of federalism and is not a pushover. He and his other Equatorian colleagues will not let the Equatorians down.

Moreover, come elections day, what would the Equatorian sceptics do?! Would they abstain from voting knowing that it will help Kiir’s camp or would they vote for SPLM/A-IO that has a clear policy in regard to implementation of federalism?

This is not the time to sit on the fence but to be proactive and fully engaged in the political process and in shaping the future of South Sudan.

Equatorians should be aboard the only ” ship ” sailing towards federalism which is SPLM/A-IO. It is time for Equatorians whether from the armed forces, urban civilians, rural civilians and villagers to join SPLM/A-IO in droves and big numbers.

The same applies to our citizens in western Bahr El Gazal state, the Chollo Kingdom, Greater Pibor Adminstrative area, Maban and the rest of the tribes including the Jieng who support federalism.

Being the leader of the opposition puts enormous responsibility on the shoulders of SPLM/A-IO at this juncture in the history of South Sudan.

Firstly, it must endeavour to establish a broad-based coalition of all the pro federalism parties, political groups and the civil societies. It is essential to form an alliance with SPLM-DC, UDF and the other parties.

A situation where ” the Ralph Nader effect ” comes into play must be avoided at all costs. Ralph Nader was the Green Party presidential candidate who divided the democratic votes causing Al Gore to lose the elections. He got as little as 97,421 votes that was enough for George W Bush to defeat Al Gore by 537 votes only in the Florida 2000 elections.

It is not a long shot to imagine a similar scenario happening in our elections. I do think Kiir’s camp is banking on facing multiple presidential candidates rather than a single head to head candidate.

His supporters know that his popularity is dismal among the majority of the South Sudanese people hence the only hope for him to win is if there is a division in the opposition votes.

We expect our opposition leaders to rise above their personal egos and ambitions for the sake of winning the elections and making federalism a reality. A coalition does not mean we should agree on all matters but on the bottom line which is federalism.

Secondly, A lot of attention should be directed towards western Bahr El Gazal state as contrary to what is being propagated by its governor and the government propaganda machine, the majority of citizens there support federalism. The issue of land grabbing is far worse there than in Equatoria and the Chollo Kingdom.

Furthermore, the shooting of the unarmed civilians during the Wau demonstrations in December 2012 was the last straw that damaged the regime popularity among the people of western Bahr El Gazal state.

Rather than opening an investigation to find answers for why the security forces opened fire on a peaceful demonstration, the president instead stood by the decision of his general or generals to use lethal force. And to make things worse some poor citizens were made scapegoats and handed down capital punishments as instigators of the unrest.

Western Bahr El Gazal state is winnable and is an important state to win as will be demonstrated below.

Thirdly, As the government is working day and night spreading the seeds of division among the opposition, the SPLM/A-IO should serve it its own poisons.

The revelation by the army chief of staff, Paul Malong during the Dinka Malual community meeting in Juba early this year showed that the establishment of the greater Pibor administrative area ( GPAA ) was nothing but a tactical move by the government.

He even said it openly that the GPAA was established to prevent David Yau teaming up with SPLM/A-IO and that they will revisit his case sometime in future. There was no genuine political will to solve the problems in that area.

According to the revelation they planned to kill David Yau Yau in 2011 like what they did to General Gatluak Gai in Bentiu but the guy evaded the plot. Malong went further to say this time they would keep him under scrutiny; meaning the ill intentions against David Yau Yau remain intact.

Clearly the aim was to neutralise the Cobra fighting faction in order to be subdued in future.

As often said in politics there are no permanent enemies but permanent interests, SPLM/A-IO should exert every effort to bring David Yau Yau group, in fact any other fighting groups including the defectors from SPLM/A-IO, into the pro federalism camp.

Again SPLM/A-IO must work tirelessly to forge an alliance with REMNASA. although it is not signatory to the peace agreement, it has a constituency in Equatoria that will be voting in the elections. Governor Bakasoro was the most vocal among the governors in support of federalism. He has a universal support in greater Equatoria and his addition to the coalition would be a valuable asset.

Based on the current 10 states, the electoral field would most likely look as follows :

Greater Equatoria states, Unity state : Solid behind pro federalism camp.
Nortern Bahr El Gazal state, Warrap state, Lakes state : Solid behind anti federalism camp.
Upper Nile state, Jonglei state : Leaning to pro federalism camp.
Western Bahr El Gazal state : Swing state.

Some people may think it’s too early to talk about the coming elections at this point in time but in reality there will be little time to prepare for it due to lack of infrastructure and insecurity.

Most of the challenges for running a healthy election campaign would come from the states leaning to the pro federalism camp and Western Bahr El Gazal state. I am afraid Northern Bahr El Gazal, Warrap and Lakes states would probably be a no go zone for the opposition.

I cannot imagine candidates from the opposition campaigning freely there in the presence of that level of antagonism and insecurity.

That being said, still the opposition should continue working patiently to recruit more supporters in those states. Nevertheless, the focus should be on what is achievable by sparing no effort to secure the states leaning to the pro federalism camp and the swing state.

The message should be clear that the elections is not about personalities but about choosing the right system of governance which is federalism and the right people to deliver.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok

The last attempt of the failed president, Kiir.

BY: David Lokosang, South Sudan, OCT/15/2015, SSN;

I wonder whether the presidential order no. 36/2015 to create 28 states a solution for the South Sudanese problems or a clear violation of the signed CPA!

To my fellow country man, it is not just a matter of supporting or opposing the presidential decree, it is an issue that needs to be critically analysed in order to identify the positive and negative aspects of it.

We should ask ourselves, is the presidential order constitutional or not. If not then it is a clear violation of article 162 of the transitional constitution 2011, which prohibits the president for making any provisional order on matters affecting Bill of Rights, Decentralized system of government, general elections, annual allocation of resources, financial revenue, penal legislation or alteration of administrative boundaries of states.

It is the council of states that has constitutional power to legislate laws that may alter the number of states, change their names and of their capitals or can alter boundaries in accordance with initiatives from the state concerned.

Even if the president has constitutional rights, isn’t it not wise to make proper consultation with the stake holders prior to issuing such order?

Also isn’t it not a violation of the resent signed peace agreement?

To my own conviction, the negative aspects of the presidential order are greater than the positive aspects of it. Let me begin by the negative aspects:

The negative aspects of the presidential order no. 36/2015
 It is a violation of the CPA which is based on the existing 10 states
 It will create more divisions because it is based on ethnicity and tribal enclaves
 It will hinder development because the little resource we have will be used to pay public servants
 Other countries with risk takers will exploit our resources to the maximum taking the advantage of our situation
 Our nation will remain poor because it will not be able to compete politically and economically with the developing and the developed countries
 Our country will be weak to face any country in case of aggression
 It will not attract foreign investors because of insecurity that will arise
 As it is the case now it will create a state of dependence due to lack of unemployment
 It will led to more crimes than now because those who could not afford will adopt dubious ways of wealth making
 The poor will remain poor and the rich will grow richer because they will loot the public funds for their interest as it is the case with the current government
 It will eventually culminate into the fragmentation of South Sudan into small countries

The positive aspects
After a thorough analysis I could not identify any positive aspects due to the following reasons,
 All the stake holders were not engaged in discussion to determine whether it is reasonable to increase the existing states to 28 states or not hence it will be problematic.
 It will be difficult for the government to draw the borders of the new states because there will be more conflicts among communities who have been mingling together since creation.
 Where will the government get its resources to fund the 28 states if it is dependent on foreign loan to cater for government expenses? According the former American president Abraham Lincoln, “An individual who undertake to live by borrowing, soon finds his original means devoured by interest and next no one left to borrow. So must it be with the government”.
 How is the government going to divide the scarce Assets to all the 28 states?

The essence of democracy is to allow democratic institutions to have a robust discussion to any issue that may have negative and positive impact on the nation.

This is not democracy but dictatorship that one person is the executive, the judiciary, and the parliament.

People talk of legitimacy without knowing the real meaning of it in the national context. Legitimacy as the American secretary of state said to Salva Kiir government and I quote “Legitimacy is not a presumed right of any government but it is conferred by the people and it is sustained only by demonstrating leadership to protect and serve all citizens.”

Does our president fit this description? No because innocent people are being killed, robbed and humiliated in the Capital where he lives, leave alone the atrocities that are being carried out by government and militias in Wondruba, Mundri, Jonglei, Upper Nile and Unity states Eastern Equatoria state and other areas.

To me and many who believe in the SPLM vision, President Kiir has failed to implement the very core vision that we struggled for the last 21 years because we made a wrong choice by electing him after the death of our visionary leader Dr John Garang. He made a U turn since he took the leadership of the party.

He failed because he is being advised by the tribal council of elders and group of war lords who advise the president for their own good and not the nation.

He failed to address the level of corruption that exists in our country because he too is corrupt. Remember he wrote letters to 75 government officials to return the money they have stolen but no one of them complied simply because he too was involved.

He failed to establish democratic institutions in the country. In 2012 He requested every ministry to set up its policy within 100 days but did he succeed? No because he has no clear vision to direct the ministers.

He failed to transform SPLA to a conventional army instead he appointed an ignorant and war lord person who has no any military science to the position of the general chief of staffs. And recently he appointed another ignorant war lord to the deputy chief of the general staff for morale and orientation.

He failed to transform SPLM from a national liberation movement to a national political party
He failed to fulfill the aspiration of the people of South Sudan

Do people of South Sudan really need more states?

Our people need major highways that connect all the states, more hospitals, Schools, jobs, Electricity, clean water, peace and security and so forth.

Our president failed to understand the SPLM vision of taking towns to the people.
Taking towns to the people or devolution of power and resource do not mean creation of more states.

It means give them the same services that are available in the major towns like Juba, Malakal and Wau. Give the people their democratic right to elect their governor, their commissioner, their mayor, and their representatives to the National, and state parliament.

Our problems is that people are afraid to tell the president what he is doing is undemocratic and against the constitution of the country and of the Party.

Fear is our enemy number one. If we are not afraid of fear, we should have said no to Salva Kiir and his group of advisers that enough is enough.

I therefore appeal to all South Sudanese in the country and in diaspora, let us stand together against this dictatorial order no: 36/2015 of creating 28 states because it is not for our national interest.

And for those who have been with Dr John and who believe in the SPLM vision, remember what he said and I quote “A country cannot be stronger politically and economically if it has internal crises”

Let us not allow our country to ruin by war lords, tribal elders and the elements of the National Congress Party. END

The National Parliament should put the 28 States on Moratorium

By James Okuk, PhD, Lecturer, OCT/14/2015, SSN;

In its extraordinary meeting chaired by President Salva Kiir Mayardit on Tuesday 13th October 2015 in Juba, the National Council of Ministers approved the expansion of states from 10 to 28 as it came in the Republican Establishment Order No 36/2015. The Council applauded the decision of the president and directed the Minister of Justice to table it soon as an amendment bill before the National Legislature (NL).

But this is still unfitting legally until the President nullifies the Order first or else the Council’s directive is considered to be a new initiative altogether. A confusion, isn’t it?

Given the fresh facts that the IGAD-Plus Secretariat has decided to relocate to Juba, and also given the World’s support and pressure [see UNSC Resolution 2241 (2015) and IGAD Envoys Memo] for the implementation of the August 2015 Agreement on Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) as it is without any unilateral alternation, and further more the fact that the UNMISS mandate has been renewed and expanded with authorization of use of UAVs drones and other sophisticated armaments, I don’t think Juba or Pagak should have guts to go against the ARCISS.

What the Council of Ministers and NL are trying to do is a futile short-lived mere psychological fulfillment. Unless the government and SPLM-J first declare publicly that it has granted the UNMISS and IGAD-Plus ‘entity non grata’ in South Sudan, any amendment that goes against the ratified provisions of the ARCISS will be declared null and void, hence, waste of time and resources.

The IGAD Extraordinary Summit of Head of States and Governments will approve soon nominated JMEC’s Chairperson who shall come to Juba to supervise and direct the ARCISS implementation, starting from November 2015. Hence, Juba will be forced to put the Republican EO No36/2015 on Coma until the TGoNU is formed, including the reconstituted Permanent Constitutional Making Mechanism, which shall then handle it within a different governance context and methodology.

I’m saying this because the current alarming situation in the country indicates that Juba and Pagak have no capacity now to go against the demands and sanctions of the regional front-line countries; international community at large; and the mounting internal pressure and suffering from the hardened economy, spread insecurity and loosened social fabrics all over South Sudan.

Some keen young South Sudanese intellectuals are thinking that our national parliamentarians need to acknowledge that the EO No 36/2015 has spurred some dangerous undertakings (e.g., the Luach Jang of Tonj demanding its own state after the recent violent confrontation with the Rek of Riang Nhom and justifying that they are more in numbers than both Gok and Twic West combined; the Twic Mayardit threatening each other with violence over the relocation of the capital to Mayen Abun; the Fratit of Raja demanding detach from Dinka of Malwal; the Bul Nuer expressing dissatisfaction of their new annexation; the Shilluk rejecting division of their Kingdom between West and East Nile States; the Acholi and Madi demanding a separate state, the Azande of Tumbura rejecting being part of Gbudwe State, and the vicious circle of the opened Pandora Box continues, etc).

All these evidenced examples raise a fundamental issue of lack of reliable instruments for instituting the 28 states.

Thus, until a sensible framework is developed, the EO No 36/2015 should be put on a moratorium.

But while lawyers are important in state designs, there is also need to engage demographers, anthropologists, sociologist, geographers, historians, economists and political analysts in determining scientifically the new federal governance reality for South Sudan.

A popularity demand alone is not sustainable; consensus building is the sure way of success.

The provisions enshrined in the ARCISS and TCSS are paramount, and should form the ground-level from which some of these convictions/beliefs are justified for higher interest of the country rather than for those few elites who engineered the 28 States for the cover up of parochial interests of their ethnicities.

Now the safe exit lies in faithful implementation of ARCISS as a supreme document even if it is not a Bible or a Quran, so as to bring back the sanity of peace to the saddened and embattled Republic of South Sudan.

Opting for continuation of war will be more risky, especially with the NATO’s drones and Chinese gunship hovering on our sky in the coming months under the mandate of Protection of Civilians within Chapter VII of UN Charter.

If some people are afraid of the heat of AU Hybrid Courts for South Sudanese war criminals of humanity and serious abusers of human rights fundamentals, the remaining choice will be dark graves or even a graveless worst destiny like what had occurred to the warlords who went against the international community in the recent past.

Therefore, be ware my people; the international politics could be brutal than usual! Let’s start to open our ears and eyes wide by listening to the peace advises of the World’s leadership.

Long live South Sudan!

Collo (Shilluk) Global Action condemns and rejects Kiir’s E.O. #36/2015 aimed at disintegrating & annexing the Collo Kingdom

COLLO GLOBAL ACTION
For IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 11, 2015.

COLLO GLOBAL ACTION CONDEMNS AND REJECTS SALVA KIIR’S ESTABLISHMENT ORDER NUMBER 36/2015 THAT AIMS AT DISINTEGRATING AND ANNEXING THE COLLO KINGDOM

The Collo Global Action (CGA) has been following the new political developments in South Sudan with great and alarming concerns, especially the Republican Order Number 36/2015 that purports to establish 28 unconstitutional new states in South Sudan with effect from first week of November 2015. The malicious Order that was read over SSTV by President Salva Kiir himself is aimed at disintegrating the Collo Kingdom and grabbing the historical Collo ancestral lands in the east bank of White Nile and along Sobat River to the advantage of the Padang Sectional Dinka Alliance who have been influencing Salva Kiir for that purpose.

The Republican Order is a serious violation to the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan (TCSS) and a shameful dishonoring of the recently signed peace agreement in Addis Ababa on 17th August and also in Juba on 26th August 2015, and which has been ratified by the National Legislature. If these gross violations were conducted elsewhere, it would have caused Salva Kiir his Presidency seat immediately because he would have been asked to resign or be impeached for good.

The Collo (Shilluk) Kingdom has been existing in the region for many centuries, located on both sides of White Nile and Sobat Rivers. Historically, the Egyptian, the Turkish, the British, the French and the Arabs colonialists didn’t manage to disintegrate the Collo Kingdom but recognized and cooperated with it. Who is then Salva Kiir Mayardit, Padang Sectional Dinka Alliance and the entire Council of Jieng Elders to have a victory over the well-known Collo People?

The Collo royal people herby condemn and reject in the strongest terms possible the newly announced states in Upper Nile called Eastern Nile State and Western Nile State. We call upon President Salva Kiir to behave himself like a civilized and intelligent President of a Republic and immediately nullify his unfortunate unilateral and unlawful decision of disintegrating and grabbing the Collo People’s lands.

We can’t imagine an insanity from a President of a Republic who co-habited a beautiful Collo lady from Doleib Hill in the Eastern Bank of the White Nile and had grown-up children from her, to issue an unconstitutional Order that gives away the ancestral land of the Mother of his Children. This is painfully terrible!

If President Kiir has not yet known it softly the time he served in Malakal as a Sudan Military Intelligence Officer that the Collo Nation are the strongest Majority tribe in Upper Nile, and that it is very important to respect the land rights and feelings of the In-laws, perhaps he will know it the hardest way very sooner than later.

We call on the entire Collo people to urgently mobilize themselves and unite in order to protect and defend the Great Ancestral Nyikango Land and Kingdom from aggressors and invaders as we have got to understand it now that the oppressor has no color. Whatsoever the case, we shall win because victory is in our pursuit of truth and dignity.

Long Live Collo Kingdom.

Long Live the Republic of South Sudan

Signed by Collo Global Action
Email: Collo_Global_Action@mail.com

The Presumed Sanctions must now start with Pres. Salva Kiir himself

By: Eli Wani , South Sudan, OCT/13/2015, SSN;

The Presumed Sanctions Must Now Start With Pres. Salva Kirr Himself. President Salva Kiir once again issued another contradictory decree. Contrary to the so-called “Compromised IGAD PLUS; Last Friday 2nd of Oct., 2015 by using Article 101 of Transitional Constitution of South Sudan (2011), the “Establishment of 28 States in the pretext to decentralize his governing system in the Republic of South Sudan.”

Why did you wait until this moment, Mr. President? Are you just countering the position of your opponents or is this the beginning of new war propaganda?

Seriously, Pres. Kirr really needs to check into hospital for a psychiatric diagnosis. He either has a dementia or mental illness. This is beyond illiteracy; but how could he not remember what he told the nation just four weeks ago?

An excerpt from Pres. Kirr’s speech:

“Having made our reservations and expressed our disappointment on the provision of the Agreement, I (President Kiir) finally signed the Peace Document with reservations to return our country back to peace and development. With that signature, I had fully committed the government to faithful implementation of the Agreement on the Resolution of conflict in the Republic of South Sudan. All institutions of government in the country shall be bound by this Agreement and shall be expected to carry out the functions stipulated for them therein. I believe you are aware of that National Council ministers has already endorsed and adopted the Agreement and that the National Legislature has ratified it as well. In my capacity as Commander-In-Chief of the SPLA, I have already issued a ceasefire order for SPLA troops to stop any military offensive in the conflict zones unless on self defense.”

This time we should not put the blame of the President’s malice on his advisers or people close to him for wrongful advice. Because, when he signed the IGAD Plus, he went against the advice of his closest cliques.

So, this time he Mr. President needs to take the blame and he is to be seen as the “Spoiler of peace”.

To refresh your memories please go and read my article:
http://www.southsudannation.com/pres-salva-kirr-versus-dr-riek-machar-whos-the-peace-maker/

Those who didn’t agree with me then, can now prove who the real opponent of peace in South Sudan is. One way or another, it is now apparent when Pres. Kirr said he has “serious reservations” about signing IGAD PLUS.

Pres. Kirr was a procrastinator due to his reluctance and delaying tactics in signing the so-called Compromised IGAD Plus on 26th of August, and with threats of “reservations” and now he wants to inject in a topic that is contrary and irrelevant to the recent agreement.

This president should also be charged with perjury for making false statements all the time. He is a flip flopper and can no longer be trusted to stay on the seat of Presidency; his judgments are flawed and impaired maybe due to excess consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Such a person is not fit to lead a nation.

Now, it’s clear who is to blame and the threats of sanctions should no longer just be words of mouth but actions.

The United Nations, the International Communities, and African Union, all need to make a strong statement to condemn this recent move by Pres. By imposing sanctions on Salva Kirr for working hard to try and derail the peace agreement and the president must be held accountable for once again trying to fail our people.

We, the people of South Sudan urge the parties to respect and abide by the treaty and we also beg the International Community to stand tall and use every necessary measure at your disposal to bring peace in our nation of South Sudan.

All the warring parties must be held accountable for ALL the crimes they have committed and are still committing.

The United Nations has taken many war criminals to the ICC in the past and we urge the ICC to also do the same in South Sudan.

Eli Wani is a concerned South Sudanese.

Pres. Kiir’s Machiavellian tricks: Machar be forwarned!

BY: ELHAG PAUL, OCT/13/2015, SSN;

Riek! Wake up. Get your act together. Leadership is about uniting people to achieve greater goals than an individual own ambition. As it is experienced by South Sudanese, it can be argued that you missed key opportunities for decisive leadership time and again throughout the 1990s and 2000s, without any recognisable achievement, be it in personal development in the art of management or in the protection of the South Sudanese people in stabilising our new country.

It is indisputable that the organisations led by you so far starting with SPLM United in 1991 to the current SPLM-IO are riddled with divisions and implosions due to internal management problems.

The compromise peace agreement which you rightly signed has brought a new political reality in South Sudan.

This reality albeit is supposed to bring peace, it can also be a deadly trap for all sorts of unforeseen games. Thus it is imperative that vigilance must be prioritised.

President Salva Kiir and the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) initially misread the determination of international community to change the rules of the game with this agreement and they blundered big time.

President Kiir’s refusal to sign this agreement on 17th August 2015 exposed the regime as a war monger. President Kiir laid bare their nasty political character damaging their credibility.

This agreement if I am not mistaken will prove to be the watershed in the demise of President Kiir’s influence and power in our new country.

Although the regime of President Kiir and its supporters now obsessively sing peace in the hope of regaining their lost image and international support, no one is actually listening to them.

The damage is done. Brand SPLM/A is tainted beyond repair, especially SPLM in government because it is abundantly clear that it intends to be a spoiler of the signed compromise peace agreement.

The spiraling of multiple centres of violence in the country, such as in Unity, Upper Nile and Equatoria States evidences beyond doubt what is to be expected.

This peace agreement may not hold unless President Barack Obama puts his foot down to silence the guns once and for all and IGAD-Plus ceases its duplicity in favour of President Kiir’s government.

IGAD-Plus and its dishonesty in handling the mediation has been consistent. It raises serious questions as to whether this body is really serious about bringing peace to South Sudan.

The first agreement IGAD struck with the warring parties was the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement of 23rd January 2014. Juba failed to honour it and it continued to violate it with support from Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF). IGAD did nothing to restrain its member (Uganda).

Then on 9th May 2014, it struck its second agreement which mandated participation of all stakeholders in the country.

Yet, even before the ink could dry, IGAD violated its own agreement by reducing the talks to President Kiir and Riek Macher thereby tribalising the talks between the Jieng and the Nuer in exclusion of the other over sixty tribes.

To understand this point you need only to look at the composition of the negotiators on both sides.

This skulduggery of IGAD continued up to the Compromise Peace Agreement of 17th August 2015. IGAD-Plus itself now is in violation of its own latest agreement.

According to the agreement all foreign troops and non-state actors must vacate South Sudan within 45 days. 10th October 2015 was the deadline for such fighters to leave South Sudan.

So far Uganda has not honoured the agreement and its troops are staying put. What does this mean?

On the other hand President Kiir has unleashed his dogs of war on Equatoria.

Now yet again President Yoweri Kagutu Museveni of Uganda and President Kiir are violating this agreement left and right and nothing tangible is being done to hold them to account.

The pattern clearly indicates that IGAD-Plus is sympathetic to the regime in Juba and it does not care about the people of South Sudan. Else, why are President Museveni and President Kiir openly allowed to get away all the time with murder?

Whether President Obama will prevail over president Kiir and IGAD-Plus, especially the criminal JCE that decides the former’s policy, Riek must think ahead and begin to deal with the issues of unity among the Nuer and the entire South Sudanese.

The purpose of this piece is to suggest what Riek may do to cripple President Kiir, by putting the home of the Nuer in order to minimise any fallout from the expected rapid decline of SPLM’s grip on South Sudan.

President Kiir and the JCE are deeply unhappy. The evidence can be gleaned from the two letters of the JCE circulated widely before the culmination of the compromise peace agreement.

Please take time and read: ‘JCE Response to the Latest IGAD Proposal on Power Sharing’ file:///C:/Users/Rosemary/Downloads/JCE%20-President Kiir’s Machiavellian tricksPresident Kiir’s Machiavellian tricks0Response%20to%20IGAD%20Proposal%20on%20Power%20Sharing%20(1).pdf and ‘Position of the JCE on the IGAD-Plus Proposal Compromise Agreement‘ file:///C:/Users/Rosemary/Downloads/JCE%20-%20Position%20on%20Proposed%20Compromise%20Agreement%20(1).pdf

An important event to bear in mind is when the President signed the CPA on 26th August 2015.

Prior to the signing, the unity of the ruling clique fractured with the chief of the army General Paul Malong Awan, the minister of Information Michael Makuie Lueth, and others bitterly expressing rejection of the agreement. Makuie even went as far as to call the agreement a “sell out”. This was the first time senior members of the government behaved disrespectfully to the president.

Soon after the JCE hurriedly met and the whole atmosphere abruptly changed. Makuie and the rest converted from refuseniks to peaceniks. This switch obviously is not for nothing; President Kiir and the JCE want to improve their shaky image.

But interestingly, this change in behaviour is accompanied by more violence throughout the country except Bahr El Ghazal.

In a sense the regime drivers (the Jieng) have re-united under a new strategy of “playing the peace supporter” while at the same time spreading violence to undermine the peace deal.

It is arguable that since the peace was signed in the last week of August 2015, South Sudan has witnessed more violence with loss of innocent people than at any other time in the entire period of the conflict.

The objective of the regime is clear. It wants to destroy the Compromise Peace Agreement so that the regime continues in power in a state of chaos as always.

For it is only in a state of chaos that the coffers of the state can be looted and the people terrorised with impunity. This is one consequence of the intention of President Kiir and the JCE to destroy the CPA.

Another ploy of the system to destroy the peace is the weeding out of the regime supporters who belong to other ethnicities from positions of power and influence.

For instance, the dismissal of the two governors of Central Equatoria and Western Equatoria, the former being replaced by a Jieng from Yirol masquerading as a local boy. A person whose background is as dubious as most of the lot running the system.

The removal of these governors was done to strengthen the regime’s grip on areas they want to destabilise as vehicles for tearing the peace to shreds.

Although the previous governors were not completely with the people, their local support and their outspokenness was seen as an obstacle for the regime to execute its evil plan.

Those two would not condone the destruction of their homes without protest and exposure of the duplicity of President Kiir as exemplified by speeches they made in Mundri and Juba a few months ago.

A further trick of the regime for promoting destruction of the peace is the declaration that the government is broke and it cannot implement the agreement unless the international community pays for it.

For example, Vice President James Wani Igga and minister in the office of the president Riak Awan Gol last week in New York begged the Americans for cash for construction of military barracks outside the 25 mile radius of Juba stipulated in the agreement.

Surely, if President Kiir is serious about peace and the welfare of the South Sudanese people, the regime should not be going round begging for money. It can boldly ask for loans for the purposes of the implementation of the CPA, as it does for securing the loans for buying the military equipment they use to kill the people.

One may ask why is the government not doing that? It is because they want to destroy the peace. Why is President Kiir determined to destroy the peace agreement? The answer is straight forward.

It has nothing to do with the interest of the Jieng tribe. This may sound strange but it is the reality.

The whole destruction taking place in the country to derail the peace has a single purpose of saving the president, the JCE, and the Jieng Generals from facing accountability for the mass atrocities they committed against the Nuer and the South Sudanese people.

Implementation of the agreement means arraignment of the architects of this evil project which indirectly amounts to questioning the JCE’s long held foolish ideology of ‘Born to rule’.

Therefore, President Kiir and the JCE have all the reasons and motivations to want to derail the peace agreement. What is going on now is not about the interest of the wider Jieng but self preservation of the members of the clique in power.

The Jieng people in this situation are being used as a tool of those fighting for their survival.

Given this, Riek who unfortunately is not a leader in the true sense of the word appears oblivious to this fact. The Compromise Peace Agreement needs a transformational leader.

Riek is not. He is a crooked leader set in his ways. He has no insight into his own leadership style which constantly generates divisions and splits.

He has had chances to learn and improve but he squanders it always by sticking to familial politics mixed with national issues. No doubt his poor leadership will show up soon whether the agreement collapses or holds.

If the agreement collapses it will be because his complacency and lack of effective diplomatic charm to engage with the powers that matter.

If it holds it will be solely on the Americans if they do decide to say enough is enough with the regime in Juba and give President Kiir and the JCE the red card.

President Kiir naively now thinks he has got the Americans where he wants them by bringing in the Russians as Juba’s protectors against sanctions.

This invitation of new international players beyond the regional powers is likely to worsen the situation in South Sudan.

The country could become a political football of the big powers with it being left uncared for in the foreseeable future, unless the people of South Sudan seriously play their role patriotically.

Please see, ‘South Sudan lauds diplomatic efforts to block UN sanctions.’ http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article56456

The opportunity has once again availed itself to Riek to play constructive politics.

I suggest that the most potent weapon to end President Kiir’s rule is the unity of the people of South Sudan, especially with the help of the Compromise Peace Agreement.

President Kiir’s deadly weapon against Riek and the whole Nuer people is his Machiavellian tricks of divide and rule involving a formidable section of the Nuer to fight the Jieng war.

It is a Nuer killing a Nuer with supervision of the master. Please see, ‘They burned it all.’ https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/07/22/they-burned-it-all/destruction-villages-killings-and-sexual-violence-unity-state.

This is what the Arabs say “Adrab al abid bel abid” meaning hit the slave with a slave. During the war of liberation, Khartoum exploited this strategy effectively by deploying the Nuba, Darfuri and Ingessana against South Sudan and it worked.

President Kiir and the JCE have adopted this strategy to destroy the Nuer. With this plan there is no need for the Jieng to be involved in the dirty business of open ethnic cleansing as the job gets done by the victims themselves.

The Nuer are slowly but surely getting rid of themselves and those who will survive will then be cleared by the regime. Do you see how clever President Kiir and the JCE are being?

Like Dr John Garang used to say in Arabic: ‘Souf zol da awanta kief?’ meaning, “look at how tricky this guy is.”

As said, President Kiir already plays Machiavellian tricks by promoting the Nuer Weu (Weu is said to mean mercenary – lovers of jobs and cash) to constantly prise them away from their kith and kin to decimate them.

For instance, after President Kiir signed the agreement he promoted Nuer Generals to deepen the rift among the Nuer for the JCE’s benefit. Please see, ‘Kiir promotes SPLA generals.’ http://eyeradio.org/kiir-promotes-spla-generals/

If Kiir really cared about the Nuer he would not have cleansed them in Juba in December 2013.

Unlike President Kiir, Riek misses the point in the game of promotions. What he did was to appoint more Generals without a beneficial strategy. Please see, ‘Armed opposition SPLM/A (IO) promotes its senior generals.’
http://www.nyamile.com/2015/09/26/armed-opposition-splma-io-promotes-its-senior-generals/

If Riek wants to show some leadership, he should now step in firmly and pay a price for rebuilding cohesion among the Nuer, by making the Nuer allies of President Kiir to be the men to promote the compromise peace agreement.

It is in such a project that Riek can begin to build the future of the Nuer and by default that of South Sudan.

The Nuer allies of President Kiir, derogatively referred to as Nuer Weu are apparently motivated by jobs and cash.

Now as the peace agreement awards governorship of Unity and Upper Nile States to SPLM-IO, Riek should exercise real magnanimity to his adversaries.

He should allow governor Monytuil to continue in his current position in Bentiu to achieve a long term strategic objective of saving the Nuer. I do not have to talk about Malakal because it is obvious to who it should go.

What is important to realise is that these arrangements are only useful psychologically at this early stage of development of the state of South Sudan.

In future people will be appointed on merits, qualification and ideological orientation regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex etc.

In the short term it may be seen as a weakness but in practical terms it may instantly unite the Nuer and this will stop the constant fratricide.

At the same time it will avail the Nuer an edge in their confrontation with the Jieng.

So Riek needs to talk to Monytuil now, give him what he wants and make him to be the peace maker and builder among the Nuer.

The present poor and destructive relationship among the Nuer demands realpolitik.

This is a doable project and if Riek takes it seriously the benefits are enormous.

First and foremost, Nuer fratricide comes to an end and Nuer land will be in peace.

Secondly, one of President Kiir’s strategies to derail the Compromise Peace Agreement involves the Nuer Weu as essential cogs of the killing machine; with it taken away the regime will be thoroughly deprived and weakened.

Thirdly, all the strategic battle fields in Unity and Upper Nile States will change hands without exchange of bullets.

Fourthly, the Nuer people will be the ones credited with bringing peace to South Sudan.

Fifthly, President Kiir will have to decide whether to genuinely accept peace or face being booted out of J1.

President Kiir’s and JCE’s power is bolstered by Nuer Weu. So long as the Nuer remains divided the mayhem in Nuer land will not stop and peace in South Sudan will remain a mirage.

The telling thing is that the JCE practice unity to remain strong and in power while they promote divisions among the Nuer and others to “defeat” and subjugate them.

Ambassador Telar Deng emphasised this point by saying, “Our (Jieng) internal front should remain united. This is the only way to defeat our enemies.” http://newsafricanow.com/2015/10/s-sudanese-envoy-says-creation-of-new-states-administrative/

There you are. Monytuil!f Buay! Puljang! Beliu! Are you listening? Are you thinking about the future and welfare of your people? The ball is in your court.

What is suggested here is not without precedent. The one example that comes straight to mind is the talks between Apartheid South Africa and the African National Congress led by late Nelson Mandela in early 1990s.

That negotiation was tortuous and when the deal was struck there were powerful forces in the Apartheid government determined to derail it as is the case now with President Kiir and the JCE in South Sudan with the Compromise Peace Agreement.

Very important African persons were targeted to create chaos and derail the agreement.

Depressingly, Chris Hani, a luminous ANC leader was assassinated by a hired polish immigrant. Fortunately, this evil deed did not bring on the effect desired by enemies of change.

Then the system continued to use Mangasuthu Buthelezi, the Zulu leader of Inkatha against the ANC. Inkatha, like the Nuer Weu, indulged in killing black people with impunity.

The implementation of that agreement was at a knife edge. It was the brilliant leadership of Mandela that saved the situation.

Against the wishes of his own party, he extended a hand of friendship to Buthelezi and offered him the post of minister of home affairs in the transition government.

By entrusting security to Buthelezi, Inkatha was defanged and it had to behave and obey the law. With the agent of Apartheid feted, satisfied and well accommodated, South Africa was pulled from the brink of catastrophe.

Riek needs to do something with the Nuer Weu like what Mandela did with Buthelezi. He also needs to bring in all those others, Changson, Dechand and so on for the sake of a lasting peace in the country.

He can not sit there while the Nuer are deliberately being divided by the JCE to decimate themselves to extinction and call himself a leader.

What type of a leader is Riek who can not think outside the box to save his people?

The Bantustan federalism President Kiir introduced with his so called “Establishment Order number 36/2015 AD” fortunately enough is uniting South Sudanese and mobilising the international community against the tribal regime in Juba.

Even his Nuer allies are not happy. This offers the best opportunity for Riek to boldly open up channels of communication to unite the people against the regime in Juba.

For ultimately should this CPA flop, the scene will have been prepared for a show down between the forces of democracy versus the forces of Dinkocracy.

For quarter of a century Riek has rightly or wrongly been fighting for changes in the SPLM/A. This battle can not be won with a deeply divided Nuer people and a disarmed and abused 62 ethnicities.

Remember, President Kiir and the JCE have hijacked the sovereignty of South Sudan and its resources (material, human and financial). This has given them an advantage in the struggle and this must be countered with unity of the people.

To complete the struggle for changes or preferably the dissolution of the SPLM/A, Riek must embark on uniting the people. If he does not, let him be warned.

Saint Just, Antoine Louis Lfox De, The French revolutionist said during the decade long French Revolution, “Those who make half-way revolutions only dig their own grave.”

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]
Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com