Archive for: February 2017

LATEST: Kiir’s Tribal Army badly beaten after they destroyed Gen. Thomas Cirillo’ farm outside Yei

On Tuesday 14th February 2017 at around 09:17 AM, the gallant SPLA-IO forces in Division 2A and 2B of Sector Eight (8) under the overall command of Lt. Gen. John Kenyi Lo-Buron ambushed and repulsed an organized attack by Kiir’s tribal and ruthless regime militia at Alikate area located about 2 ½ Miles away from Kaya, a strategic town at the border of South Sudan with Uganda.

In the process, the SPLA-IO gallant forces killed ten genocidal regime militiamen, wounded dozens of them and totally destroyed one military land cruiser pick up mounted with 12.7 and captured a good deal of ammunition.

This incident occurred when the ruthless and genocidal regime militia attempted to penetrate SPLA-IO position at the area with a routine target of intruding the villages to terrorize civilians, loot property, gang-rape girls and women and devastate huts and livelihoods of the civil population.

Likewise, on the 13th February 2017 at around 3:00 PM, SPLA-IO forces of Division 2B, Sector 8 under the command of Lt. Gen. Kenyi Lo-Buron ambushed and killed dozens of Kiir’s brutal and murderous militia at Kagelu as they were on their way back to Yei town from a mission to Goja, a couple of miles away from Yei town where they utterly destroyed the farm of Lt. Gen. Thomas Cirillo and the whole of its vicinity in protest of his commendable resignation from the Dinka polluted SPLA.

SPLA-IO gallant forces in the area hereby seriously warn Kiir’s anti-civilian militia from mounting any further attack on its bases, or else it will be forced to fight back on defense and advance from all directions to capture all towns in the area and beyond.


Wayi Godwill Edward,
Military Spokesperson,
SPLA-I.O 2nd GHQs, Equatoria Region.

The South Sudan Army (SPLA) Offensive in the Shilluk Kingdom amounts to War Crimes & Crimes against Humanity

Petition from Concerned Members of Chollo Community in the Diaspora

February 13, 2017

Mr. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General

We the undersigned concerned members of the Shilluk (Chollo) community in the Diaspora strongly condemn the Government of South Sudan for its deliberate attacks on civilians, hospitals and clinics, and camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Wau Shilluk, Kodok and Kuek of Upper Nile State in South Sudan.

In these recent attacks, the government of South Sudan and its foreign mercenary fighters occupied these towns, and deliberately targeted Chollo civilians and executed many simply because of their ethnicity.

We strongly condemn these wanton killings of innocent civilians whether they are taking place in the Chollo Kingdom or anywhere in South Sudan.

These ethnically-motivated killings by the Government of South Sudan has forced thousands of Chollo civilians to flee their homes in Wau Shilluk, Lelo, Detang, Bukieny, Pamath Owachi, Tonga, Panyikang, Kodok and Kuek.

The South Sudan tribal army (SPLA) along with its hired mercenaries has engaged in activities which have, at the very least, been bordering on genocide of a magnitude comparable to Rwanda and Srebrenica.

They have committed widespread ethnic cleansing of Chollo civilians and burned down their villages by perpetrating a deliberate and indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians, hospitals, clinics and camps inhabited by IDPs.

These actions are barbarous violations of International Humanitarian Law and are being carried out against the backdrop of stark warnings by numerous organizations, including the UN, of a looming genocide.

We therefore strongly urge the International Community to intervene immediately by launching an investigation and holding the government of South Sudan and its foreign military allies in this war accountable for their continuous mass atrocities committed in Shilluk land against innocent civilians.

We would like to appeal to humanitarian relief agencies to provide urgent medical aid to those innocent Chollo civilians all across the Shilluk Kingdom of Upper Nile states, who are in desperate need of humanitarian aid especially in and around the town of Kodhok.

Our sources have confirmed that Kodhok, which shelters thousands of IDPs was the latest target of Juba’s continuous indiscriminate shelling and aerial bombardment.

Humanitarian organizations are being prevented from reaching helpless and defenceless civilian populations so that they can provide much needed food and medicine.

Thousands of men, women and children are being murdered daily. And when they’re not being murdered, they are starving to death. The conditions of Chollo civilians who were forced out of different areas as a result of Juba’s scorched-earth campaign are horrible.

We are calling upon the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to condemn this criminal act by the Government of South Sudan and to stop the targeting of civilians and allow them to have access to humanitarian reliefs.

We urge the UN and the Human Rights Council to investigate this matter and to record all violations of International Human Rights Law, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed by the South Sudan Government against Chollo civilians in Upper Nile State to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable.

The UNSC should impose targeted sanctions on South Sudanese officials who are involved in the war crimes and other gross crimes. South Sudan Government’s shelling and aerial bombardments of Chollo civilians using barrel bombs are crimes against humanity.

We, the Concerned members of the Chollo Community in the Diaspora appeal to IGAD, AU, US, UK, NORWAY, European Union and the international community at large to exert high-level political pressure on the South Sudanese government to force it to permanently stop the violence and bring peace to the region. We respectfully call upon the UN Security Council and the international community to do the following:

1. Condemn the crimes against humanity committed by the Government of South Sudan and its mercenaries who are bombing innocent Chollo civilians in Upper Nile State.

2. Provide protection and humanitarian aid for those civilians who are displaced and wounded.

3. Establish a no-fly zone in the Upper Nile State of South Sudan to prevent indiscriminate shelling and bombing of civilians in the Chollo Kingdom.

4. Bring to justice those perpetrators responsible for the deliberate killing and targeting of civilians.

5. Support efforts to bring about conflict resolution and peaceful settlement of the ongoing conflict and firmly enforce the outcome for an enduring peace in South Sudan.

Thank you for hearing us out.

Yours Sincerely,

Signed by Concerned Members of Chollo Community in the Diaspora

1. George Akuey-USA
2. Peter Karol-USA
3. Jwothab Othow-USA
4. John Ojur Dennis – Malaysia
5. Paul Achot – UK
6. Paulo Kwajakwan – Australia
7. Shan Aba Nyakwol-USA
8. Omai Othow Dewin-USA
9. Yusus Ayuol Nawi-USA
10. Vivian Nyidhok- UK
11. Lucia Peter –USA
12. Chayo Nyawello- Canada
13. Aban Obwony-USA
14. Suzan Achol Joseph – UK
15. Ayul Michael – UK
16. Samuel Nyikang Adwok – Spain
17. Jeibeni Nyajwok- Canada
18. Catharine Yomon-USA
19. Kimàjowk Patrick Chol- Canada
20. Sabino Diok-Canada
21. William Lual-Canada
22. Kristina Peter Pagan- Canada
23. Phillip Deng – Canada
24. Ana James Aban-Canada
25. Domanic Ding-Canada
26. Linda Akoj-Canada
27. Micheal Dak- Canada
28. Samuel Otong-Canada
29. Cecilia Adong-Canada
30. Gano Laa-Canada
31. Konyajwok James-Canada
32. Nasir George-Canada
33. Simon Pagan Ajak-Sweden
34. Yoanes Nyago KaralAkol- Finland
35. Nyikang Akij Nejok-Denmark

Freedom Fighters or Terrorists: The SPLM /A-IO Equatoria Groups

By Mading Gum, FEB/12/2017, SSN;

Of all the leadership qualities that made Dr. John Garang, SPLM/A leader, one of the greatest freedom fighters in Africa to stand out was that Garang was a great thinker. Garang offered a new nationalism of Sudanism, opposed to divisiveness and separatism. He imagined a political community in New Sudan in which democracy, equality, economic and social justice and respect for human rights is the core.

In his mind, the enemy was clear: all the institutions of oppression that have been evolved in Khartoum to oppress the masses of the Sudanese people. ‘The masses of the Sudanese people’. Remember that.

But why did Garang define the enemy as the institutions of oppression rather than Arabs? Was the Dien Massacre of 1987 not carried out by armed Arab Baggara militias who killed and burnt to death hundreds of Dinkas? Were Arabs militias of Rufa in Jabalyin not responsible for the massacre of over 200 Shilluk civilians in 1989? What about over 90 Shilluk victims who fled for safety but were killed in cold blood at the nearby police station manned by Arabs?

The tragedy in the South Sudan brutal conflict is lack of political imagination beyond tribes, hatred, revenge and self-enrichment. Garang offered New Sudan that transcends tribes in the past. None does today.

Political violence or terrorism, the missing link:

South Sudan conflict can be read in different ways. If you read from the perspective of my friend, Professor Remember Miamingi, the Juba regime is a terrorist state that has expanded the concept of “enemy combatant to the tribes and communities from which the principal enemy comes from.”

For Miamingi, the rebels are the principal enemy, the presumed freedom fighters. Another perspective, underrepresented in the mainstream media, views rebels as nothing but terrorists who “exploit the relative vulnerability of the civilian underbelly” in the dark forests and highways of Equatoria. I will focus on the latter as much has been written about the former.

Although the difference between political violence and terrorism is still unsettled, it is Paige W. Eager book “From Freedom Fighters to Terrorists: Women and Political violence,” that offers a striking contrast between political violence and terrorism.

Political violence is distinguished by three key features. First, it is a broader category that encompasses guerrilla warfare, national liberation movements, violent strikes and demonstrations.

Second, political violence aims to re-order the political and social set up of the society. To overthrow a tyrannical government, to redefine and realize justice and equality, to achieve independence or territorial autonomy are key examples.

Third, violence does not intentionally target civilians but is directed toward property, law enforcement and political authorities.

Terrorism is distinguished primarily by the intentional or threat to use violence against civilians targets for political goals. Intentional targets, who are civilians, differentiate terrorism from broader political violence where civilians are rarely intentional targets.

Bruce Hoffman offers five criteria that set terrorists apart from other criminals. First, there are political motives and second, violence or the threat of violence is utilized. Third, the violence act is intended to have psychological consequences beyond immediate victim. Fourth, organization with chain of command structures conducts the act. Fifth, and the last, the perpetrators of the act are a subnational group or non-state entity.

Terrorists in Equatoria bushes
At the height of December 2013 conflict, SPLM/A–IO prided itself as an alternative to Juba regime and they almost succeeded before tribalism, hatred and revenge engulfed them. IO existence is of contradiction and this also applies to the IO in the Bush. It preaches one thing and its members practice different things.

It is undisputed that IO Equatoria groups have political goals underpinning the terror on the highways and bushes. Equatorains have long harboured feelings for autonomous status for their states under federal framework.

However, July 2016 fighting in Juba and subsequent clashes with IO forces in the bushes of Equatoria as Riek Machar escaped to DRC aggravated the situation. Now, these groups have nothing to do with liberating South Sudan or fighting to realize justice and good governance. The primary aim is to revenge.

And to them, the enemy is not the oppressive Juba regime but Dinka as a tribe. Miamingi observation illustrates this: “…right now we are having ethnic groups within Equatoria region have taken up arms predominantly in response to abuse they have received but also the government’s targeting other ethnic groups on response of their ethnicity”.

The assertion makes two things clear. First, the received abuses are first attributed to Dinka tribe. The line between the government forces and ordinary Dinka civilian is blurred. Second, the act is primarily revenge motivated other than liberating the masses of South Sudanese from all the institutions of oppression in Juba. Here, the political poverty of the freedom fighters becomes apparent.

Unlike liberation movements which target property, government officials and law enforcement agents, South Sudan is witnessing the emergence of terror groups hell-bent on wiping out members of ethnic group perceived to dominate the government in particular areas.

Whether this increases civilian suffering or not is not their point. As long as the targeted ethnic group can be drawn into the bloodbath for genocide to occur, they are fine with it.

The trumped Ethnic nationalism
In late 2016, Alan Boswell gave a dramatic personal account of the rising ethno-nationalism in South Sudan. In Upper Nile, an ethnic Shilluk defence militia marched new graduates to war with songs against Dinka. At the Western end of the country, a Zande rebel leader derided a Zande governor as “Dinka”, a handmaiden for a “sell-out or traitor”.

To understand these ethnic nationalists’ sentiments, one has to look at Benedict Anderson book ‘Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism.’ Anderson defines nations as social constructs, imagined political communities that live in the imagination of its members and belonging to it is about a sense of connectedness to those imagined people. In South Sudan, there is no an imagined political community beyond Naath nation, Shilluk nation, Jieng Nation etc.

One imagined political community that offers a classic example is Equatoria. Although there is no ethnic community called Equatoria there lives in the minds of almost all people in that region of the existence of such political community, separate from Dinka and Nuer. There is a tendency to regard Equatoria as a “deep, horizontal comradeship”.

Dr Justin Ambago, one of the Equatoria prolific writers, admitted “The situation is not the same with indigenous populations of Equatoria, the country’s most southern region. People of Equatoria are more keen to identifying themselves as Equatorians, although they belong to nearly thirty different ethnicities”.

Now, the Moru rebel leader remarks become clear. Equatoria nationalism is ethnic nationalism which carries with it the seeds of xenophobia towards Dinka, the enemy. The freedom fighters have failed to imagine a political community beyond tribe and region. And here, sadly though, the IO Equatoria groups have succumbed to terrorism, wallowing in the miasma of ethnic nationalism.

The writer can be reach at

Peace can’t be imposed but a home-grown concept: The case of South Sudan

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Lawyer, Kampala, Uganda, FEB/12/2017, SSN;

In most of the African countries that have been at war for a very long time, peace remained elusive. This is because peace and development have proved far more difficult and complex to achieve than the Afro-optimists envisaged in the immediate post-independence period, owing to a range of domestic and external factors (see; Peace & Conflict in Africa edited by David J. Francis).

Externally, Africa is perceived as a continent stricken by wars, poverty, perpetual political instability and armed conflicts, unrelenting economic crises, famines and diseases. Because of that the external powers who try to bring peace to Africa see it as hopeless continent, which prompts their decision to impose the peace as they understand it.

Consequently, they end imposing what is called Liberal Peace Project Tradition, in which peace building is understood in term of intervention designed to facilitate the establishment of durable peace and prevent the recurrence of violence. Such intervention as it has been observed by some writers peacekeeping, peace support operations, disarmament, demobilization, rehabilitation and reintegration.

The above approach is contrary to African indigenous peace approach and explains the reason why the peace has remained a mere dream in Africa. This is due to the fact that the peace is not people centred. Instead, it is externally driven, which turns to favour two parties to the conflict or strong party and the third parties who attempt to satisfy their own interests at the expenses of the citizens of the country by imposing the peace as they understand it.

In that respect, peace becomes an alien concept to the people and consequently people do not own it. Hence, the chances of the peace collapsing easily are very high due to the failure to involve citizens in the peace making process.

What those trying to bring peace in Africa and in particular South Sudan fail to understand is the importance of the involvement of the people in the peace process, which is supposed to give rise to the new constitution. Such a constitution like the Compromised Peace Agreement of 2015 can only stand the test of time if it were people centred.

However, as it was the constitution between the two warring parties, which did have support from the citizenry, the main consequence was the failure of that Agreement to achieve peace to greater extent.

To complicate the matters, those who want to bring peace in South put criminal justice above peace based on an argument that without justice there will be no peace. Whereas, the argument of that kind may be correct in other developed or western countries, in South Sudan typical criminal justice may not be desirable in bringing peace for a simple reason.

The reason being that criminal justice does not promote reconciliation as it only deals with punishment. In a country like South Sudan, if punishment is considered as the only way of bringing peace by deterring the war perpetrators as many are proposing, I am afraid that the peace will never be achieved in South Sudan.

Why? Because peace is value-driven and people respect peace when they are psychologically satisfied that there is peace. For that purpose, it is important to digress a bit in defining and explaining the word “peace” before I advance my argument as to why the peace makers should not much concentrate on criminal justice, peacekeeping or on the removal of the government, instead they should promote reconciliation and South Sudanese traditional justice as a means of bringing peace.

The peace cannot be defined in the context of South Sudan but it can only be described based on customs and cultures of South Sudanese communities who need peace as their concept of peace is latent with the concept of justice.

For that reason, peace can only be achieved when specific conditions that sparked off the war in the first place are understood or the culture that the war emanates from is analyzed properly.

It is for that reason the peace in Africa and in particular South Sudan should be understood to emanate from the values of South Sudanese who think that such values emanate from both God and human beings.

Hence, peace is a spiritual and moral value located in the religious belief systems of the people of Africa as handed down from one generation to another (see; Peace & Conflict in Africa. ibid), which is very true in South Sudan.

Peace in the concept of Africans and South Sudanese in particular unlike the West which is based on prosperity and order, it is based on morality and order (see; ibid). This is the reason the death penalty never existed in most of the traditional African societies except those states that were ruled by Kings.

The reason the death penalty did not exist in most part of Africa is that the concept of justice was not based on the concept of individuality as it existed in the West. Rather, it was perceived in term of the communities and because of that a crime was seen as committed against the community but not individual.

Hence, when it comes to justice it was perceived in term of community justice but not individual as it exists under the criminal justice system.

Thus, it is important to understand the fact that when dealing with the issue of peace in South Sudan, the peace makers should not rely much on few educated elites and politicians because they are hybrid individuals who have mixed ideas and concepts about true values of South Sudanese as they do not understand them properly.

Because of that they struggle to see the alien concept of criminal justice imposed on South Sudanese.

The assertion I have just made in the above paragraph can be explained by the fact that majority of South Sudanese elites who acquired education from Khartoum, East Africa and the Western World do not have a clear understanding of what the true values of South Sudanese rural people are.

Moreover, the politicians of South Sudan have also failed to understand the values of the rural South Sudanese because of their personal interests. Majority of these politicians are not interested in achieving lasting peace as it is in their interests to see that their political opponents are punished through legitimate means such as courts so that they get an opportunity to get to power.

The above facts are the basis for various politicians such as the G10, SPLA/M-IO and the politicians in the government of South Sudan struggling to defeat each other so that their opponents are chased away from power or are kept far away from power or completely prohibited from taking power. The implication of the struggle for power is that the legitimate desire of South Sudanese is ignored.

The legitimate desire in South Sudan is to see that peace prevails. In fact, if the government and the opposition were genuinely interested in bringing peace to South Sudan, they would have compromised and the peace would have been achieved already, which is not possible now because of conflicting interests and loyalties exhibited by the main actors.

As I have already pointed out above that the concept of peace in Africa is based on morality and order, such understanding of peace has been the major factor that held South Sudanese together throughout the liberation struggle.

This is because they can easily come together to forgive and chart the way forward. For example, Nuer and Dinka people had never always been at peace with each other but every time they fought they could come together as members of one family and reconciled and then lived as before.

However, it is very difficult this time because the political opportunists on both sides have found a new trick of how to retain the power through war and to continue fighting for it. Besides, they are not ready to go into compromise to bring peace as their respective aims are to ensure that either of the side is defeated: a “cattle keeping mentality” coupled with politics.

I have mentioned words “cattle keeping mentality” above because the two parties are fighting like cattle keepers not people in charge of the nation. In cattle camp, for instance, there is no compromise as once the fighting has begun the two parties to the conflict will not compromise, which is disincentive to the nation building and unity.

Compromise is the first virtue in the nation building as interest of the nation must always be above the interest of any person. Thus, where the interest of an individual obstructs the national interest then the interest of the nation must prevail.

This is the basis for which some leaders resigned sometime back as it was seen in the case of Mubarak of Egypt and the President of Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011 respectively who resigned from power because the future of their countries was at stake.

The recent example of Romania’s Prime Minister, Sorin Mihai Grindeanu, who passed decrees exempting decriminalizing little corruption and initially refused to repeal those decrees that critics said would free corrupt officials from jail early and shield others from conviction, despite international condemnation and the biggest popular protests since the fall of communism.

However, when he saw that his action was going to destroy the national unity he accepted the demand of the people to repeal the decree that was passed to decriminalize small corruption. This is the spirit the country like South Sudan wants.

I have labored so far to explain how the search for peace in South Sudan should be rooted in the spirit of reconciliation and compromise and in that respect the peace process should be based on the concept of peace as known by rural people not politicians and intellectuals who are concerned with power only.

The peace process should be based on traditional concept of peace among traditional South, which is based on the method of conflict resolution like any other African societies which is guided by the principle of consensus, collective responsibility and communal solidarity (see; Peace & Conflict in Africa edited by David J. Francis at page 113).

In summary, my argument is that in order to achieve lasting peace, national dialogue should the only way forward in South Sudan because peace is a product of dialogue achieved through mutual trust and understanding. It cannot be imposed externally.

The international community should take over the current “national dialogue” to make it national and neutral in character. In its current form, it is not national dialogue. The international community should also be tough on those who are fighting yet there is a dialogue in the process.

In terms of justice, restorative justice should be adopted to ensure that the victims and the offenders are brought together to mediate a restitution agreement to the satisfaction of each, as well as involving the community. This is different from criminal justice that aims at retributive justice, which is punitive and does not heal the community.

NB//: the author is the lawyer residing in Uganda and can be through:; or +256783579256

Pres. Kiir and Jieng Council plan to hunt and kill General Thomas Cirillo: LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Feb/14/2017, SSN;

In the latest hysterical reaction to the bold and spectacular resignation of Lt.General Thomas Cirillo from the SPLA ‘tribal’ army, President Salva Kiir, in a top secret meeting with some special members of his ethnic Dinka so-called Jieng council of elders, resolved on the following resolutions:

1- To dispatch secret Dinka security agents to the neighboring countries with the special mission to locate and assassinate General Thomas Cirillo;

2- President Kiir ashamedly has offered millions of dollars whoever can bring to him the head of General Thomas Cirillo, and finally;

3- President Kiir and his nefarious tribal advisers, in desperation, have conspired and decided on launching a nefarious and genocidal plan of killing members of General Thomas Cirillo’s tribe, the Bari community. Already, as widely reported by other media sources, Kiir’s tribal SPLA soldiers have been widely dispatched to all the areas around Juba up to the neighboring East African states, to hunt down and kill General Thomas Cirillo.

As reported by several media sources, the SPLA government soldiers, desperate on the wild hunt for General Thomas Cirillo, raided Kobi village on the Juba-Nimule road where they reportedly committed massive crimes of raping on the women and many of these victims were brought to Juba for treatment.

Gen. Thomas Cirillo precisely accused Kiir and his cabal of Dinka advisers of turning the country’s military into a Dinka “tribal” army that has taken part “in systematic killings of people, rape of women and the burning of villages in the name of pursuing rebels in peaceful villages.”
Stand by for more developments…

Lt.General Thomas Cirillo’s Heroically resigns from Kiir’s “Tribal government:” What’s next?

FEB. 11/2017, SSN;

The best and the most popular top SPLA general, war hero and freedom fighter, General Thomas Cirillo Swaka has finally decided to quit today the so-called tribal government of South Sudan led by Salva Kiir Mayardit. Below is his resignation letter:

To: President Salva Kiir Mayardit,
President of the Republic of South Sudan,
Commander-in-Chief, Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army,
Juba, South Sudan. Dated: 11/02/2017

I, Lt.Gen. Thomas Cirillo Swaka, the Deputy Chief of General Staff for Logistics, SPLA, hereby tender my resignation as Deputy Chief of General Staff for Logistics, and from the SPLA.

It has been my honor and privilege to have served the people of South Sudan during the liberation struggle and during the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which led to the conduct of referendum on self-determination and attainment of independence of South Sudan. I am proud to have been part of the Liberation struggle and generally in having served the people of South Sudan in numerous military and political assignments over the last three decades.

I am resigning from the position of Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and from the SPLA because of the following reasons:

1. I am convinced the violence which erupted in Juba in December 2013 and swiftly spread to several parts of South Sudan, in due course becoming a devastating war, was planned and orchestrated by design. This TRIBALLY engineered war resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent lives and the displacement of at least two million people….mainly innocent civilians, women and children currently living in miserable conditions either as internally displaced (IDPs), virtually prisoners in the UN camps or as refugees.
In August 2015, after almost 2 years of civil war and suffering of the people, the warring parties signed a deal, the ARCSS, brokered by IGAD. Unfortunately, the Government of South Sudan deliberately orchestrated violations of the peace agreements which led to fighting in Juba in July 2016, total collapse of the Agreement and resumption of war in the country.

2. I am dissatisfied and have lost patience with the conduct of the President and Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C), the Chief of General Staff and other senior officers in the HQS of the SPLA as well as Unit Commanders. The President and these SPLA officers have systematically frustrated the implementations of the peace agreements and pursued the agenda of the JIENG COUNCIL OF ELDERS of ethnic cleansing, forceful displacement of people from their ancestral lands and ethnic domination.
I can no longer continue to be part of the ongoing destruction of our beloved country by the same army.

3. The SPLA is supposed to be transformed and professionalized into a national, non-partisan army as stipulated, however, President Kiir and his Dinka leadership clique have tactically and systematically transformed the SPLA into a partisan and tribal army. It’s a militia loyal only to its tribal leadership of Pres. Salva Kiir and Chief of General Staff, Paul Malong Awan. The SPLA has lost respect of the South Sudanese people and even the International community. Worst of all, it has shattered the dreams, hopes and aspirations of the people, and it has taken the lead or participated in the systemic killing of the people, rape of women and burning of villages.

4. Pres. Kiir and Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), which is the real Cabinet of the Government, failed to recognize the sacrifices and struggle of other nationalities and they even go to the extent of denying the contributions of other nationalities during the liberation struggle. The President and his tribal JCE have concentrated on entrenching Dinka ethnic domination, turning other organized forces and the SPLA into brutal tribal forces, terrorizing and intimidating their opponents.

5. To implement the above policies, the President and his clique systematically recruited Dinka in all security sectors and units, paying particular attention to promoting and appointing Dinkas from sections hailing specifically from Bahr el Ghazel region, the home area of the president and Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Paul Malong Awan. Most of these recruits are promoted to officer ranks and made commanders of most SPLA units. The same for the Police, Prisons, Fire Brigade, Military and National Intelligence, CID and Customs, all commanded by Dinkas. By design, other nationalist revolutionaries who fought the liberation war have been humiliated, demoralized and effectively demobilized from the service.

6. Mathiang Anyor and Dut ko-beng tribal militias who have taken over the SPLA have become an occupation force in some parts of the country, consciously in pursuit of a policy of ethnic targeting and a campaign of systematic rape, killing, mistreating, humiliating and torturing civilians. All these done in a culture of impunity. Mathiang Anyor have deliberately applied a policy of scorched earth by burning whole villages and grabbing land, especially in Equatoria, Chollo land in Upper Nile and the Western Bahr el Ghazel. For instance, during December 2013 and July 2016 violence, these tribal forces, including President Kiir’s own Tiger Division, brazenly went on the rampage killing, rape, torture and looting systematically in an unprecedented manner.

7. The continuous insecurity happening right now across the country is caused by the SPLA militia and other ethnically organized forces and security organs. They are the ones killing people in the capital, Juba, and other towns in the name of ‘Unknown Gunmen.’ In fact, these are ‘known gunmen.’ This is why many South Sudanese are fleeing to become internally displaced or refugees. The President and the Dinka political leadership only came out and condemned these kinds of atrocities when Juba-Yei road incident took place in October because the victims were from the Dinka ethnic group.

8. The SPLA militias and other security organs are looting government assets and hijacking government vehicles and taking those stolen properties to their states to use or sell, there is no remedy for the aggrieved.

9. Innocent civilians, especially Non-Dinkas, are being arbitrary arrested, detained and killed by the security organs all over the country. Those detained are subjected to torture and humiliation in what is called ‘Safe Houses.” In Jebel Luri, where the President’s special residence is built, and in Gorum military area controlled by Tiger Division of Kiir and the Mathiang Anyor militia, many innocent detainees are dying in these “prisons” falsely accused of either expressing opposing views or supporting rebels.

10. Until this time that I am submitting my resignation, many years have elapsed without holding official meeting of Command of the Army, especially after General Paul Malong took over command of the SPLA. There is total collapse of the chain of command; the Commander in Chief (C-in-C) and the Chief of Staff mostly meet in their own residencies with close and trusted officers who are their tribesmen (tribal commanders).
These officers are labelled as “Loyal Officers.”
*** Strangely, included in these meetings are some members of the Jieng Council of Elders, (perhaps as ‘non-uniformed officers’- essentially tribesmen directing or advising the army).
*** All the powers in the army are confined to the Chief of General Staff who uses them to build and consolidate the military strength of “SPLA militia” for implementing the “Dinka Agenda” of subjugating, humiliating or destroying any of the other tribes who dare to stand in their way.
*** The small number of SPLA soldiers are deliberately neglected, without deployment, unarmed, even during emergencies.

11. Since 2005, after CPA was signed, most SPLA from non-Dinka (mainly from Equatoria Region) are deliberately deployed out of Equatoria to Bahr el Ghazel and Upper Nile regions.
*** As a policy, they have been kept out of Equatoria since the signing of the CPA in 2005, and even denied leave or permission to visit their families.
*** Those who have been in the Eastern Sudan from during the liberation war and were subsequently deployed to Upper Nile, Abyei and Bahr el Ghazel areas after the war, are still in those places up to this moment.
*** They have lost contact with their families, children and parents. Many have lost their lives in those wars after the CPA, during the wars with Sudan, Gen. George Athor’s rebellion, the Cobra wars of David Yau yau and the 2013 by the split within SPLM and the fight over power.
*** Upto this moment, these dear sons of our nation who offered their lives for the liberation and freedom of our people are being treated in an inhuman way just for the sake of massaging the egos of a small clique of people pursuing a futile agenda of tribal hegemony.
*** On the other hand, SPLA soldiers from the Dinka ethnic group have been strategically deployed and posted in non-Dinka areas to support the policy of land occupation and enforcing the agenda of forceful DINKANIZATION and domination of the country.

12. This discrimination and crimes against humanity are committed not only on non-Dinkas alone but also visited on the Dinkas who are opposed to the policy of discrimination on ethnic bases and destruction of the country. Such Dinkas are regarded as enemies as well.
*** The policy of ethnic domination and subjugation being pursued openly by the President and his close associates has made Dinkas to be painted with the same brush by the other communities/nationalities, without making distinction between the good Dinkas and the bad ones.
*** As a result, the Dinka community has come to be hated by their own brothers and sisters from other communities. Pursuit of this wrong-headed policy has also destroyed the fabric of South Sudan society.

13. All this time we have been talking to and persuading the C-in-C and members of the Army Command hailing from the Dinka ethnic group, especially those who are known to be members of Dinka ruling clique, to refrain from this tribally oriented policy that cannot promote nationalism and unity, and which can only destroy the country to no avail.
*** All these efforts went in vain as they have fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, it has become important at this crucial moment of our history not to continue working under the leadership of President Salva Kiir that is intentionally subjecting the people of South Sudan to unprecedented and unacceptable cycles of violence and human suffering.
*** This type of inhuman treatment and the human agony it entails has never happened before, even during the time when Khartoum was ruling South Sudan.


Given the above reasons that are by no means exhaustive, I hereby resign from the position of Deputy Chief of General Staff for Logistics, and from the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

Lt. Gen. Thomas Cirillo Swaka,
Deputy Chief of General Staff for Logistics, SPLA.

cc: Minister of Defense
cc: Minister of National Security
cc: SPLA Chief of General Staff
cc: Deputies of Chief of General Staff
cc: SPLA Inspector General
cc: Director of National Security
cc: Directors in the G/HQS
cc: Sectors/Division Commanders
cc: Specialized Units Commanders
cc: Gallant Women and Men of the Historical SPLA
cc: The Public


BREAKING NEWS: More than 52,000 South Sudan nationals enter Uganda in one month- UN


More than 52,000 South Sudanese fled to Uganda in January alone as continued fighting risks creating a situation of mass atrocities, the UN’s special adviser on genocide prevention said Tuesday.

The displaced, primarily from towns south of the capital Juba in Central Equatoria state, have given accounts of the killing of civilians, homes destroyed and sexual violence, said Adama Dieng.

“President Salva Kiir has made a commitment to end the violence and bring about peace, yet we still see ongoing clashes, and the risk that mass atrocities will be committed remains ever-present,” said the special adviser in a statement.

Dieng said he was particularly alarmed at the situation in Kajo-Keji where fleeing civilians have said they fear mass violence.
After several delays, a team from the UN peacekeeping mission arrived in Kajo-Keji on Sunday to report on the situation.

After gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan descended into war in December 2013, leaving tens of thousands dead and more than three million people displaced.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the rate of new arrivals into Uganda has increased, with a total of 24,277 South Sudanese refugees being received in Uganda between January 25 and January 31.

The influx peaked for the week on January 28, when more than 4,500 refugees were received. The average daily rate of new arrivals for the week was 3,468.

And as Uganda hit the one million refugee mark, UN Resident Coordinator and Resident Representative for the United Nations Development Programme, Rosa Malango, applauded communities for offering land to refugees to settle.

She said: “It is now critical to look at the quality of life of refugees and standards of living in the communities.”

There is growing alarm over the humanitarian crisis in the country where more than six million people — half of South Sudan’s population — are in need of urgent aid. Humanitarian organizations expect this number to rise by 20 to 30 percent in 2017.

South Sudan President Kiir to seek another term in office!


President Kiir challenged his opponents, including rebel leader Riek Machar, to prepare for the elections and called upon armed groups to stop the war and return home to participate in the democratic exercises.

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir has announced that he will seek a new term in next year’s election.

The president made the announcement in Yei River State on Tuesday, as he disclosed that South Sudanese would go to the poll after the end of the current interim period.

The poll, said the president, would determine the future of the troubled nation as the people would make a free choice.

President Kiir challenged his opponents, including rebel leader Riek Machar, to prepare for the elections and called upon armed groups to stop the war and return home to participate in the democratic exercises.

“We must stop war now and prepare for 2018 elections in time,” President Kiir told the chanting crowd.

President Kiir has had a tumultuous reign stretching over 10 years, after rising to the helm in 2005 following the death of Dr John Garang.

He became an elected president in July 2011 after South Sudanese voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence from Sudan.

A major fallout between him and his deputy, Dr Machar, first occurred in 2013 sparking a war that mostly took the character of an ethnic Dinka versus Nuer conflict.

President Kiir is a Dinka while Dr Machar belongs to the Nuer community.

The president had accused Dr Machar and his 10 affiliates of attempting a coup d’état.

Dr Machar denied the allegations and fled, calling for President Kiir to resign.

Months of negotiations under the regional Igad bloc, saw the two protagonists sign a peace agreement in late August 2015.

The deal saw Dr Machar resume his number two position, only for the two to fallout again in July 2016, opening another round of conflict.

Use of force & governance: Is the use of force necessary for good governance in South Sudan?

By: David Deng Chapath, Kampala, Uganda, FEB/08/2017, SSN;

The readers of this article may find it odd for combining force and governance as the co-existence of the two is not always seen clearly in a democratic society. According to the Constitution of South Sudan, South Sudan is a democratic country that must respect human rights and democratic principles.

When we talk of human rights as seen in the above paragraph, we are simply talking of the respect of personal liberties and freedoms, and that is the reason why the use of force is not frequently observed in democratic country.

However, where the country is in chaos as we see in the case of South Sudan, then there is a need for the use of force to reform the people in order to maintain law and order, which means that the use of force is necessary in South Sudan.

It is due to the above arguments that we can give the meaning to the recent statement of the president of South Sudan in which he declares that force must be used against those who rape women and girls.

In the recent press report that was shown live on the television, President Kiir while he was in Yei called for execution of Soldiers who rape civilians as a human rights abuses in South Sudan. The statement has earned him praise and criticism from different circles.

Therefore, in this article I intend to take the statement of the president on the execution of rapists as the entry point to tell the public that the use force and governance are related and necessary in South Sudan if South Sudan is to achieve law and order and the rule of law.

In doing that I will first define force, then the governance, the importance of force in the process of governance and then I will conclude by recommending to the president on how he can use force without being held accountable by the international community.

As pointed out in the above paragraph, I now begin by defining what is meant by the term “force”. It should be observed onset that there is no clear definition of force as used by the government.

In simple language, it’s any action that changes the direction of objects to the desired direction. In relation to our case, force in governance is a process of establishing a new state or government through the use of force, which is also sometimes referred to as conquest theory.

In general, force occurs when a person or a group of people take control of an area, such as a state, and make everyone in that area or state follow their rules and beliefs. For example, if the leader is to be successful, then he or she must come up with a policy and rules and then make everyone in the country abandon their old ways and adopt new rules and if they insist on old ways, then force must be used to ensure that they obey the new rules.

When the rules as discussed in the above paragraph are obeyed and applied consistently and without discrimination, then we talk of the rule of law. By the rule of law, I mean the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

It is important to note that lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it as seen in the case of South Sudan.

Importantly, the nature of law does not determine the rule of law but what determines it is the political will coupled with the observance of the laws of state. Hence, a law may be bad but if there is a political will to do what the law requires as guided by human rights then there will be no arbitrariness and people will even respect the law because of its certainty.

When there is a certainty of the law, the rule of law will prevail. Where there is a rule of law then democracy and human rights are respected. The respect of the two means that there good governance.

Good governance cannot be achieved unless there is an effective government, which is a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a given geopolitical system by establishing laws. Binding decisions are made when the government has enough power to implement the decision strictly. This can only be established when there is force.

In relation to the above, good governance is achieved through the legitimate use of force. Hence, good governance refers to the way the rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated in order to ensure accountability in the government.

In order to achieve rule of law and good governance that will result into the respect of human rights and democracy, there must be the use of force. For instance, state of emergency is declared in order to legitimize the use of force by the government.

As seen above, the importance of force is that without force there will be no rule of law and law and order. This is because the government is not able to control the citizens. In a country like South Sudan, there is a need for the use of force to maintain law and order.

The presence of law and order indicates the presence of the law of rule and good Governance. Good governance is ultimately concerned with creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action. In that respect, it must be observed that the outputs of governance are not therefore different from those of government but it is rather a matter of a difference in processes.

In fact, the political theorists define the government in term of force as the formal institutions of the state and their monopoly of legitimate coercive power. In this respect, coercive power is in other word a legitimate use of force. Therefore, the government like that of South Sudan is supposed to have the ability to make binding decisions and capacity to enforce them if its decisions are accompanied by force in case of the failure by those affected to implement such decisions.

However, the problems of South Sudan have been caused by the failure of the Government to use force, and instead, the president always resorts into pleading with citizens and politicians no matter how clearly they are wrong. Hence, people grow horns and put themselves above the law and consequently cause chaos as they wish.

What the government of South Sudan should understand from today onward is that to be a good government the leaders should not be good or soft but they must be ready to use force where necessary to instill fear in trouble makers and then with time introduce the rule of law and democracy when some reforms have taken place.

It is upon the above fact, the government is understood to refer to the formal and institutional processes which operate at the level of the nation state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action.

Nonetheless and as I have already pointed out above, the absence of law and order in most part of South Sudan is due to the fact that the president is not willing to use force against the citizens which corrupt the system thus taking advantage of his good heart.

When I talk of corrupting the system I mean any bad works perpetuated by some citizens that affect majority of South Sudanese negatively.

In reality, a country like South Sudan will never develop without the rule of law and to ensure the rule of the law, there must be force. Hence, force is necessary in South Sudan to control people and to reform them. The fact is that in the country where there is no rule of law, it is stronger group that rules the minority and with time the other stronger group rules the weaker and the cycle goes on and on indefinitely.

In summary, in South Sudan, the President is not respected because they see him not a threat since he does not use force. The overall consequences of the failure to use force by the president are the anarchy, corruption, power struggle, land grabbing and disappearance of judicial system and finally the demise of the rule of law and democracy.

It was good that president realized recently that there is a need for the use force to stabilize the country. A country where everybody is above or equal to the government does not develop or progress as people will not obey the orders. In that regard, there is a need for military rule in South Sudan to ensure that reform and transformation of the citizens are achieved.

However, my advice to the president is that he should look for proper legal advisers to advise him on what to say in the public that affects international law or human rights law. This is because many human rights organizations are out there to do business with what the leaders say in regard to human rights and use of force. Hence, they are likely to take the words out of context although the president well intends it.

NB//: the author is South Sudanese Students staying in Uganda and can be reached through:

The OXFAM should be guided by principles & goals, not become a branch of South Sudan Govt.

BY: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda, FEB/06/2017, SSN;

The Organization called the Oxfam is a confederation of 19 affiliate groups of companies working in over ninety countries, all working as one Oxfam on six goals that support their shared vision of a just world without poverty.

The principle is that whether the Oxfam is running life-saving emergency responses, life-changing development projects or campaigning at the grassroots to tackle poverty, it’s work is always rooted in a vision of a world where women and men are valued and treated equally, able to influence the decisions that affect their lives and meet their responsibilities as full citizens.

In achieving the above-mentioned vision, Oxfam operates on six goals that put local communities and the voices of poor people at the centre of change. The purpose of these goals is to enable the Oxfam to end the injustice of poverty in the long run. (For more information visit: › what we do › about us › How we work).

In sticking to those goals, Oxfam operates on the following principles as provided for under its constitution—

1- Humanitarian Principles:
In all their work, the Oxfam members aspire to uphold the humanitarian principles of humanity (responding to need), independence and impartiality. They comply with these principles when they give assistance to civilian populations. This is because the Oxfam and its affiliates are signatories and accountable to the Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct and the Sphere standards of humanitarian response.

2- Accountability and Learning:
The Oxfam and its members have internal control systems and professionally qualified staff to ensure that they are effectively using the funds of Oxfam. They aspire to be a learning organization, with real time evaluations, program reviews, a published accountability report, and complaints and whistle blowing policies. Through these procedures, the Oxfam and its members seek to hold themselves accountable to their supporters, partners, beneficiaries and the general public. The Oxfam and its members welcome all opportunities to discuss with any person their performance, and how they can improve. Oxfam is part of an on-going worldwide effort of nearly 70 international NGOs to assess their performance according to the views of the local partners that these NGOs help to fund and with whom they work.

3- Staff code of conduct:
Oxfam seeks to ensure that its entire staff is aware of its values and principles, and abide by them. Hence, the Oxfam has a staff Code of Conduct that forms part of its contract of employment. This Code establishes the behaviors that they expect staff to display in their work, and in their private life where this may affect Oxfam’s reputation. A staff member in breach of our Code may be disciplined.

4- Sharing Platforms:
Oxfam will not knowingly provide a platform to people or groups that engage in activities that are contrary to Oxfam’s values or principles. However, Oxfam may decide to share a platform with those who do express views contrary to its own, where the Oxfam believes it needs challenging and where sharing a platform is an appropriate and effective way of doing that. For that reason their decisions to provide platform is assessed on a case by case basis.

4-Political activities and campaigning:
The Oxfam allocates some of its resources to understanding the root causes of poverty. It does so to persuade governments, inter-governmental agencies, private sector bodies and citizens to change the policies and practices that are detrimental to its beneficiaries’ interests, and to encourage those that will improve their lives. The Oxfam undertakes its work in an objective manner, based on evidence and analysis. Some of the issues are controversial but the Oxfam will always seek to engage with its critics in a rational and open way, deploying argument and reason. This is because the Oxfam is a non-partisan organization and does not support any political party.

As seen in the foregoing discussion of the goals and principles on which the Oxfam operates, it may be realized that the intention of the Oxfam is good and it is an organization established to help vulnerable people over out of poverty.

However, the recent report I received from one of the States in South Sudan indicates that the Oxfam is not operating independently but being directed by the government officials on who and how to recruit the employees and how to give services. This is contrary to the Oxfam’s principles of humanitarian and human rights.

Sadly enough as seen in the above paragraph, the Oxfam, instead of protecting the right to equality, human dignity and values as provided for in its constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, it is now working according to the will of the government officials such as the commissioner and other county authorities in that particular State.

One of the disturbing issues I understood in that report was that the Oxfam staff accepted the demand of the county commissioner and other authorities to employ his wife and other people who did not apply for a job and sit for the interview or those who applied but failed the interview.

Unfortunately, and because of that, some of the applicants that applied for that job, interviewed and passed the interview were dropped in favour of the commissioner and county authorities. This created a lot of tension and hatred towards the government of that county.

Thus, I have found it necessary to remind not only the Oxfam and its members but also any other humanitarian organizations operating in South Sudan to stick to their principles but not to be influenced by the government officials to discriminate against South Sudanese in those states.

Of course, it is the duty the State governments to direct an organization like the Oxfam to employ the citizens of the State in which it is operating, however, it should not compromise its principles on fairness and equality through accepting the demand of the authorities to employ citizens they recommend to them because the authorities are not honest enough to give those who are qualified.

However, the State authorities act based on the political interests or motivation and are likely to recommend those who blindly obey them though not qualified. The Oxfam, therefore, should remember that in South Sudan all people are poor including the authorities and because of that they always work towards favoring their relatives leaving out the vast majority of citizens without anything.

Hence, it is the duty of the Oxfam and other Organizations to work in accordance with their principles and goals to ensure that the citizens of the State in which they are operating are treated and have access to services equally.

This means that the Oxfam and other humanitarian organizations should work on merit but not on political considerations.

Flowing from the above statement, it is logical to state that if the state authorities threaten the Oxfam or any other organizations to leave the states unless they have accepted their demands for who to employ or how they should deliver their services to citizens, then the best option is to leave those states instead of compromising their values and principles and creating division among the citizens of those states.

In other words, as long as they are operating within the laws of South Sudan, then, they should not accept any direction from the authorities on how to give services to South Sudanese because there is a risk of them becoming another branch of the government and because of that they may fail to follow their values and principles.

In summary, the Oxfam and any other organizations operating in South Sudan should try by all means to avoid becoming another branch of the government. They must be guided by human rights and humanitarian principles in delivering their services.

NB//: The author is human rights lawyer residing in Uganda and can be reached through:; or +256783579256

Who’s actually being ruled in South Sudan?

BY: Kuir ë Garang, Author and Critic, FEB/06/2917, SSN;

There are many South Sudanese who talk of ‘public opinion’ or ‘popular view’; but how do you gauge that such a view is actually an unsolicited opinion which people hold without fear of retribution?

In a nation where holding a contrary opinion is considered a national security threat, it’s dishonest to say that there’s such a thing as a public opinion because the available ‘public opinion’ is conditioned into existence by the vicious political class.

Those who oppose some of the government’s ridiculous, aimless decrees and actions on civilians, have either been silenced, killed or threatened quotidian.

This leads me to this unsavory question: In whose interest the government of South Sudan governs?

Admittedly, the government isn’t governing in the interest of the people and we still wonder why there’s so much inter-tribal hatred and rampant rebellion. When will SPLM and the government actually listen to the people? Apparently, never!

In June and August of 2012, the SPLM and government of South Sudan carried out a study (survey) to gauge ‘public opinion’. It was no surprise that, while the people were somehow hopeful about the future, they were categorically dissatisfied with how SPLM was running the country.

This should have been a wake-up call for the SPLM leadership to start listening to the people.

SPLM ignored this honest and valuable ‘voice of the people.’ The 2011-2013 South Sudan Development Plan was also a good development document that could have addressed all the grassroots grievances. Again, it was ignored!

There’s nowhere in the world where people can rise up against a government, which listens to the people and addresses their concern.
Are Nuer, who support SPLM-IO, fighting the government because they love to fight? Are folks in Equatoria fighting the government because they love to kill people? Are Shilluk fighting the government because they love to kill president Kiir’s tribesmen?

The answer is obviously NO!

These people are fighting because of the failure of the government to address their grievances. SPLM, coming from a militarized governance mentality, feels that force is the appropriate manner in which such grievances should be addressed.

Another flawless method is to appease some people by offering jobs without actually addressing the underlying causes of the problem.
Molding opinion by coercion or appeasement is dangerous in the long run.

Rebellion, insecurity and inter-tribal feuds will continue in South Sudan unless the government actually talks to the people and addresses their grievances in an honest and comprehensive manner.

For instance, a fact-finding mission to the Fertit would find out their grievances and then the government can work closely with them to come up with a method to address their grievances for the long-term. Offering their leaders jobs without actually making sure that the people are ‘happy’ with the fashioned solution is a myopic leadership fancy.

Conditioning people to sing government praises in Juba doesn’t get rid of the actual sentiment people hold. You can militarily force people to surrender but you can’t militarily force them to like, with emotive honesty, a government that’s oppressing them.

If there are things that make it hard for the government to perform some duties, then it needs to be honest with the people so that people don’t assume things.

Juba is not the only South Sudan and the residents of Juba are not the only population of South Sudan. The zombified (knowingly or unknowingly) people of Juba can’t be used to gauge the actual ‘public opinion’.

South Sudanese have fled to Sudan, Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda; and some are living in displaced camps inside South Sudan. Yet, some of us have the audacity to say that there’s an overwhelming, positive public opinion of the government!

GET UP! WALK THE COUNTRYSIDE AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE! Without that, we’ll be in a perpetual state of war, insecurity and inter-tribal bloodbath! LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! This is our only way out!

Kuir ë Garang is the author of ‘South Sudan Ideologically.’ For contact, visit