Archive for: June 2017

Ministers Lomoro & Makuei decry corruption and lack of confidence in Kiir’s leadership: REALLY???

From different sources, JUN/23/2017, SSN;

Two senior South Sudanese ministers and longest serving favorites who have been the staunchest supporters of the president in the government surprisingly have decried high levels of corruption, poor governance and loss of public trust in President Salva Kiir’s administration.

Really!! Is there any shred of credibility in the talk? As some of the greatest beneficiaries of the corruption, the two duplicitous and most vociferous spokesmen of the government have persistently criticized any opposition against Kiir’s leadership.

Reportedly, these two loud-mouthed government supporters have allegedly financially benefited tremendously from president Kiir favoritism.

Elia Lomoro, the Cabinet Affairs minister and a close ally of the president, said the government and its institutions lacked accountability, transparency and rule of law.

“I know all sorts of malpractices in the government have contributed negatively to the perception of the citizens,” Mr Lomoro said during the National Consultative Symposium on Good Governance and Democracy held in Juba on Thursday.

“The final step in bad governance is corruption.”

He said the country was heading in the wrong direction and its political leaders, including himself, are not doing enough to deal with the troubles.

“Addressing these issues now require political will to adopt and embrace practices aimed at encouraging democratic governance,” he added.

Echoing similar remarks, Information minister Michael Makuei Lueth pointed the finger at “some officials” who, he said, were disregarding the principles of transparency and accountability.

Without naming the officials, Mr Makuei accused them of looting state resources and compromising the government’s chance of winning in the 2018 General Election.

“The trust, the confidence is lost. We lost it simply because some of us did not care about all these principles,” Mr Makuei said, adding that “as a result the people lost trust in their government simply because of the conduct of the few.”

“If we don’t go down to address them then South Sudan will not be at peace,” he said.

War-torn South Sudan has been mired by civil conflict since 2013 that has seen thousands die and millions forced to flee to neighbouring countries. According to UN, about half of the population also faces extreme food insecurity.

South Sudan is also ranked as the most corrupt country in the world by Transparency International.

It is the first time that serving ministers expressed unfavourable remarks about the government. Others who have done so quit office.

Will Lomoro and Macuei now quit the so-called ‘corrupt’ Kiir government???

UN: Splintering of South Sudan war makes peace more elusive: LATEST


South Sudan’s civil war has mutated from a two-way fight between the president Salva Kiir and his ousted former deputy Vice President Riek Machar to a fragmented conflict, making it harder to put it back together and peace more elusive, the top U.N. peacekeeper in the country said.

David Shearer, head of the 13,000-strong United Nations mission, welcomed signs that regional leaders were reviving the peace process. Adding that any initiative must include all factions, including that of former Vice President Riek Machar, and discourage the multiplication of armed groups.

In Summary
David Shearer, the head of United Nations mission says while regional leaders were reluctant to return to the “old formula” of insisting on a potentially explosive face-to-face between Kiir and Machar, there was recognition that Machar’s camp needed to be represented in talks and he could too, further down the line.

South Sudan slipped into civil war in 2013, in a conflict ignited by a feud between President Salva Kiir and Machar, resulting in around one third of the population –fleeing to neighbouring countries for safety.

However, an escalation of fighting since last July that forced Machar to flee the country a month later has seen clashes spread to previously unaffected areas.

“The situation now is somewhat different to what it was a year ago, when it was largely bipolar,” Shearer told Reuters in an interview late on Monday.

“We are seeing a lot more of the conflict being played out at a very local level and that is worrying because as it fractures it becomes more difficult to try to put the pieces back together again.”

The spike in fighting resulted in South Sudan having the fastest growing refugee population in the world as civilians poured into Uganda. Tens of thousands of civilians have fled to camps within South Sudan that are ringed by U.N. troops.

Peacekeepers have frequently been criticised for failing to do enough to protect civilians but the U.N. leadership says troops are obstructed and restricted by the army.

Places at the table

Analysts and diplomats say regional peace efforts have stumbled for much of the last year as neighbouring Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya adopted a more bilateral approach to the conflict.

But Shearer was optimistic that a recent meeting of regional leaders in Ethiopia would result in a more collective approach to the crisis.

“There was a sense that they want to rejuvenate the peace agreement and start moving that forward. That collective effort hasn’t been apparent for the last year,” he said.

Machar remains in exile in South Africa, excluded from the process.

Shearer said while regional leaders were reluctant to return to the “old formula” of insisting on a potentially explosive face-to-face between Kiir and Machar, there was recognition that Machar’s camp needed to be represented in talks and he could too, further down the line.

“What we don’t want to do is to encourage a greater degree of conflict or arming of groups in order to be relevant and have a place at the table,” he warned. END

Judiciary of South Sudan: A Paralyzed and Dysfunctional Third of Arm of Government

By Tong Kot Kuocnin, LLB (Juba), LLM (Nairobi), Specialist in Law, Governance & Democracy, JUN/20/2017, SSN;

In most of my preceding articles on the state of the Judiciary of South Sudan, on how best this great institution can function effectively, efficiently and independently from the other arms of the government, I have had a number of cocktail ideas inadvertently swarming in my mind on how best I can contribute as a law abiding citizen of this country on the quest for an equal, just and prosperous society guided by the principles of natural justice, equality and liberty.

I have had in a number of times shared my thoughts and ideas on how the judiciary of South Sudan should indeed be made to meet its standard and its rightful place as an institution charged with sole responsibility to deliver and administer justice to the populace.

I have had all the time sleepless nights and days as I felt like not contributing in the quest for justice and judicial reforms much needed by our great institution as well as the people of South Sudan.

I also felt obliged not to accept, as a member of legal fraternity, the shame that befalls on us as this institution is only led, manage and administered by only and only lawyers who are deemed and presumed to be the best among the community of lawyers, people with high moral conscience and integrity, highly trained in the field of law to do nothing but administer justice to the people.

As I am left with no more words to explain and describe the state of the judiciary of South Sudan given my numerous articles and writings about the state of our judiciary, the conditions the judges and justices who are servants tasked to deliver justice impartially and without any favour to any of the adversaries faces, I shall in this article labour again to bring to the attention of not only the people of South Sudan but to the entire world of the pathetic state our judiciary has been plunged into.

As we may all recall, the Republic of South Sudan gained independence from the Sudan on the 9th of July 2011 following an overwhelming referendum vote on self-determination by the people of Southern Sudan. However, Article 123(2) of the Transitional Constitution established the Judiciary, independent of the Executive and Legislature and with a budget charged on the consolidated fund thus guaranteeing both political and financial independence from the other arms of the government.

Hitherto, the unusual process of becoming independent from both pre-existing and existing political and legal entity thus far created unresolved problems for our judiciary.

The Judiciary of South Sudan indeed inherited part of the Judiciary of the Republic of the Sudan upon which it broke cords, a judiciary that was highly weak, corrupt and was based on the principles of Sharia’a law with Arabic as an official language.

Judicial power according to Article 123(1) of the Transitional Constitution is derived from the will of the people of South Sudan and shall be exercise by courts in accordance with customs, values, norms and aspirations and in conformity with the constitution and the law but not the President of the Republic.

Thus, this literally translates that legally and practically, the strength of the Judiciary lies not in the Head of the State but in the people’s confidence that the institution can indeed administer and deliver justice fairly and impartially to the people of South Sudan.

Unfortunately, the judiciary is said to be one of the most corrupt institutions in the country in which corruption both administratively and financially has taken toll within the judiciary thus leaving the institution in these pathetic conditions.

There is such an outspoken outcry by all judges and justices that there is untold corruption, nepotism and influence by the Executive in the exercise and discharge of the Judiciary’s functions and duties.

This was put to test when the former SPLM Secretary General challenged the president’s orders to suspend him as a Secretary General and hence from the party as well.

The independence of the Judiciary was also put to test again when the Alliance of the Opposition parties challenged the Presidential Order creating Twenty-Eight (28) States which led to the unlawful removable and dismissal of Justice Ruben Madol as Deputy Chief Justice and Justice of the Supreme Court as well, a move which violates and contravenes the provisions of Article 135(2) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 and section 8(2) of the Judicial Service Council Act, 2008 respectively.

This is the state of the judiciary of South Sudan and it will continue to be under the incumbent Chief Justice whose protection and legitimacy rest on the shoulders of the Head of State even when has lost respect, veneration and legitimacy from the members of the Judiciary.

It has to be bore in mind that the decline in public confidence, the disdain from other arms of government, and the dissipation of internal confidence within the judiciary, are the enduring legacies of the Judiciary’s own historical injustices which are evidence of an institution that hungers for renewal and a complete restoration of its lost constitutional mission and mandate.

The overweening influences of the executive has created an enfeebled judiciary, an arm of government strikingly reluctant to play its classical role in the defence and upholding of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

This has created an institution plagued by both social and administrative corruption and inefficiency causing a veritable figure of scorn at odds with the public interest.

It has become an institution marred by crisis of confidence which was supposed to be enjoyed by both litigants and the public at large.

These pathologies, however, saw the institution develop toxic insularity and cold insensitivity and internalized privilege and entitlement rather than service to the nation and its people.

Hence, paralyzation and creeping dysfunctionality, unprofessionalism and corruption became the immediate result; as well as institutional ignominy, the resultant effect.

We have a duty to restore the Judiciary to its rightful constitutional place, and forge a new relationship with the public whose duty it exists to serve.

Therefore, the transformation of the Judiciary from a paralyzed and dysfunctional arm of the government must achieve at least three lost objectives:
—– first, it must reset the relationship between judiciary and other arms of government molded on the principle of separation of powers premised on the principle of robust independence and constructive interdependence, where the judiciary will reposition itself as a strong, effective and equal independent arm of government while engaging other agencies in the administration of justice within acceptable confines of the constitution as the grundnorm.

—– Second, the Judiciary must reorient its organizational culture to customize it with the exigencies of its social realities and its institutional design and leadership style needed to reflect known models of modern management science.

—– Third, and most important, it must emerge and operate as a service entity which serves the people. It must win back public confidence; express itself with such authority and integrity that the public will always respect its opinions and decisions even when they disagree with those opinions and decisions.

The Judiciary must recapture public imagination, not through its outdated aristocratic poise and rituals, but through the rigor of its jurisprudence.

It’s obvious that the Judiciary of South Sudan under its current leadership faces a number of challenges with respect to leadership and management.

The key ones include chronic under-capacity in leadership and management offices, lack of mentorship from the senior echelon, excessive centralization, and absence of consultancy, privatization and personalization of leadership spaces from the top leadership, clientelism, poor attitudes and ethics, discrimination and ethnicity and a weak culture of professionalism in the management of the courts.

Each leadership and management office such as the offices of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, Presidents of the Courts of Appeal, presidents of the High Court and resident Magistrates are supposed to have efficient professional and executive offices designed to support them to deliver their responsibilities.

The Judiciary was supposed to standardize offices in all court stations to eliminate the variations and asymmetries that presently exist.

In a nutshell however, the primary responsibility for the successful and sustainable transformation of the Judiciary rests with its leadership, management and staff at all levels and in all capacities.

A clear and robust organizational design, a dynamic leadership and management team; and a competent and motivated staff are conditions necessary for a successfully transformed Judiciary.

Rest assured that to have these reforms and transformation take place, the Judiciary needs a new face and not the incumbent under whose leadership the judiciary lost confidence in the public hence creating an enfeeble judiciary, one that has submitted to the Executive arm of government and relegated its independence, neutrality and impartiality.

The Judiciary must be restructured to have these reforms and complete transformation takes place to meet the demands of the public and continue to enjoy respect and command confidence of the people.

Under the incumbent Chief Justice, the Judiciary of South Sudan is an institution designed to fail, so frail in its structures, so low on confidence enjoys by litigants, so weak in its public support that is expected from it to deliver justice timely, and so deficient in its integrity.

This is the state of the judiciary of South Sudan under the incumbent Chief Justice. One month plus on, the Judiciary of South Sudan has collapsed before our eyes as the judges and justices went on an open strike due to the deplorable and pathetic conditions they have been undergoing since the independence of South Sudan from Sudan.

The collapse of the laws is the collapse of the state and the society; hence the collapse of the Judiciary of South Sudan is the collapse of South Sudanese society for this is the only institution which safeguards the conducts and omissions of other arms of government.

The exile of Dr Machar: Did Pres. Obama repudiate Roosevelt’s anti-colonial doctrine?

By: Samuel Atabi, South Sudan, JUN/20/2017, SSN;

It is now confirmed: Riek Machar has been exiled and is under detention in South Africa. In a recent teleconference with the members of the UN Security Council, Machar himself cleared any doubt whether or not he has been exiled and detained in that beacon of self-determination and black freedom, the Republic of South Africa.

Exiling one on account of being a political or military leader was a tool extensively employed by the white colonial invaders of the African continent.

Even the Germans, who had the briefest presence in colonial Africa, forced into exile a number of leaders among who was the Paramount Chief of Kapando from Togo who was exiled to Cameroon, in 1913; the Germans had fear that he would lead an uprising against them.

The main practitioners of exiling leaders were the French and the British. This is not to disregard the roles of the other minor colonial powers such as the Portuguese, Belgians, Spanish, Italians, and the racist Afrikaner of South Africa.

The French operated mainly in parts of West Africa and the Maghreb. In one memorable episode, the French deposed Behazin, the King of Dahomey Kingdom and deported him as far as Martinique in 1894. The rest of the continent was under the domination of the British.

African traditional leaders, Chiefs and Kings in eastern Africa region were routinely exiled away from their homeland and followers.

An example of the British highhandedness, which resembles the present Machar’s predicament, was the exiling of the Buganda King to the UK in the 1950s.

The Governor in-charge of the then Uganda Protectorate, one named Cohen, demanded that Kabaka (King) Freddie of Buganda integrate his kingdom into the soon-to-be-born independent nation of Uganda. Kabaka Freddie refused. For this pain, he was removed and deported to London for a ‘comfortable’ exile.

Generally, these colonial exile cases did not achieve their main objectives. Some of the aims were directed at ending of dynasties, silencing defiant leaders, facilitation of wholesale seizure of land and forcible settlement of white settlers. The natives always fought back, some with extreme violence.

After the independence, a number of Africa heads of governments have behaved just like the colonialists. The case of the Angolan rebel leader, Jonas Savimbi will help to illustrate this view.

The path to independence of Angola from its colonial master, started in the 1960s, and was bedeviled by a vicious civil war among the anti-Portuguese and liberation movements.

The main protagonists were Jonas Savimbi of UNITA versus Agostinho Neto and Edwardo dos Santos of the MPLA. Independence was handed to the MPLA in 1975 but UNITA continued with armed struggle against the new government.

There were several attempts at negotiated end to the war between the two rival movements but all of them failed.

In 1989, during one of the attempts, a group of African leaders (an equivalent of IGAD?), from Angola (an interested party), Congo, Gabon, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe, met in Harare to get a peace agreement.

In an action similar to that meted out to Riek Machar in 2016, these leaders unanimously decided to exile Savimbi, also to South Africa.

They also recommended the integration of UNITA forces into the MPLA and its institutions in a similar manner to that being advocated for the absorption of the SPLA (IO) into the Kiir’s faction of the army.

As might be expected, Savimbi violently refused to go into exile and resumed fighting. Years later, Savimbi was killed in 2002 under suspicious circumstances.

We shudder at what might be the fate of Riek Machar. God forbid!

The African leaders at Harare imitated their past colonial masters in prescribing ‘exile’ as a solution to a complex and desperate political and military situation that existed in Angola at that time.

The secretive decision of the IGAD and its supporters to exile and detain Riek Machar in South Africa was a desperate attempt to imitate the Harare outcome; prescribing a palliative to cure a chronic and almost terminal disease ailing South Sudan body politics.

Most observers were not surprised by the decision of the IGAD et al to lure Machar into exile. After all, some of the key IGAD members have their own sinister interest in the current war in South Sudan.

What has really pained and surprised many in South Sudan and internationally, is the apparent acquiescence of the Troika countries, USA, UK and Norway in this unjust and devious scheme.

We in South Sudan continue to agonize over what might have been the aim of countries like USA in propping up the dictatorial regime in Juba. We are not alone in this agony.

In its report of April 28, 2017, an American think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, asserts that American government’s warnings and threats to the genocidal regime in Juba have been tepid.

It goes on to say that South Sudan armed forces targeted for physical abuse and tried to kill senior US diplomats without consequences.

Lastly, it recommends that the US Congress should set up a Commission to study what went wrong with US engagement in South Sudan.

While we must await any outcome from such a Commission (if it will ever materialize), we are wondering whether the Obama administration, in giving a tacit encouragement to this antiquated colonial tool of exiling leaders, has in effect repudiated decades-long Roosevelt’s anti-colonial doctrine first enunciated at the end of World War II.

Like the Africans in colonial time, South Sudanese have characteristically reacted even more violently after the exiling of their leader; exposing the vacuity of the action.

The sooner Machar’s exile and detention are reversed the better for the future of South Sudan.

Samuel Atabi is a concerned South Sudanese and can be reached at

Wau Federal State-IO dismisses Kiir’s isolation of Dr. Machar

Statement by Government of Wau Federal State-IO

JUN/17/2017; The Government of Wau Federal State in Opposition would like to dismiss the attempted moves, by the Government of Salva Kiir Mayardit, to isolate the SPLM-IO Chairman, Dr Riek Machar Teny Dhorgan, and to deny the leadership of SPLM-IO to participate in the process of searching for lasting peace in the Republic of South Sudan.

We would rather welcome the position of IGAD head of the states, in their communiqué of the 31st Extra-Ordinary Summit on South Sudan, in which the IGAD head of the states illustrated on important of convening high level of Revitalization Forum of ARCSS including estranged groups to the agreement.

The government of Wau Federal State in Opposition and its citizen are united behind the leadership of SPLM-IO, under Command of Dr Riek Machar Teny Dhorgan

We, in Wau Federa State, are fully in support of SPLM-IO Chairman, Dr Riek Machar Teny, to represent us in any peace process with regime in Juba.

We would like to re-assure our position of no peace in the South Sudan without Dr Riek Machar Teny, the Chairman and Commander in Chief of SPLM/A-IO.

Hon. Dominic Ukelo

Governor of Wau Federal State in Opposition

Money the root of all Evil: Assessing its veracity in the context of South Sudan

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda, JUN/09/2017, SSN;

It has been a while since I thought about this topic concerning the role of money in crisis of South Sudan. When Comprehensive Peace Agreement (the CPA) between the Sudanese People Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and National Islamic Front (NIF) regime, Southern Sudan was created, which was administered as an autonomous region from Northern Sudan.

The autonomy of Southern Sudan was to last for six years (2005-2011), which should be followed by referendum, in which all South Sudanese or sixty four tribes currently in South Sudan have to decide whether to become independent nation called South Sudan or continue to be part of larger Sudan.

Indeed, after six years South Sudanese decided to vote for separation. Consequently, they voted for independent South Sudan and in July 2011 the current Official Flag of South Sudan was raised and the Flag of Sudan that many of us associated with all predicaments that were facing South Sudanese under Khartoum was lowered. As the Official Flag was being raised, the crowd was wild with joy while braving simmering sun of Juba.

However, one thing was clear. One thing that was clear was money. Money, which is defined as any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context, or is easily converted to such a form, was becoming a great major player in the governance of South Sudan.

Nonetheless, though the Money was becoming so important to the extent that development of South Sudan was going to depend on its availability, another side of the money is that it is so corrupting that even the simple act of thinking about it can lead people to act in unethical ways (, this article assesses the veracity of the statement that money is the root cause of all evils in South Sudan.

But before we assess the evils caused by money in South Sudan, it is important to list all general evils that are associated with money worldwide, which are:

Money causes dishonesty just to earn more money; in addition money causes corruption as a person or authority operates under the conflict of interest; money leads to the abuse of political power; bribery; moreover, use of money has given rise to greed and exploitation of poor which has resulted into greater inequalities of incomes and wealth.

The economic exploitation caused by greed of money triggers social upheavals in different countries as was seen in the case of Arab spring in 2011; money helps in extending the scale of production, which after certain limits may result in a situation where production far exceeds the demand. This leads to fall in level of prices, unemployment, decline in incomes and thereby misery for the masses.

Money has encouraged many kinds of anti-social activities like gambling, fraud, robbery. It makes people greedy and acquisitive. It encourages tendencies of exploiting others. However, it cannot be denied that most of the evils listed above arise because of improper use of money.

Money has caused political corruption due to politics of money. The Government officials use powers for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.

Forms of corruption money encourages includes bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Money causes corruption which in turn facilitates criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, though is not restricted to these activities but to any unjust misuse of power against citizens or to the disadvantage of the citizens..

In addition, misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political corruption caused by greed of money. This is because greed for money hates freedom of speech and expression. It is been reported that in worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually. A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning “rule by thieves”. Protect ion of political corruption has led to institutional corruption, which are distinguished from bribery and other kinds of obvious personal gain.
As Panama Papers leaks revealed, government officials secretly owned companies, many of which are based in the UK’s tax havens. Panama Papers were documents, which belonged to the Panamanian law firm and corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca, that were leaked in 2015 by an anonymous source, some dating back to the 1970s. The Panama Papers are 11.5 million leaked documents that detail financial and attorney–client information for more than 214,488 offshore entities. This law firm supported dictators, money launderers and tax evaders all over the world to escape taxes and also steal money from theirs nations.
The above are general evils associated with money and therefore it is true to say that money is the root of all evils. The same evils are seen in South Sudan as shall be discussed in the following examples—
There has been faking of qualifications in South Sudan since education is equated with money. Hence, the higher one is educated the bigger the salary or money one may earn. In order to get good post in the employment one must be educated so forging of academic qualifications become handy business in South Sudan. As a result, education has lost its values and importance in South Sudan because it is seen as a means to the end. This is because according to those forged documents the end of education is not knowledge but money.
To prove the above point, in 2016 Busoga University was closed after awarding 1,000 South Sudanese fake degrees in 60 days. In addition, there are also many forged academic documents in various offices in South Sudan because people see education in term of money not knowledge.
Moreover, we have seen in South Sudan rampant misuse of diplomatic passport because of money. It is not uncommon to get ordinary citizens holding diplomatic passport simply because it protects them from paying migration fee or ticket fee of fifty dollars or so. This is just to defraud the country with resources or money. This is because the burden always comes back to the country since it is the one to pay the money to foreign countries in term of diplomatic fee that was not charged against South Sudanese nationals holding diplomatic passports.
The government should collect all Diplomat passports from citizens who do not have any international work related to the business of South Sudan and at the same time they must be tasked to pay all whatever money they would have paid in all the travels they have undertaken. Otherwise, allowing them to use diplomatic passports though their works have nothing to do with diplomacy is abuse of a country and foreign affairs or foreign relations.
Because of money, there is also lucrative black market, evil practices caused by desire for more money. Many bank officials in both Central and commercial banks of South Sudan, for instance, horde hard currencies through the process of insider trading in order to sell them in blank market at higher prices just to get uncontrolled or huge profits. This, as a result, pushes up prices in the market to the economic detriment of the ordinary citizens.
There is much secrecy in dealings in different offices in South Sudan as Money, Politics and Power are interrelated and because of that transparency and accountability are hated in South Sudan. This is because of corruption caused by money. In 2010 during general elections, many youth sold the truth for money. For example, General Daniel Awet is a well-known General in Southern Sudan because of his role in liberation war but because of money the youth lied that he was not well-known simply because they need money; hence truth became an enemy to them.
Money causes corruption which in turn causes financial and political scandals. Politics in South Sudan is based on tribalism, discriminations and nepotism because of money. All is caused by politics of money and because of that money has destroyed unity among us South Sudanese as it has destroyed our traditional African morals that used to hold us together.
Due to the lost of morals, which are replaced by immorality, many of us have resorted into doing abominable things. For example, some people bury money under the ground; some put money in a coffin like dead people and hire people to cry for that money as a means of stealing the money to the neighbouring countries. This is a worse thing any human being with moral values can do but because money has made us to lose morals, we no longer care about integrity.
Because of money, many army generals have destroyed the army because they steal money from soldiers to build their own houses. In addition, many people join rebellion with the aim to get higher rank in order to get good position and a lot of money. This is why rebellion has become a good business as many who join rebellion do not join with the intention of bringing change but with the intention of getting position in the bush and when they join government later they will be incorporated or integrated into the SPLA with the ranks they obtained in the bush. Hence, the whole meaning of rebellion has changed.
Because of money, professionalism has been lost in almost all areas. The worst hit areas by the lost of professionalism are army and legal profession. This is because people working in these areas are only looking for money not practising their professionalism. This is why, for example, the army has been turned into where people in the government employed their own relatives who are not fit to serve in the army. All in the name of money.
In summary, money is the root cause of all evils in South Sudan. Greed for money is a ‘bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction’. Unless we have the law to control the people South Sudan will be sold for money. We already have that indication as there are agents of Khartoum working with the government. The work of these agents is to keep on informing Khartoum of all the latest development in South Sudan.
In addition, the office of the president of South Sudan is turned into business ventures and this is why there are no any secrets in that office. Those inside the office of the President are agents of undisclosed principals. My humble opinion is that the people who corrupt the nation should be sentenced to death once proved in court of law and found guilty in order to save the country from the present serious corruption caused by greed of money.

NB// the author is human rights lawyer and can be reached through:

National Dialogue of the deaf and blind is a waste of time

BY: Alhag Paul, South Sudan, JUN/07/2017, SSN;

The dynamics of the National Dialogue have thrown up interesting social realities. One of these realities is the newly emerging willingness of some intellectual members of the Jieng community to speak out openly.

This is a good development because the blanket silence of the Jieng over the horrendous behaviour of their leaders and the regime in Juba is fueling hatred toward them.

The debate on the National Dialogue is offering opportunity for expression of such change. During a meeting on the subject at Westminster University on 28th March 2017, Peter Biar Ajak surprised some by coming clean.

Peter and the other speakers unanimously agreed that if the National Dialogue is to work, President Salva Kiir must not be the patron as he is part of the problem to avoid the issue of partiality of the process.

They also stressed that the National Dialogue must be inclusive and it should be held in a neutral place to ensure security of the participants.

These concerns have been raised internally by the various South Sudanese political groups and externally by international community.

For example, the People Democrat Movement (PDM) produced a detailed comprehensive document on the topic and the Chairperson of the African Union Commission emphasised the need for impartiality and inclusivity during his visit to Yei, South Sudan.

Peter crucially went further to touch the nexus of Dinkocracy to the National Dialogue. Important as it was, it nearly went unnoticed had Peter not brought it to light.

It appeared as if Peter was clear that the stain of Jieng tribalism would make the National Dialogue exercise lose its credibility.

This is not because over 40 percent of the steering committee of the National Dialogue including its leadership is Jieng, but rather because of the emerging picture about the Jieng government following the resignation of Lt. General Thomas Cirillo Swaka and others from the army.

The resignation letters of these patriotic servants of the people laid bare the tribal nature of the army.

Peter highlighted this point powerfully as an academic distancing himself from the tribal regime and appearing to be patriotic. He stated to the audience that, “since the creation of the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), the structure of the government (of South Sudan) turned into Dinka government. With defection of General Thomas Cirillo now the remaining five Chiefs of the army are Dinka and this is now Dinka militia.”

He went on to say, “Dinka nationalism is becoming a threat to South Sudan”. With this truth, Peter in effect joined a new group of Jieng converts who are now seeing the light and want to act patriotically.

In contrast to Peter’s view, The Sudd Institute in their paper titled, The Dialogue Brief, South Sudan’s National Dialogue: what it should be and why it should be supported dated 31st March 2017 attempts to manipulate its readers.

It deceptively paints the national dialogue of President Kiir as a process that has a huge support throughout the country.

This sort of misinformation and manipulation should not surprise anyone as the Sudd Institute is one of the three Jieng think tanks funded clandestinely by the government of President Kiir.

The others are: Ebony managed by Deng Lual Aciek and Centre for Strategic Analysis and Research managed by Peter Biar Ajak himself.
Peter has spoken the truth.

Dinkocracy reigns supreme in South Sudan. Whether Peter’s expressed truism is honest or not, it does not matter. He has at last demonstrated that as a Jieng he has the capacity to be objective.

It would be wrong to say that Peter of all the Jieng is the first person to state the truth about the regime in Juba. Nearly a decade ago, a Jieng lady called Ayeng Jacqueline and few others complaint against Jieng imperialistic behaviour.

In my article, ‘Tear down the SPLM’: will South Sudanese now respond? I wrote about their novel efforts.

“True South Sudanese like Ayuen Panchol and Ayeng Jacqueline Ajak who expressed her view in “Let’s try to reform our people. A Dinka woman’s point of view on Madi land issue” published in February 2009 by South Sudan Nation are leading the way in the Jieng community to do the right thing for the country.

South Sudanese should stand up with them. They are caring of the country and its people. These are individuals who have demonstrated their human values. They say things as they are.

If South Sudan had the majority of its population with the likes of Ayeng and Ayuen, the country today would be a different place to live in and Oyee would have been history.” (

The disappearance of these patriotic Jieng from the political scene of South Sudan must be a result of Jieng group pressure. As such we the non-Jieng need to support the good Jieng and where possible protect them to counter the tribal pressure exerted on them to conform.

These complaints must not be forgotten because this is the evidence that women are part of the struggle and they should not be made invisible by male dominance as experienced by women worldwide.

Of recent, converts such as Kuir Garang Kuir have been very vocal against the regime and credits should be given where it is due.

This will help in making the Jieng understand that they are not hated but rather it is their imperialistic behaviour that the people do not like.

Therefore, Peter Biar Ajak being a Jieng from Bor will go a long way if he starts to talk the truth about the Jieng occupation of Madi land, Bari land, Chollo land etc.

I have no doubt that people like him can persuade the Jieng to shun their colonial mentality if they so choose to be on the right side of history.

The impact of Jieng imperialistic adventures on the image of the Jieng and above all Jieng relationship with others is so unhealthy to the extent that it risks serious repercussions for the Jieng as a people.

Presently, Jieng unity that enabled them to abuse South Sudanese is in crisis. The Jieng delusionally committed horrendous crimes in believe that they will remain invincible.

Well, in life there is nothing like that. Human beings act in groups primarily as individuals and individuals have personal ambitions which if suppressed may lead to group fissures and ultimately to disunity and conflict.

This process now seems to be taking place among the Jieng. The squabbles in the heart of Jieng power triggered by the removal of Paul Malong from his military position have opened up cracks rippling through their supposed iron cast unity.

Paul Malong now most likely feels bitterly deceived, used and abused by President Kiir. He may virtually be going through emotional and mental turmoil.

To a large extent, he is possibly a person in crisis with the probability of posing danger to himself and the society.

What makes this situation worse is President Kiir’s Machiavellian restrictions on his movements which suggests he is under house arrest.

Worst still, His supporters are being weeded out of the system and disarmed at lightening speed while his opponents such as General Dau Aturjong are being rehabilitated and fast tracked into position of power.

In a nutshell, Paul Malong to President Kiir is now an enemy exactly like Riek Machar. What an irony? The conflict between this two is similarly replicated throughout the entire Jieng tribe mirroring the bigger conflict of the Jieng against the other 63 tribes.

To illustrate the cracks in the Jieng community, look at the following picture.

The Agouk Jieng of Chief Justice Chan Reec are accusing the Apuk Jieng of President Kiir of Apukanising Warrap like they Dinkocratised the country.

The Malual Jieng of Paul Malong are accusing the Apuk and the Agouk of using them as cannon fodder in their war of imperialism in the country.

The Tonj Jieng of Nhial Deng Nhial and Akol Kur are working hard to replace President Kiir.

The Bor Jieng of Michael Makuie are busy strengthening their militia after being armed by the state to start military incursions into Murle, Mundari and Bari lands.

In addition to this the Bor Jieng have started to challenge the Bahr El Ghazal Jieng groups re-igniting their centuries old rivalries.

The question to ask is: where is the supposed unity of the Jieng? Clearly the so called unity of the Jieng is something that is held by the feeling that they own the state of South Sudan which is sheer fantasy.

In 2015 Ambassador Telar Deng emphasised the importance of Jieng unity to hold on to state power in South Sudan.

Holding on to state power without smooth unity is unworkable. The fissures in the Jieng community are unlikely to heal in the short or medium term because it involves deceit and spelled blood (sacrificed Mathiang Anyoor for Jieng glory).

Again, take the classic example of Paul Malong whose character is highly questionable, please see, The coin of power: Gen. Paul Malong aspires for president!! (

He mobilised the Jieng youth in their thousands who they (JCE) then sacrificed on pursuit of the illusion of Jieng supremacy. Now he Malong himself has fallen foul of the very Jieng system he wholeheartedly supported.

Was it really worth it? Is he any better than Riek Machar whom he tried to kill for President Kiir? Should this not serve as a lesson to every Jieng that Dinkocracy does not pay?

If Paul Malong of all Jieng can be trashed like he has, who is the average Jieng? Thus, the Jieng should emancipate themselves from Dinkocracy and adopt democracy.

Paul Malong’s predicament should be a lesson to every one – personal safety and happiness can only be achieved in an authentically democratic state of law and order with a government that protects everyone regardless of tribe, gender, age etc.

Anything other than that is a fantasy and bound to fail.

From the above, unless the Jieng are saved from themselves by honesty of their own tribes mate, they are likely to take all of us down with them. I said this elsewhere and I reiterate it now.

So the good Jieng need to follow the example set by Ayeng Jacqueline, Ayuen Panchol, Kuir Garang ,Peter Biar etc but also go further to join their fellow countrymen in the real struggle against Dinkocracy in other national political movements.

How can South Sudan get a democratic government so that finally the people can begin to experience the benefit of independence?

The panellists at the Westminster University meeting expressed hope that the National Dialogue could be the process.

Also according to Sudan Tribune, Mr David Shearer, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General in South Sudan, believes that the National Dialogue will help in resolving the conflict in the country.

“The national dialogue, initiated by Kiir, is both a forum and process through which the people of South Sudan shall gather to redefine the basis of their unity as it relates to nationhood, redefine citizenship and belonging, as well as restructure the state for national inclusion.” (UN official urges “common strategy” on South Sudan’s political process.

I would like to argue that the optimism expressed by the panelists and Mr Shearer may be unrealistic. It is possible that Mr Shearer may not have seen the letter written by Cannon Clement Janda dated 3rd May 2017 in which he declined President Kiir’s appointment to the Steering Committee of the National Dialogue.

Cannon Janda listed the following crucial points as reasons why the National Dialogue would not bring peace:
1. The decree is very vague on the issue of governance of our country. By issuing the decree President Kiir believes that the process of National Dialogue will end up on his desk for his final consideration and or decision. This is totally unacceptably on the issue of how South Sudan is governed and how the present rulers have drained all national blood and wealth can not be considered a serious process.

2. A credible National Dialogue could only be conducted in an atmosphere of complete freedom. That freedom includes freedom of press to all views of the participants without fear and favour. That atmosphere does not exist in present South Sudan.

3. A genuine dialogue must be done after political process and by limited elected persons with authority to air the views of their communities. Being picked makes every individual only loyal to President Salva Kiir and not to their communities. Such a process is worthless.

4. The country is bleeding. Half of its population is either in refuge in foreign countries or rounded up in internally displaced camps. The other half is threatened with man-made famine. Who is there to dialogue?

5. Finally I noticed the majority of the membership of the National Dialogue Steering Committee are people who helped President Kiir to destroy our beloved country. What credibility is there for such persons who should be arraigned in front of an international criminal court to account for their deeds. Is the inclusion into the National Dialogue Steering Committee an attempt to massage their images. Unquote

Cannon Janda’s views are shared by majority of South Sudanese and arguably he could be seen as the voice of the people. He actually has been vindicated after the swearing in of the National Dialogue Steering Committee on 22nd May 2017.

Mr Abel Alier, one of the co-chair has a murky history in South Sudan.

He is not only a tribalist to the bone and the architect of Dinkocracy, but he is the man responsible for dividing South Sudanese by practising tribal discrimination in 1970s as the President of High Executive Council of Regional Government of Southern Sudan.

At the time he Jienganised the police and unleashed it on the other tribes which resulted into the redivision of Southern Sudan into three regions namely: Equatoria, Bahr El Ghazal and Upper Nile.

The Equatorians fought Jieng abuse of power under the slogan – Kokora. Alier singlehandedly is the person responsible for training, mentoring and nurturing the current crop of hardcore tribalists known as JCE.

It is his ideas that waters the tree called JCE. How can such a person as Cannon Janda asked be credible leader of the National Dialogue?

Deducing from the above, Jieng unity is clearly unsustainable and there is a slow realisation among them that their regime is atrophying. Hence, the reasonable ones are now marching into the camp of patriotism.

President Kiir’s launching of the National Dialogue as a vehicle of deception to rescue the regime is experiencing serious resistance and the signs are that it will flop.

This leaves us with only one viable option for solving the problem of South Sudan which is: a National Conference for peace in South Sudan. Such a conference must not be led by IGAD or AU for obvious reasons.

From December 2013, these regional and continental organisations woefully demonstrated beyond doubt immaturity in handling the problem of South Sudan due to their members own interests.

Countries such as Uganda and Kenya could not resist being partial and evidence indicate that their lack of impartiality has actually pushed the country to where it is now.

In South Sudan needs intensive care (, IGAD and AU were warned of President Kiir’s introduction of tribal militia and they did nothing and what we have now is a total mess.

Therefore, the proposed conference should be:
a) held outside South Sudan preferably in Tanzania;
b) inclusive of all the stakeholders and,
c) led by one of the renowned elders of the world such as Mr Koffi Annan or Archbishop Desmond Tutu or Ms Mary Robinson with full backing of the Security Council.

I have elsewhere made the last point in few articles couple of years back. I still believe it is the only viable option left.

Finally, the addiction of the Juba regime to violence at any cost to maintain Jieng hegemony and its failure to listen and seriously take advice from the stakeholders and the international community means that the National Dialogue amounts to a partial self dialogue of the deaf and the blind.

Essentially this is an interaction that will be characterised by ‘unresponsiveness’ to the real national crisis and as will be expected, it will not lead into any peace.

So it is utter waste of time and resource though it will help President Kiir in distracting attention of the world from horrors in South Sudan.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]
Elhag Paul