Archive for: July 2017

International Community Should Put More Emphasis on Ending South Sudan Crisis

By: Peter Gai Manyuon, JUL/27/2017, SSN;

Admittedly, since civil war broke out in December 2013 up to early 2017, the number of displaced persons is increasing on monthly basis. Three years on from the outbreak of conflict, nearly Seven point five (7.5) million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and protection across the country as a result of armed conflict, inter-communal violence, economic crisis, disease outbreaks and climatic shocks according to United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) and nothing is achieved yet to resolve the on going conflict in the Country.

On the other hand, United Nations estimated, over five hundred thousand (500,000) people have been killed so far, and more than one point six (1.6) million are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in various protection Camps within the Country, especially Juba, Malakal, Bentiu and Wau. Evidently, one point five (1.5) million are currently refugees in neighboring countries according to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in their recent 2017 report.

Furthermore, it should be noted that, the August 2015 peace deal already collapsed and those in Juba claiming to be implementing peace are just covering realities on the crimes committed by the regime against civil population. Absolutely, the transitional government of national unity (TGoNU) is questionable currently.

All those tribal armies currently committing serious crimes against the civilians especially the vulnerable like women, children and the elderly respectively deserves to be answerable as soon, the hybrid Court is established but world is so quite on the ongoing atrocities committed by criminals. Hybrid court is not yet established and the world is so desperate acknowledging the legitimacy of the rotten regime killings its own citizens.

Apparently, leadership of the country failed to bring peace and unity among the audiences or masses. This on going insecurity and sectarian killings has prevented farmers from planting or harvesting crops , causing food shortages nation-wide and self-claimed leaders are just busy enjoying in Juba hotels and else where. Most of the youth globally are confused, where currently ,most of them followed their tribal organizations ideologies or principles.

Most of the masses are focusing to cause more problems, wars , killings , rapes and sexual harassment against the women in the Country. The government mandate was changed from being a government for all to a tribal organization directed by goons in order to achieve unknown tribal legacy in the Country.

Additionally, the top Leadership of the Republic of South Sudan (RSS) doesn’t allow peaceful co-existence of the masses rather, the regime is currently involved in committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide related cases in the Country.

Salva Kiir and his goons within Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) and other disgruntled groups in Juba are now busy defacing and killings the civil population of South Sudanese in the philosophy of protecting tribal leadership, as well looting resources of the Country for individualistic appeasement which has paralyzed the economy of the Country.

The Country is now managed by goons looking or focusing only on what to eat, not what is beneficial to the civil population.

Generally speaking, the problem of greediness, self-fishiness, primitiveness, hooliganism and practicing of sectarian politics by the pests and parasites of the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) have taken the country as a zone of killings and raping of women in the region.

South Sudanese look at themselves as enemies due to the current tribal baptism by the politicians. The future of the Country remains uncertain!

In Summary, Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) failed to address the on going crisis in South Sudan due to individuals interests within the region. Transitional justice mechanisms must be address first before national dialogue.

The current strategy of confusing the world and region on fake reconciliation which is not even supported by the grassroots and other oppositions forces in the Country will never work. World should put more emphasis on sanctions especially, the warring parties or the entire government should be immediately blacklisted and those who killed civilians based on ethnic lines be prosecutes and must be answerable for the crimes they have committed.

For simplicity,Transitional justice consists of judicial and non-judicial measures implemented in order to redress legacies of human rights. Such measures include criminal prosecutions, truth commissions, reparations programs , and various kinds of institutional reforms.

Evidently, chapter five (5), of the 2015 Agreement is mandated to addresses all those cases but up to now nothing is address, even establishment of the hybrid court is sabotaged already by war criminals in the Country and region.

South Sudan has become the centre for regional, Continental and international investment, where everyone go and eat without restriction due to the fact that, the leadership of the Country is doom on the principles of Leadership and governance.

Consequently,the small revenues or taxes collected from Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private companies or foreign aids donations from International community goes in to individual’s pockets and currently, there is serious inflation in the Country, where most of the Ministers are stealing directly the small finances in their various ministries.

Each and everyone is just busy looking for what to eat , no one is thinking of the future of the Country. Most interestingly, leaders only focuses on their families ,developing bellies and accumulation of wealth’s for exit. Very unfortunate!

In Conclusion, world must impose sanctions on the government of South Sudan by not giving or donating foreign aids to the Country. All the European Union (EU) funding projects should be put to end, United States of America (USA) projects should be put to end. Japanese developmental projects should be put to end.

Peace will ONLY be achieve in South Sudan when world leaders stop sending money to South Sudan. Let all Organizations withdraw their funding’s from South Sudan and within a week, peace will come to the South Sudanese people.

The Author is Independent Journalist, Columnist and Researcher who has written extensively on issues of Democracy and Human Rights in South Sudan. He is currently researching on Propaganda and Conflict in South Sudan and could be reach on

Is the State of Emergency Decree an attempt to rescind the National Dialogue?

By: Wol D. Akech, Lawyer, JUL/27/2017. SSN;

As issues of public debate cannot be approach without aligning them to legal instruments or public policy frameworks, I decided to make an attempt in answering the question above by examining National, Regional and International frameworks and lastly personal opinion approach by discussing the chances of viability of National Dialogue alongside the State of emergency(SoE).

On July 17, 2017, President Salva Kiir issued another shocking evening presidential decree like the Justices and Judges Dismissal decree. This time, President of the Republic issued a decree in accordance with Article 189(1) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 (amended 2015) three (3)-months state of emergency in Gogrial, some part of Tonj, Wau and Aweil East States.

This decree came at background of intensifying inter-communal fights among the three communities of Gogrial State namely; Apuk Vs Aguok, Apuk Vs. Kuac Ayok and Apuk Vs. (Abiem Mayer in Tonj State). These communal fights left number of dozens of people killed and no one detained for the agitation of such violence.

It is not clear as well whether the National and State governments have any clear policies to settle the matter than the SoE, if any, why number of precious souls of children, women and elderly people were and are still abandon to perished and hundreds of homes burnt?

The declaration of the state of emergency in according to the Constitution is expected to be tabled before the National Legislature for approval or rejection within fifteen (15) days from the date of issuance as per the wordings of Article 189(2) which says “”the declaration of a state of emergency shall be submitted to the National Legislature within fifteen days of the issuance of the declaration. When the National Legislature is not in session, an emergency session shall be convened””.

Since the declaration of state of emergency, the Government has made no further steps to follow the provisions of this Article mentioned above; instead it has issued a directive appointing Major General Akech Tong Aleu, the Governor of Tonj State as the Chairperson of the SoE Committee in the four (4) States.

This decree met criticism because of the fear of hindrance of the National Dialogue process which is likely to infringe fundamental objectives of the dialogue by derogating basic human rights and background/true nature of inclusion of Aweil East State though there is no armed conflict or any element of SoE in this state.

Though the decree has not stated any reason for the inclusion of some of these States, senior government officials on their personal comments sought to hysterically justify the announced state of emergency by contending that the decree is necessary in response to the threat posed by inter-communal fights in Gogrial State, to stop anti-peace groups in close collaboration with local elements in the other two States(Wau & Aweil East States) or crossing to the neighbouring States in process of apprehension of the communal fights culprits or pre-empt anti-peace movements or from getting link with foreign elements in the borders of the other two States.

The same hysteria senior government officials said President Kiir wants to end the ongoing crises which have resulted into lost of lives.

What amounts to an “EMERGENCY” is not defined in our constitution, thus, it may give a misleading or vague interpretations if guidance is not sought. For this reason, it is not easy to have an agreed or conclusive definition but does not mean impossibilities of getting reasonable definition. The definition given by Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap, an eminent constitutional jurist can be applicable here.

Dr. Kashyap defines “emergency” as “a difficult situation arising suddenly and demanding immediate action by the public authorities under power specially granted by the Constitution or otherwise to meet such exigencies” (Our Constitution, 5th ed, 2011, National Book Trust).

The state of emergency as generally known undermines number of basic human rights which in any civilized and democratic society are deemed to be sacrosanct matters, e.g. freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, and more importantly beyond (undermines) what international law guarantee.

The National Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch and UN Agencies have recently reported and documented serious human rights violations in South Sudan whether by the Government, armed rebellions, communal factions or state sponsored actors in the whole country including some of these peaceful areas, thus the mind blogging question is, which rights will be spare/non-derogable under the state of emergency if the state authorities could committed such violations without the state of emergency?

Before I proceed into the main object of this work, one would like to state it early that the purpose of this article is to inquire whether this decree undermines the rights if so, will it not means that it will affect the ongoing National Dialogue under our National wise men?

If the answers to these two proceeding questions are in affirmative, then will it not mean that it is another mechanism that President Kiir has invented to rescind or sully the National Dialogue process? Or what could be the true notion of Aweil East State under the SoE?

It is true that the whimsical approaches being adapted by President since the start of the National Dialogue, suggest one common question in the minds of many South Sudanese whether the President means what he had said before the Parliament in December 2016?

In most cases, when there is war or natural disaster, the Government needs to restrict some of these fundamental rights as enshrined in International and National Laws. It is however true that in exercise of SoE order, people may be denied of their enshrined rights and thus suffer as well even if they(section of people) would have not suffer the effect of the cause which led to SoE declaration.

Thus, this paragraph leads us to a question whether all the states covered by SoE qualify or meet the conditions or circumstances in which the President is empowered to declare SoE under Article 189(1)?

In South Sudan unlike other countries where declartion of SoE is discussed by the Council of Ministers, President is unilaterally empowered to declare a state of emergency under Article 189(1) which states that “”the President, may upon the occurrence of an imminent danger, whether it is war, invasion, blockade, natural disaster or epidemics, as may threaten the country, or any part thereof or the safety or economy of the same, declare a state of emergency in the country, or in any part thereof, in accordance with this Constitution and the law””.

The literal and broadly meaning of this provision is that there must be an imminent danger to occur or external invasion or internal disturbances, blockade, widely spread of natural disaster or epidemic disease(s), a breakdown of law and order which endangers the Constitutional order and such dangers cannot be controlled by the regular law enforcement agencies(police).

Each of the four states under SoE, border Gogrial States generally but Aweil East State do not border the immediate waring communities in Gogrial State. Aweil East State borders Gogrial in the areas of Awan Counties of Gogrial State. It means that there is no direct boundaries between Aweil East and the warring communities nor is there events of SoE as describe under Article 189(1) while Wau State borders Gogrial in the areas of Kuach Ayok Counties, a community which is not in dispute or conflict or call a fight with Wau State currently .

So, one may ask a further provoking question as to what is notion behind inclusion of such State(s) under SoE?

This question will be answered in the conclusion or be left to the reader to digest but let us with the help of TCRSS, 2011, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 and International legal instruments(ICCPR,1966) examine as to what are the impacts of SoE in such scenarios.

Article 189(3) of TCRSS, 2011 states “”When the National Legislature approves the declaration of a state of emergency, all laws, orders or measures issued or taken by the President pursuant to the state of emergency shall continue to remain in force””.

It is apparently clear in view of this sub-article that some of the fundamental rights or Laws that give such rights or institution can be suspended by president.

In other words, this provision read together with provisions of Article 190 of TRCSS, 2011 empower the President to perform legislative power as well as his extra-ordinary executive power to suspended or abrogated institutions such as National Dialogue, the Agreement of Conflict Resolution in the Republic of South Sudan(ACRSS, 2015) or its Revitalization process, as we approach 2018, population census which is a prerequisite to elections may be suspended, thus, no elections that may be held in 2018 as scheduled and subsequently, the government can extend its lifetime as it did previously.

This is clearer in Article 190(b, c, d) where President is given dissolution or powers or power to suspend institutions.
The President of Republic has power under Article 190 and reads:
“During a state of emergency, the President may, by law or orders, take any measures that shall not derogate from the provisions of this Constitution except as provided herein:
(a) to suspend part of the Bill of Rights; however, there shall be no infringement on the right to life, prohibition against slavery, prohibition against torture, the right of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religious creed, the right to litigation or the right to fair trial;
(b) to dissolve or suspend any institution of the National Executive;
(c) to dissolve or suspend any of the state organs or suspend such powers conferred upon the states under this Constitution; and
(d) To take any such measures as deemed necessary to the state of emergency, which shall have the force of law”.

Reading these provisions of Article 190 with experiences of the other States such as Turkey in 2016, Ethiopia in 2016, India in 1975-77 and others, state of emergency orders or laws declared by the Governments often introduced special powers of arrest and detention. Such declared orders or laws always have subsequent enactments of criminal laws that limit the right to fair trial, due process, freedom of expression, association and assembly.

During the upheavals in the SoE, Governments turns to torture and all other forms of ill treatment in pursuit of confessions, and sometime use the help of private persons (State sponsor actors) where abduction and extrajudicial killings are possibly endorsed. The right to have remedies like writ of habeas corpus may be suspended; as a result, victims of arbitrary arrest and detention are left without legal protection with devastating infringements.

Under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 there is no derogation of any rights under the charter rights allowed during a time of emergency. This rise a legal question as to whether the member states should abide to the provisions of the Charter or regard it as a persuasive instrument which can be disregarded in presence of derogating provisions in the National Constitutions or law ?, The answer can be found in the following interpretation and case law.

In interpreting the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, it means that the Charter “does not allow member states to derogate any Charter’s rights during the state of emergency. In more liberal model interpretation that may not be accepted by conservative theorists, even in situations of civil war cannot be grounds for derogation of some of the Charter rights by State members.

In Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés v Chad (2000) AHRLR 66 (ACHPR 1995) a Communication/case filed before Commission on 11th May 1992 against Chad, the Commission stated that the “Chadian Government had failed to provide security and stability in the country, thereby allowing serious or massive violations of human rights.

The national armed forces were “participants in the civil war” and there had been several instances in which the Government had “failed to intervene to prevent the assassination and killing of specific individuals. Even where it could not be proved that violations were committed by government agents, the government had a responsibility to secure the safety and the liberty of its citizens, and to conduct investigations into murders The civil war could not therefore be used as a legal shield for failure to fulfil the legal obligations under the African Charter, and Chad was held to have violated articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9””.

In the provisions of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, Article 4(1) provides that: “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

Here it is permissible that some rights may be derogated under a state of emergency but must be only in exigencies of the situation and other basic rights cannot be derogated under any circumstances. The United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 29 on states of emergency (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001), para. 5) commented that “governments need to provide careful justification not only for their decision to proclaim a state of emergency but also for any specific measures based on such a proclamation.

The notion in which presidential decree on SoE included Aweil East States shows a vague and overbroad interpretation of Article 189(1) by the Government and thus, restrictions permitted under the ICCPR 1966 Article 4(1) are likely to be derogated when they do not meet the conditions for derogation.

Therefore, one is of the opinion that SoE has preceded or misinterpreted permitted circumstances. For any suspension of some rights in States like Aweil East will not be justifiable under TCRSS, 2011, ACHPR, 1986 and ICCPR, 1966 since there is no clear elements of Article 189(1) of TCSS, 2011 In SoE in case it is submitted and approved by National Legislature, South Sudan as a member state and a party to ACHPR, 1981 should remains obligated to respect all articles of the African Charter, which has no derogation provisions.

Arbitrarily detention on excuses of exercising derogated rights under SoE or any violations of human rights should be redress according as if SoE has not been declared.

In my view, if any of the conditions contented in Article 189(1) is not fulfilled, it means that derogation in States like Aweil East or Wau are beyond the powers of the SoE order or exceeded the prescribed conditions.

The territorial extent of SoE is very clear within the provision of Article 189(1) where power confers upon the President to declare SoE either the whole Republic of South Sudan or any part thereof. For instance, if the intre-communal fights in Gogrial State is proved or considered by the President to be beyond the control of law enforcement agencies and it has reached a stage it can be referred to as an imminent danger, he can only declare SoE in Gogrial State only but not extend to other peaceful areas or States merely on grounds of controlling the movements of the so called anti-peace groups.

The movement of the so called anti-peace group can be controlled within and in the borders of a state that falls under SoE or where an imminent danger occurs unless it has become reasonable that the bordering areas or States have the same imminent danger. Henceforth, one sees that the SoE Order is highly made on erroneous grounds.

Wol Deng Akech holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from University of Juba,
Advocate and Legal consultant, currently pursues Master of Laws (LL.M),
University of Lucknow, India. Co-founder, Screen of Rights, a National
Non-governmental Human Rights Organization, Secretary General, Board
of Trustees, Integrated Development Organization(IDO)
Lives in Lucknow, India, Email:,
Tel: +917376270849, +211912507858.
23rd July, 2017

Keeping it real about South Sudan: Jieng ‘Luak’ Supremacy

By: Justin Ambago Ramba, JUL/27/2017, SSN;

For all practical purposes, the issues of war and Peace in South Sudan only came to take a foreign policy priority position when the USA administration under William J. Clinton, who was inaugurated in office in January 1993.

As the first USA president elected immediately following the end of the Cold War, President Clinton found himself face to face with what became known in the West as the new wave of Islamic Terrorism.

Coincidentally, it was the same time when the Sudanese Islamic fundamentalists seized power in the country through a bloodless military coup d’état, overthrowing a democratically elected government of Prime Minister Sayed Sadiq Al Mahdi on 30th June 1989.

Unfortunately, however, it is this narrow narrative which squarely links the future of South Sudan to the USA foreign policy and its national interest in the Sudan and the North-East Africa region that became the official face of an otherwise a wider South Sudanese struggle with how to properly govern itself since the days it started to enjoy a semi-autonomous status within the United Sudan.

First following the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement between the Military Junta headed by General Ga’afar Nimeri between 1972- 1983, and thereafter again following the 2005, Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and even today following its rightfully deserved declaration as a fully independent and sovereign state with a full membership not only in the United Nations, but also in many other regional and International Organizations South Sudan is still struggling with the very basics of how to govern itself effective as a modern state and not some kind of a tribal cattle Camp!.

To ignore the fact South Sudan had had the opportunity in past to govern itself under a semi-autonomous structure between 1972-1983 but failed the test, is to cut corners in an otherwise a very long story of how this part of the world has chronically struggled with governance issues

The truth be said, prominent elites who once ran the affairs of what was by then the Autonomous region of Southern Sudan, are largely still around to testify to the historical facts what is currently breaking this newly independent African country apart. All ills of South Sudan’s politics and failures lie in what is a deeply rooted ethnic bigotry.

Even long before the late military Dictator, Ga’afar Nimeri could decree the re-division of the then semi-Autonomous Southern Region into its original components of Equatoria, Bahr Al Ghazal and the Upper Nile, the southern Sudanese were already at each other’s throats as “one Single Tribe” looked at its numerical advantage and chose to declare itself as the only tribe out of the country’s 64 or so other tribes whose members are worth of not only holding the nation’s top positions, but especially the top job of President.

Little wonder, and hence, it came as no surprise when the infamous slogan of “Born to rule” made its way into the south Sudanese political vocabulary and public life even when the South Sudanese were still languishing under the successive dictatorships that took power in Khartoum since the dawn of the so-called postcolonial Sudanization that characterized the Sudanese national politics up till the official succession of South Sudan from the Old United Sudan.

Some of you may wonder as to if that was the case, who then come the South Sudanese all came to embrace the SPLA/M and fought under its insignia to get to where the country is now?

To keep it real, this is what the situation was like. When the SPLM/A rebellion begun in the Town of Bor, of ALL PLACES, the message it sent was of a Dinka frustration with the re-division policy decreed by Dictator Ga’afar Nimeri, obviously in contradiction to the articles of the Addis Ababa !972 Peace Agreement, but with a popular support in all across the Equatoria Region, and some parts of both Upper Nile and Bahr Al Ghazal regions.

But then something very important happened. Ga’afar Nimeri miscalculated the whole lot. When he chose to create a new alliance with the Islamist groups of late Dr. Hassan Abdalla Al Turabi and the Sufi Sunni Al Mahdi dynasty of the UMMA Party as represented by Imam Sadiq Al Mahdi, knowing or not, he had left the true basis of the Anya Nya Movement and the historical mutiny of Torit on 18th August 1955, no choice but to either come up with a rebellion of its own or tactically join hands with the Dinka dominated SPLA/M. The later choice prevailed and the rest is now history.

This brief prelude to the background of South Sudan’s politics is hoped to serve those not well versed with some of the nitty gritty and bits of one of Africa’s very dynamic political dispensations. And it is against this benchmark, that the author hopes his readers will be in unique and informed position to accept one solid, but very important fact, that the proliferation of violence, displacement, and food insecurity under dictator Salva Kiir Mayardit is not new to South Sudan, and so are their root causes.

The 2005, Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which Paved the way for the succession of South Sudan from Sudan. It was essentially an Agreement between the National Islamic front (NIF) of the predominantly northern riverain Arabized Nubian tribesmen and SPLA/M of the predominantly southern Dinka tribes. The CPA for practical reasons exempted the once again Autonomous Southern Sudan from any forced Islamic influences and jurisdictions, an outcome embraced by all south Sudanese of all ethnic denominations.

However, as it became abundantly clear later, the failure of the guarantor of the agreement to pressure for a democratic transformation in the country, South Sudan went to the referendum boxes still imprisoned in the “Dinka” prescribed “Tribal-Luak (Kraal -style) in both state governance and life-style. This is the same primitive and narrow scoped governance regimen that earlier led to the dismantlement of the Addis Ababa agreement in 1983.

Since 2005, this regime which continuously revitalizes itself in the name of “Bahr Ghazal Jieng Supremacy”, has already had devastating military confrontations with far reaching massacre of civilian populations in the Shillukland, the Murleland, the Equatorias, among the “Fertit” and even among the so-called Bahr Ghazal Dinka” communities from where the rogue and pariah regime draws most of its fighting forces.

As I write this piece, the “Bahr Al Ghazal” Dinka of Gogrial are busy killing one another under a state sponsored civil unrest, labelled for convenience sake as the “inter-clan war” between the Apuk and Aguok both of the so-called Gogrial state, dictator Salva Kiir’s own homeland.

Unless of course we want to cover up the burning fire in South Sudan that primarily stem from the poor governance and intentionally created chaos by the ruling elites and their power base in the ‘Jieng (Dinka) Council of Elders’ (JCE).

Throwing dry grass over this fire, and it is exactly what those benefiting from the status quo are doing, in an attempt to cover up, arguably in the name of national sovereignty and the ‘JCE’s version of National Unity, is only as good as following in the footsteps of those tribal zealots who knowingly or otherwise, led to the dismemberment of the Old Sudan.

But let’s keep it real even if only for fairness’s sake. Any talk of national sovereignty or national unity, during the existing government only serves to promote the ‘Jieng’ (Dinka) hegemony, expansionism and their ill-advised ethnic supremacy.

The ongoing proliferation of violence, displacement, and food insecurity the countrywide is there to stay and even get worse as time goes, unless of course a radical settlement to the root causes of the crisis clinical and preferably surgical intervention.

One is made to wonder more and more, as South Sudan finds its fate in the bloodiest hands of the most incapable duo, dictator Salva Kiir Mayardit and opportunist Taban Deng Gai.

Can anyone in their rightful mind really trust the so-called unilaterally declared ceasefire by the regime in Juba, when the very regime is simultaneously engaged in heavy military attacks against the SPLA-IO HQs of Pagak?

Even the dump pro-government “ALL DINKA MILITIA” of Mathiang Anyoor, themselves will testify that they are under strict orders not to spare any villages and their inhabitants in the recent governments scorch earth campaign in rural Equatoria, Western Bahr Ghazal and many parts of Greater Upper Ile regions.

The current situation in the country renders any discussion of elections in the foreseeable future as an unnecessary diversion from the primary goals of achieving peace and reconciliation.

South Sudan’s leaders, neighbors, and regional and international partners must first focus on achieving peace based on the realization of a total new structure of governance in the country – democratic Confederalism.

This and only this extreme form of FEDERALISM as represented by CONFEDERALISM can bring about the end of the bloody struggle over who or which ethnic group (s) rule and monopolize the power in a centralized system governance, and thereafter create the conditions needed to hold credible elections.

These are urgent goals, and to achieve them, there is an equally urgent need to promptly revitalize of an inclusive and credible peace process by African Union and the UN Security Council.

This shallow belief that a peace process for South Sudan must receive financial and other resources from the West as represented by the TROIKA and the European Union or even the USA, are at their best representation of neo-colonialism and Imperialism.

The question that begs for an answer is, “If we the South Sudanese and our neighbors are capable of sponsoring the ongoing dirty War, Mass Killings, Rape, and Lawlessness”, why then it becomes an issue that must necessarily require a EU and TROIKA to Bankroll a Peace Process, if we really want peace and stability to reign in our midst!

BUT, if there is no political will from within our populace and political elites in country and the IGAD countries to the realization OF A PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE in South Sudan based on a new political dispensation as clearly proposed above, then there will be very little wonder if the fire were to consume both the green and the dry, in the country and the region at large!

Believe me, the historical inability of South Sudanese to face up to their inborn cultural differences and the political nurturing of hatred can keep South Sudan burning indefinitely. A small leaf from the rich political experience of South Sudan vis-à-vis North Sudan over the have a century of atrocious coexistence between the two sections of what was a one country, clearly underscores that all we are witnessing are non-starters on a genuine peaceful settlement.

Starting with the declared ‘One sided’ and bogus “National Dialogues”, fake and hypocritical “ceasefires”, basically meant to serve as military ploys and the futile attempts at entrenching a “One Party Rule” in the name of unification of the ruling party, as is the case of the embattled SPLM now high on the agenda, all are futile attempts at misleading the public opinion, but especially of course directed at soliciting foreign financial supports to sustain both the civil war and the dictators grip on power.

Again, another lesson learnt from the Old Sudan, clearly shows that any attempt to merely change or replace those in the seats of power in Juba, although likely to bring about a chance towards a conducive atmosphere for a serious dialogue, however, carried out in isolation of such well thought through programs is not in any way enough to bring about an everlasting Peace and stability.

On the other hand, given the fact that the current dire situation in the country is by all measure the outcome of a greedy and visionless leadership, this chronically devastated part of the world, will never have the opportunity for a genuine dialogue under the current regime, which itself is part of the crisis and not a solution.

Peace can only be realized when the regime in Juba is uprooted completely and replaced by one that will first seek the boldness to reconstruct the governance structures, a new social contract between the various nationalities if they would genuinely subscribe to the very idea of staying together as one country and under what arrangements yet to be agreed on and not imposed.

Radical as they may sound, but the author is optimistic that these proposals are the only viable options if South Sudan is ever to live in peace with itself. Maintain the status quo, is out of question and neither the idea of unification of the SPLM with the hope of surrendering every citizen’s hope for a better life to the regime’s so-called “Unknown Gunmen” – who are now well known and can be traced back to the doors of the J1 or the Republican Palace.

Author: Dr.Justin Ambago Ramba. A concerned South Sudanese and a Voice for the Voiceless and marginalized Millions.

IGAD’s High Level Revitalization Forum on South Sudan is a Hoax, Deeply Flawed & Driven by Financial Gains

BY: J. Nguen, JUL/27/2017, SSN;

The Nuer Supreme Council (NSC) would like to take this opportunity to declare that Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is no longer a credible peace broker in South Sudan, but rather, a sham and hallowed financial profiteering institution driven by IGAD’s nation States political and financial gains.

The recent IGAD)’s High Level Revitalization Forum on South Sudan is a Hoax, Deeply Flawed and Driven by Financial Gains. This is showcased by IGAD’s position on the SPLM/A-IO, the main opposition armed Movement in South Sudan.

Due to IGAD’s deeply flawed and monies driven position on the South Sudan peace, the Council demands that IGAD relinquishes its mandate on the South Sudan Peace Agreement to the African Union.

The IGAD’s approach going about with the High Level Revitalization Forum is not genuine. The Revitalization Forum is high selective, ill-conceived and we believe such a method will fail.

Thus, the Council agreed that IGAD’s approach is “exclusionary initiative” and only meant to prolong the war efforts and suffering of the people of South Sudanese, while IGAD’s member States representatives continued to get their paychecks in the name of unachievable peace.

To recap, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is an East African regional bloc, mandated by the African Union (AU) in 2013 to oversee and mediate the peace negotiation efforts on South Sudan. IGAD is supposed to be non-partisan, genuinely honest and objective in all its approaches.

IGAD came to such a prominent position when President Salva Kiir falsified a coup d’état against his own Government, and then, mass murder 20, 000 innocent Nuer civilians, which then caused the civil war. IGAD was entrusted with responsibility to bring the warring parties to the negotiation table.

Despite the murderous nature of the political problem in South Sudan, the East African’s leaders and the African Union maintained that the path to peace in South Susan be an African driven approach meaning – “Africans’ solutions to Africans’ problems”.

The intent was to deny the international community’s involvement and influences on what African’ leaders called “Africa’s state of affairs”. The international community accepted the proposal in principle to avoid false accusation of imperialism or neocolonialism intent by the West in Africa in the 21st century.

However, with this African’ driven approach, of Africans’ solutions to Africans’ problems, the problem arose on the financing. The African nation States are bankrupt and lack financial muscles to ensure ownership in the process and also to guarantee that the method is indeed for Africans, by Africans and on the African continent.

Instead, the Africa’s nation States particularly the IGAD asked for financial supports from the West, particularly the Troika (USA, United Kingdoms and Norway), EU and China to help facilitates the peace process in South Sudan.

This contradictions created a setback on the Africans’ solutions to Africans’ problems objective. In reverse, it created financial dependency. This financial dependency turned IGAD a beggar and hallowed financial profiteering institution meant to benefit no one but themselves. Today, the Council can state this with straight face that IGAD is a sham and hallowed financial profiteering institution.

With resounding confidence, the Council declared that the High Level Revitalization Forum aimed to revive peace in the South Sudan is a scum and subject to fail.

The initiative is nothing but a mockery and grossly incompatible to the 2015 failed Peace Agreement. For example, in 2015, IGAD patched a weak Peace Accord on South Sudan. IGAD did not and still not protecting any peace accord in South Sudan. Its failure in protecting the signed accord add to IGAD’s lack of sincerity and commitments. Therefore, the Council concluded that IGAD can no longer be trusted. It motivation on South Sudan peace is financially driven and not a genuine search for peace.

The weak Peace Accord broker by IGAD for South Sudan collapsed on July 8th, 2016 and IGAD failed to hold to account the violators. Instead, IGAD continued with deafening silence even though people were dying and being displaced in their thousands all-over South Sudan.

Due to the deadly nature of the war, those whose intentions was to achieve genuine peace for South Sudan called for peaceful revitalization process through political means. Sadly, IGAD’s nation States blatantly refused and claimed that the Peace Agreement was intact and being implemented.

Of late, IGAD subtly acknowledged that the peace agreement on South Sudan has collapsed and required a political revitalization process. In June 2017, IGAD tabled the High Level Revitalization Forum and subsequently followed by timeline.

The High Level Revitalization Forum aims to revitalize the collapsed Peace Agreement on South Sudan. To achieve this objective, IGAD has initially declared that the process will be inclusive. All the warring parties and other oppositions would be involves including the estranged groups. IGAD also stressed that all would be engage in a transparent processes.

The Council and the world at large were delighted and endorsed the IGAD’s initiative and change of heart without second guess that IGAD’s initiative could be a financial scum and deeply flawed. We lauded the IGAD’s nation States for such a decisive move at the eleven hour after a year of deafening silence on South Sudan.

To everyone surprise, the IGAD Executive Council, Workneh Gebeyhu of Ethiopia had this to say on July 24, 2017 in Juba, South Sudan: “revitalization forum is not a fresh negotiation or a renegotiation to implement the agreement, but rather an opportunity for all South Sudan stakeholders to return to the implementation of the peace agreement.”

First, the Council would like to reinstate that the peace in South Sudan has collapsed and there is no peace agreement to be implemented by all South Sudan stakeholders. Instead, there is a raging war in the country. In our view, the first attempt must be to stop the war before IGAD’s rubbish talks of implementation of the peace agreement that does not exists.

Second, for IGAD to say that “Dr. Machar will be allowed to send representatives to the Revitalisation forum which is due in September, but will not be allowed to attend the forum by himself” is deeply troubling and irresponsible.

With that statement, the Council believe that IGAD nation States has killed their initiative, the High Level Revitalization Forum and we think this was not accidental but IGAD’s intention in the first place. Similarly, with this position, we suspect that IGAD has secured some financial supports for the initiative which the donors have no way of reclaiming.

Third, it’s improbable to think and talk of peace in South Sudan when the SPLM/A –IO’s top leadership is excluded in the High Level Revitalization Forum. It must be noted with clarity, that the SPLM/A-IO is the main signatory to the Peace Agreement which is falsely being claim to be revitalizes and the only armed force on the ground fighting Salva Kiir’s forces in South Sudan.

Their exclusion by the IGAD in the High Level Revitalization Forum means no peace and no genuine High Level Revitalization Forum for all South Sudanese, which is what IGAD wants. Another IGAD’s intention is continued financial gains which we precisely believe to be a financial profiteering in the name of South Sudan’ peace.

Fourth, IGAD cannot call for an inclusive forum of all South Sudan stakeholders and yet denied the SPLM/A-IO’s top leadership participation in the form. This is hypocrisy and true conduct of a financial profiteering institution.

In closing, it’s fitting to say that the High Level Revitalization Forum was a hoax and meant to lure in Western Governments to fetch-in financial supports to benefit IGAD’s Nation States. The IGAD’s High Level Revitalization Forum is not genuine. It’s a sham and whose objective is to racketeer in the name of suffering people of South Sudan.

Therefore, the Council call on the African Union to take-over the South Sudan’s peace portfolio from IGAD.

The Council also call on the Western nation States, particularly the Troika, EU and other International body to defund the High Level Revitalization Forum under IGAD.

The Council asked the Troika, EU and other International body to only fund genuine and inclusive initiative whose goal is to bring lasting peace to South Sudan under African Union.

The Nuer Supreme Council is an independent think tank, whose objective is to advance peace, research and bottom-up development in the rural South Sudan. The Council is also an advocate for fair treatment and equal representation of all South Sudanese in the South Sudan state of affairs.

J. Nguen
Chairman of the Nuer Supreme Council

Is the new threat from Troika credible? The Oppositions should not celebrate yet

By: Samuel Atabi, JUL/24/2017, SSN;

South Sudanese will forever be grateful to the Americans, particularly the neo-conservatives in the younger Bush regime, for conjuring up their political independence from the Sudan. Unlike the liberals, who view ‘neo-conservatisms’ as a war-mongering tag, South Sudanese view it as batch of honor.

Even then, the neo-conservatives took note of the war of independence in Sudan only after that country became a hotbed for terrorists, including Osama bin Laden; terrorism being the number one priority of the US foreign policy.

However, the actual birth of the new nation of South Sudan, in 2011, was midwifed by another batch of Americans under the Democratic President, Barrack Obama. It is now clear that the Obama administration was not prepared for the war that convulsed that new country barely two years into its nationhood; the president admitted as much.

Following the outbreak of a civil war in South Sudan in 2013, the Americans, together with the British and the Norwegians (all the three collectively known as the Troika), worked tirelessly to get a peace agreement to end the war. They did get the agreement in August 2015.

But again barely six months into the implementation of the agreement, President Salva Kiir of South Sudan, a party to the agreement, literally bombed the pact out of Juba in July 2016. Using a superior military fire power, Kiir attacked the home of and with the aim of killing Dr Riek Machar, his partner in the peace agreement.

What followed this brazen violation of the agreement have been the missteps by the US and its Troika partners. Instead of coming hard on President Kiir for his unacceptable behavior, they largely kept quiet. This silence emboldened Kiir to launch unbridled violence against the Equatoria, a region which had hitherto been spared by the civil war.

From media reports, the Troika did not just keep quiet in the face of Kiir’s defiance but they also took three other additional steps which have aggravated the calamity in the country:
— i) They instructed regional governments bordering South Sudan (known as IGAD) to deny Machar entry into their countries;
— ii) They asked South Africa to hold Dr Riek Machar under house arrest, thus denying him access to his followers; and
— iii) They offered Sudan, a country that was known to be the main weapon supplier to Machar’s forces, the possibility of US lifting sanction that had been in place for decades as a quid pro quo for stopping the arms supply.

The overall effects of these moves not only left Kiir in a stronger and an advantageous military position, but it also further encouraged him to kill more South Sudanese with impunity.

The genocidal rampage by Kiir’s tribal army and militia against South Sudanese continued for 11 months while the Troika and the international community continued, in the main, to sit on their hands and refused to take action against Kiir.

At last, after desperate reports by UN agencies and other international organizations on the devastation of war in South Sudan, the Troika appears to stir as recently as the third week of July 2017.

Now, the Troika and the European Union (EU) are threatening to stop funding the parasitic institutions, such as the JEMEC, which are alleged to be implementing the bombed and dead August 2015 agreement. Late as this threat might be, it is very much welcomed by many concerned organizations, and certainly by millions of South Sudanese who are in the IDP’s and refugee camps.

The Troika and the EU have also demanded the revitalization of the dead agreement as a condition for further support to the peace process. If these threats were to elicit the expected outcome, then the Oppositions will have achieved a small victory: they have always called for the re-examination of the moribund peace agreement, some of whose clauses have become obsolete.

But, the Oppositions must not be complacent about the future course of events. There are still obstacles to the attainment of a lasting peace in our country. Below, I enumerate some of them.

Safety and New Agreement.
I am convinced that the attack on Machar in July, 2016, though not approved, but had a tacit approval of some of the guarantors of the August 2015 peace agreement. A number of circumstantial evidence has been adduced to support this: silence by these countries on that attack; acquiescence in the appointment of Taban Deng Gai to replace Machar as the Vice President; intimidation of the IGAD countries to deny Machar visa and residency; his exiling to South Africa; etc.

In my opinion, the countries involved appear to have reached a conclusion that, the Dinka, as a single largest tribe in South Sudan, cannot be wished away and therefore, they should be given time to moderate their approaches in the governance of the country. Thereafter, they (the Dinka) will be able to co-opt other tribal leaders in governments that will be dominated by them.

In Afghanistan, the American encouraged the Taliban, a Pashtun outfit to rule that country simply because the Pashtun are the majority. This is what the State Department said, in a secret UN Security Council, about the Taliban at the time when the latter was a virtual pariah in the world:

“For the sake of peace, all nations should engage with the Taliban. They control more than two-thirds of the country; they are Afghan; they are indigenous; and they have demonstrated their staying power…Providing covert military aid to Massoud (an opposition leader to Taliban and from a minority Panjiri ethnic group) would only lead to more Afghan civilian deaths, while prolonging the country’s military stalemate.” [Coll, S. (2004). Ghost Wars. Penguin Books].

This attitude from the State Department persisted even when others, (the CIA, politicians), were urging the Clinton administration to arm the northern Panjiri ‘minority’ opponents of the Taliban under Massoud. The Taliban took advantage of this policy and harbored Osama bin Laden. The policy was radically reversed, though, after September 11 when the Americans now agreed to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban at a very high cost.

It is, therefore, not difficult to imagine that similar views are being expressed in private about the South Sudan situation. Now, if this is the attitude of the guarantors, then implementation of the August agreement in the original format, with Machar going back as the First Vice-President, is a dangerous undertaking: there is no guarantee that the July 2016 incident cannot be repeated.

Policy Suggestion: The IO and other opposition groups should go back to the drawing board to plan an agreement that will safeguard the lives of leaders and their soldiers during its implementation.

In practice, the IO and the Opposition should be less insistence on the wholesale reinstatement of the original ACRSS.

Deployment of the Protection Force:

Based on the utterances of officials like JMEC Chairman and some diplomats, the main purpose of the UN protection force appears not to protect the leaders and soldiers of the opposition groups in Juba.

The real purpose at inception, it appears, was to protect Juba against the expected assault by the White Army and the wider IO forces on the city following the July, 2016 incident.

This assault was expected to take place during the dry season of 2016. When the invasion did not materialize, these officials gave a sigh of relief and the urgency for the deployment of the force waned.

Previously, some members of the mediation, IGAD et al, were very concerned about the capture of Juba by the White Army and the IO forces following the pogrom of December, 2013.

Why? It was because the invading army, if allowed to enter Juba, would have destroyed all the emerging institutions of government in the city and also killed most of city’s inhabitants.

In order to prevent this, they had to okay the Ugandan’s involvement in the defense of Juba that entailed the use of cluster bombs against the IO forces.

In my view, as the Ugandans have officially withdrawn now (I may be talking too soon), Juba can only be protected by the UN deployment of a protection force.

Policy Suggestion: The IO and other Opposition groups should not be assured by the deployment of the protection force. They should be less enthusiastic, if not unconcerned, in pushing for the deployment.

Instead, the opposition should push for a country-wide UN protection force that would secure civilians in places like, Yei, Magwi, Keji-keji, Wau, and towns and centers in Greater Upper Nile.

A successful deployment of protection force with the current mandate will actually frustrate a successful capture of Juba if this is what the Oppositions wish.

In addition, the protection force might unwittingly facilitate the escape of the government culprits and potential war criminals in Juba through the protected airport.

The Trusteeship
The proposed Trusteeship by experts and some diplomats is problematic. For example, it might be very difficult in future to end it as has happened in other countries like Namibia.

Politically, those advocating for it might be accused by the regime in Juba of being unpatriotic and traitors to the independence of our country. It is thus understandable to read policy documents of both IO and NAS rejecting the proposal.

In my opinion, the outright rejection of the proposal is counterproductive. The July 2016 incident and its aftermaths have militarily weakened the IO, and therefore, the entire opposition; Sudan, which has been a source of armament, is no longer in play.

A protracted armed struggle will last for up to 50 years if our previous wars are anything to go by.

Politicians take up arms because they want power to bring change and leaders of the opposition groups are not immune to that. Who among the leaders can wait for the next 50 years to gain power?

The answer is none. The estimated time for the trusteeship is ten years; this is more realistic waiting time that the five decades of civil war. In any case, the Oppositions might also gain from the disarmament of all forces that must necessarily precede the start of the trusteeship.

Policy suggestion: The Oppositions should not reject the Trusteeship proposal outright but should ask for more clarifications about its nature, including structure, mandate and time limit.

This will encourage dialogue. Therefore, in practice, the Oppositions should indicate that they have open mind and remain to be persuaded about the proposal.

Finally, the war in our country cannot be ended without the involvement of the one and the only world’s Superpower, the United States of America. And yet this assertion is undermined by the scope and practice of the US foreign policy.

As Henry Kissinger once said, “America’s desire to project power into myriads of small scale conflict−Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, South Sudan−is a key conceptual challenge for American foreign policy”. We can only hope.

Samuel Atabi is a concerned South Sudanese; he can be reached at

Mayiik and Ateny: The Dead Woods in the Kiir’s Juba Palace (J1)

Quote: “The real prison is the wall of silence erected around you by your colleagues, which prevents you from seeing or hearing the truth, until I have arrived to this place (Paris), I didn’t know I have been overthrown in Khartoum” says Sudanese President late Jafaar Mohammed Nimeri in 1985.

By Kharubino Kiir Garang, Juba, South Sudan, JUL/20/2017, SSN;

One of the revulsions of history is that it often repeats itself. After dethronement of Mayen Wol Jong and Yel Luol Koor from J1 on financial scandals, there was hope that J1 is liberated from all sorts of corrupt cartels.

Unfortunately, here arose other bastards in J1 in person of Ateny Wek Ateny, the president’s spokesperson, and Mayiik Deng Ayii.

These dudes are not only administratively corrupt but intellectually bankrupt to serve in the highest office of the land. They erected the wall of lies to block the truth from reaching the president.

They control President’s ears, they determine what to give to the President to hear and what to ignore. They deprive him from hearing the truths from grassroots.

Not only that, but they are also depriving him of meeting good people carrying gospel messages. They are destroying him!

Honestly, his office is filled with people attributively incompetent. His office is packed of people that are either unschooled or functionally illiterate. Others are gifted bloviates, introverts and loquacious people. They are a disgrace to the Presidency in disguise.

They are unproductive and unappreciative. They helped a lot in destroying this man, a man of adjustable coats and characteristically humble. Socially cordial but politically less absolved. That believes in people and trusts them without verification; though he is a strategist, he is not decisive, wise but doesn’t have common sense, a strong leader but doesn’t command.

Nevertheless, by his side always is good luck.

A man that forgets more than he remembers, doesn’t evaluate the performance, fails to hire qualified ones, recycles the bad confidants and expects different outcomes. At times, he finds it hard to penetrate through political traps.

His patience and good luck are enormous that his match is rare. That is our President Salva Kiir described in few short sentences.

Like most elders from his ethnic extraction, he over-trusts. In most cases, he suffices within the circle of his foes.

Although his fickle personality has denied him the best description a revolutionist deserves, he still holds a significant respect within the circles of his society.

Despite these great characteristics, he can as well be well described with negative adjectives ordinarily to the considerable displeasure. He is a man who has allowed incoherent aides to encircle him and erected the bulwark to prevent truth from reaching him.

In other words, he will be remembered for his love of espousing the gossip mongering.

One such character is the perpetually bragger and eyeless Ateny Wek Ateny, the man in the President’s press room. He is a man with an open-mouth, a holder of a certificate in criminology and criminal justice, who pretends to be a lawyer.

To call a spade a spade, this creature is fit for a job of investigator and thus a true suitor for Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in the National Police Service.

He is a barricade to progress in the media sector of the big office. He has done nothing to shine the Presidency in media fraternity. In fact, he struggles to utter suitable English words when addressing the media.

He sometimes hire maverick writers to defend the Presidency if the Presidency comes under media attack. He has totally failed the Press office in the Presidency.

Another creature is the freaky Mayiik Ayii Deng who doubles as a functional illiterate. He never graduated from University.

Rumor-mongers and trust tellers have on equal note and in unison accepted that Mayiik Ayii Deng outsource the presidential speeches.

He cannot write a good speech. He can’t piece a significant document. The man is a thick-head. He is always cheesed off. An empty barrel, huge but hollow. Masura!

With their lots of nothingness, they are contributing very much to its downfall. Zilch —–success though they are kept there for decades.

They have projected the President in bad light. With Mayiik Ayii Deng, presidency became the centre for deals. Ateny has turned the Presidency as an honor to brag about. They have never created any positive image for the big man.

Reliably, both men have been alleged to might have failed to even read a page from the two volumes of a book that is a collection of President’s public speeches.

Like elsewhere, that book is an independent source of the part of the contemporary history of our liberation struggle. It is a very great book that President can appreciate if he is served with a copy.

Skeptically, they didn’t take a copy of the book to the President to read his well authored biography and a great collection of his own speeches including those he cannot even remember.

Had he gotten the book, I believe the President would have sponsored the publication of second edition because there are some errors in the book.

In other words, President Kiir would have called these writers that had volunteered to waste their time, resources and energy to compile the speeches for a ‘thank you’ meeting and handshake.

I bought one from the bookshop and it is appealing. It has great collections of the President’s speeches, interviews, articles and letters. These young men deserve appreciation for transcribing videos into scripts. Very hard work, just imagine transcribing ‘BBC Hard Talk’ video into a script!

One may wonder, where on earth would a president be surrounded by people who cannot do research? People who do not have ability to go through the compiled information? It is only in South Sudan!

These people have failed in many aspects. Ateny has never effected the job, instead he has been stammering while inconsistently addressing the media. He loves the cameras that he feeds it with falsehood that are indefensible.

It is as well alleged that majority of those in the office of the President depend on magic powers and that their passports would tell you how they frequently visit Nigeria in search for magic powers.

President should help himself by booting out all such dysfunctional dead woods.

To conclude, the strength of any leadership is determined by the intelligence of closet cohorts. It is pathetic that these cohorts of Kiir in J1 are worthless.

Starting from the perpetually inebriated Tor Deng Mawien, the mentally desiccated Gen. Awet Akot, to the legally dull Lawrence Korbandi.

Like the semi-illiterate group of Ateny and Mayiik, this group of blue blood people can’t produce anything good for the greatness of this country.

With ongoing shrinking of the President’s legacy, Kiir must sack them all to save his reputation and claim it back again. I have my own reservations but a lot can be said.

Writer can be reached at

Dr. Lam’s NDM ambushes gov’t forces in Eastern Equatoria


On the 17th instant, the gallant forces of the National Democratic Movement (NDM) laid a deliberate ambush on an enemy convoy moving to attack their positions. The ambush occurred on the Torit-Hillieu road, Eastern Equatoria.

One enemy car was completely destroyed.

In a related development, the overall commander of the NDM forces in the area, CDR Okongo God Comman, received into the ranks of the NDM seven soldiers who defected from the enemy, two of them from the CID.

The names of the seven (7) are:
1. Moses Okulo (CID)
2. Gatluak Kuong (CID)
3. Sgt. James Oting
4. Lcpl. James Odong
5. Pvt. Ukelo Justin
6. Pvt. James Oboya
7. Pvt. Santino Allajabo

The Chairman of the NDM congratulated the new members for their patriotic decision to choose the broad front as a mean for waging a revolutionary struggle in order to free the people of South Sudan from the dictatorial and ethnocentric regime of Kiir and his Jieng Council of Elders.

The Chairman assured the new members that the struggle to uproot corruption, injustice and tribalism is not easy but with our determination and adoption of the correct means and methods of the struggle, the people of South Sudan shall surely triumph.

19th July, 2017
Press Release
Long live the struggle of our people
Long live South Sudan
A luta continua

Ambassador; Emmanuel Aban
For/ the Spokesman
National Democratic Movement (NDM)

Festus Mogae’s Moral Dilemma: Why he’d quit and go home

BY: Dr. Dr Lako Jada Kwajok, JUL/17/2017, SSN;

Bringing peace to a war-torn country is the pinnacle of political achievement that any politician would love to be associated with. It’s not in any way less important than the attainment of independence.

In fact, to some extent the two are interrelated. For Ex-Presidents, like Festus Mogae, it’s an opportunity for adding good things to their reputations and expanding their legacies from national to international and perhaps from continental to worldwide recognition.

It’s also a golden chance to keep them busy in their retirement and relative inactivity. It’s often difficult to adapt from having a high demanding job to a state of more or less redundancy.

Perhaps this is why Ex-Presidents occupy their time by establishing libraries, going around delivering speeches and lectures, running charity organisations, taking up consultancy jobs and getting involved in peace initiatives across the globe.

I would like to think that, when an Ex-President or an Ex-International official, is given the honour of helping to realise peace anywhere in the world – he or she, would be in the best possible position that any politician would like to have. It’s because of the following reasons:

Firstly – he or she is deemed a neutral figure, thus is not under any political pressure other than the need to expedite the peace process within the adopted time frame. And certainly, he or she is under no obligation to give in to pressure from any side or heed the demands of the lobbying groups.

Secondly – he or she is also free from the self-restrictions and hidden obligations of the career politicians who would do anything to keep their jobs.

Thirdly – Such personalities usually enjoy generous pensions and do have significant life insurances. They do not need the financial gains from their given positions, and to some, what is offered amounts to peanuts.

Hence, one would have expected Mogae to act with full impartiality, diligence and straightforwardness. Most importantly, people had hoped that he would call a spade a spade particularly in the case of peace spoilers.

We must remember that we have already lost tens of thousands of lives and still more lives are at stake due to the escalating war. There is no room for appeasements or half-solutions because they would not result in a lasting peace in a country that’s already on the brink.

Mogae’s recent statement to the 18th JMEC Plenary on 12/07/2017 raised many questions and evoked a lot of concerns. The general theme is overblown unsubstantiated progress regarding the implementation of the Peace Agreement and the downplaying of glaring failures.

For example, he claimed that good progress had been made by the National Constitutional Amendment Commission (NCAC) towards review and amendment of relevant legislation.

Do we call it a real progress, given the fact that it took over a couple of years to happen?

The provisions of the Agreement on Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCSS) state that the NCAC should come up with the appropriate Constitutional Amendments before the commencement of the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU).

It transpires that the unrecognised current TGoNU has got no Constitution. Then, where is the progress here?!

The JMEC boss admits that the graduation of the first batch of the joint integrated Police took place without adherence to the required vetting process. It’s certainly a major concern given the current environment of mistrust between the parties.

The question is, what did Mogae do to rectify the situation and avert a potential source of conflict?

His talk regarding the economy is merely for public consumption. It’s very unconvincing to speak about government institutions and public finances reforms when the layperson in South Sudan knows that the economy has tanked and corruption is on a large scale.

It’s even less believable that, the TGoNU has a 3-5 years national development strategy while unable to pay the wages of its employees for months. People have even started to entertain the idea of the government of South Sudan declaring bankruptcy.

The Hybrid Court of South Sudan (HCSS) which is supposed to be an independent entity, is now to be discussed with the “TGoNU.” So, how credible that accountability would be well-served through such a court?!

Lack of real achievements has reduced the JMEC boss into talking about and highlighting some insignificant events. For example, he pointed out the sensitization and awareness missions that were conducted by the Technical Consultative Committee for the establishment of the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing (CTRH).

If he admits that the conditions for successful consultations are far from optimal, then what is the point of bringing the whole issue up?

Furthermore, there is no mention of the security arrangements and cantonment in the document. Everyone agrees that this single matter takes precedence over the other provisions in the Peace Agreement for obvious reasons. So, how could the JMEC boss talk about the CTRH while omitting the security arrangements that have a direct bearing on the reconciliatory process? It implies that the implementation of the security mechanisms and cantonment hasn’t moved forward in a meaningful way to allow the JMEC boss to talk about it.

Surprisingly, Mogae turns 180 degrees saying he is concerned that the permanent Constitution-making process is yet to commence and that they are clearly out of time. It sounds like he has inadvertently admitted failure to effect the full implementation of ARCSS in spirit and letter.

Now it seems the embattled JMEC boss is putting all his hopes for being relevant on the High-Level Revitalisation Forum (HLRF) that was prescribed by the IGAD leaders following his recommendations. If the JMEC could not effect a meaningful progress over a period of 2 years, how plausible that it would be successful this time?

Mogae has made it clear that the HLRF is not for renegotiation. Then, what would be the role of the so-called estranged groups in the forum? And how could the forum be inclusive and accommodative without taking the views of all the stakeholders into account?

A scrutiny of the measures suggested by JMEC boss reveals that what he is pushing for is point number (3) which is the development of a revised and realistic timeline and implementation of a schedule towards democratic elections at the end of the transition period.

Now they have realised that the clock is ticking and the moment of truth is drawing closer which is the end of the TGoNU next year as specified by ARCSS. So, is he pushing for preparation for elections without the recognised TGoNU ever being formed? Or that he wants the extension of its tenure before it even started?

The reality is that ARCSS is dead. There is no path to a lasting peace emanating from what Mogae and the JMEC would want us to believe.

It’s sad that the JMEC boss continues to issue statements like the following one, I quote: “The Peace Agreement is still alive but has been wounded, the revitalization forum formed by the IGAD heads of states on the 12th of June 2017 in Addis Ababa is set to get the Agreement back on track.” The audience could see how he contradicted himself in a single statement.

There are similarities between the tragedy in Syria and the one happening in South Sudan. Coincidentally, the situation facing Mogae is akin to what Ex- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went through when he was the UN-Arab League Joint Special Envoy for the Syrian Crisis. It only took Kofi Annan 5 months to tender his resignation on the 02/08/2012.

The following is an excerpt from his resignation letter, “My concern from the start has been the welfare of the Syrian people. Syria can be saved from the calamity – if the international community can show the courage and leadership necessary to compromise on their partial interests for the sake of the Syrian people.”

What Kofi Annan did compels everyone to bow to him in full respect. It re-inforces what I always believed that politics is not all about Machiavellianism and material gains, but there is a moral obligation tied to it.

Festus Mogae is, of course, free to follow his conscience but at this juncture, a real friend would advise him to go home right now. His presence is sending the wrong message that a peace process is underway while in reality, nothing of that sort exists. His departure would pave the way for genuine endeavours to find a solution to the crisis in our beloved country.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok

Gen. Thomas Cirillo, C-in-C of NAS: 9th July Independence Day Message to all

Dated: JULY 9th, 2017, National Salvation Front/Army. SSN;

To countrymen and women, those imprisoned, tortured or even killed in these years of tribulations, I salute all our peoples: our gallant men and women serving in the forces of our struggle;
–the internally displaced in the bushes and POC camps, those in refugee camps in neighboring countries;
–those in the Diaspora etc, etc…..

Eleven long years since that Day in 2005 when the CPA was signed in Naivasha, Kenya and 6 long cruel years since the Dawn of Independence broke in are experiencing the severest forms of hardship in a country whose hopes at independence were so high and have been thoroughly dashed without any pangs of conscience by those who claimed to be peoples’ leaders;

Your suffering for all those years refresh in our memory the heroes of 1955, who, following their instincts, far less resourced than we’re today, dared to challenge the oppressive giants of their day — for all their posterity.

The seeds of freedom that they planted in our hearts, to this day, have blossomed into an unquenchable quest for our freedom, our dignity and our unity as a people, bound together inseparably in a long history of struggle to assert our God-given rights, the same rights to all humanity.

We can’t forget the hundreds, if not thousands of martyrs of the brutalities of the CURRENT REGIME IN JUBA.

With their blood they have championed the resistance to the INTERNAL NEO-COLONIAL establishment now crippling life in South Sudan.

In spite of these past sacrifices offered by past and present martyrs and by us, their survivors, we now face an unprecedented, inhuman, antipathetic, morally devoid internal colonialism by a very few who obtained the power they abuse on a silver platter, totally unprepared for it upon the death of our great national hero, Dr. John Garang de Mabior.

With their criminal orientation, they are prepared to smear the reputations of entire clans or even ethnic groups with their long litany of evil deeds.

Their schemes to divide and rule will miserably fail as all the entire peoples of South Sudan have not and will not succumb to their selfish ends; and all the peoples of South Sudan have already unanimously rejected their schemes of division for the benefit of a very few.

We encourage their constituencies and all South Sudanese to hold their chins high not to loose faith and subdue despair as we proudly look to the day when we will have every reason to celebrate all occasions that mark our achievements, however compromised by agents of destruction and repression!

At this juncture I would like to remind ourselves that “freedom and rights are not given” –they are won through hard struggles!

NAS would like to assure our people that it will exert every effort for their unity, whatever the cost, in spite of the bitter seeds of divide and rule being planted and pursued by the SPLM government.

Our unity is our national pride, and the source of our strength. We shall not cease, nor shall we desist, from reminding Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit and his cohorts that their anti-citizens schemes are destined to utter failure.

We in NAS remind everyone that we have no independence to celebrate, but we do rejoice at the prospects that the fate of the authors of the on-going cruelties is sealed! We celebrate the fact that South Sudan will rise again!

We take the opportunity to remind friend and foe alike that NAS missionary zeal and dedication is towards rallying the entire SOUTH SUDANESE populace to bring about their own salvation – devoid of drives for power or illicit wealth accumulation at the expense of all else.

NAS leaves no stone un-turned in the process of the struggle for the final genuine liberation of our people.

NAS strives to ensure that no efforts will be spared in the quest for the realization of the objectives of the liberation of the South Sudanese peoples.

We hope that our friends and neighbours in the region, IGAD, AU, Troika and the International Community as a whole are able to share with us our remorse on this Independence Day memorial.

There are many ways in which they hurry to our aid. Foremost, the continued existence of the Kiir regime with impunity marks a regrettable moral bankruptcy in those who know and understand the problems of South Sudan.

We need peace as urgently! Many of our friends are in a position to apply the right pressures against Juba, to win an abdication by Kiir, since “forcing him out” is apparently distasteful in many quarters.

We take this opportunity to appeal to our partners in the struggle, other political parties, Civil Society organizations, Faith-based Organizations and others to appreciate the reality that the Juba regime cannot be treated with a business-as-usual attitude.

With the help of the JCE (Jieng Council of Elders), Mathiang Anyor (Dinka ethnic militia) and others who knowingly or unknowingly have been party to the many forms of atrocities committed in our nation against innocent people, the Kiir regime has crossed more RED LINES in South Sudan than any contemporary tyrants.


Let this occasion be a firm reminder to us all that things have gone despicably wrong in South Sudan – justifying the determination of NAS to restore all rights to decent living for all South Sudanese.

Even the Juba-celebrated National Dialogue (ND), commendable at face-valve, is not a credible tool to address the depths of the problems to which Kiir has brought the country.

NAS will spare no efforts to introduce good governance and sustainable development through top programs such as:
1. Absolute security for all citizens where only God takes life through disease or accidents, but never should we ever again lose life at the hands of fellow-man.
2. The establishment of governance institutions answerable to the people and accountable in every public endeavor.
8. Putting an end to elite decadent living at the expense of the ordinary citizen, through firm measures to curb corruption and luxurious expenditures in the public sector!
9. Encouraging all the educated citizens in general, and intellectuals in particular – discouraged by the Kiir regime from participating in nation-building ever since the CPA and Independence – return home to participate in effectively laying the foundation for a modern South Sudan.

Our people are absolutely tired of empty sugar-coated speeches that describe Heaven-on-Earth without end.

NAS values words that are immediately put into actions in spite of hurdles that might exist. After all, others in the world are succeeding with very little at their disposal.

Why should we, a people endowed with all forms of God-given resources fail so pathetically?

No, NAS has no stomach for the kinds of excuses on which the citizens of South Sudan have been fed without their basic human needs ever being met!


No one sufficiently conscious about the Juba regime should allow themselves to be used by cooperating without questioning the moral aspects of the planned actions or programs.

An obvious example is the current NATIONAL DIALOGUE, only aimed at trashing past serious compromise agreements – without resulting in any substantive change. Nor do we wish to consider the country’s problems as simply a disagreement within the SPLM. They have remorselessly caused us to suffer for many years for no reason.

With God above as our witness, guide, patron and support, we wish to assure all citizens and sympathetic friends that NAS is confident of Victory in the first genuine liberation of our people.

The light at the end of the tunnel is bright. The horizon holds much hope and promise for the present, the future and for generations to come.

Long live the resilient, aspiring and patient citizens of South Sudan.
God Bless you.

Your Faithful Servant,

(Signed) Gen. Thomas Cirillo Swaka


Why having the Hybrid Court is undesirable as part of Conflict Resolution in South Sudan

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda, JUL/15/2017, SSN;

The conflict in South Sudan broke between on 15 December 2013. The way it took ethnic dimension accompanied by gruesome killings that shocked the world. The killings were indiscriminate and barbaric.

The killings in Juba against members of Nuer Community on 15 December 2013 were carried out systematically. As a result, Dr. Riek Machar and other Nuer Army Generals declared a war against the government and the Dinka Community. The declaration was soon followed by systematic and widespread killings of Dinka community members in by then three states of Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile.

Fearing that things would go from bad to worse between Dinka and Nuer that might lead into the country falling apart or the situation might go the Rwanda way, the IGAD and TROIKA moved swiftly to terminate the war by initiating the peace process.


In attempt to address the abuses of human rights that followed the outbreak of the 15 December 2013, the Agreement provides for the establishment of the Hybrid Court of South Sudan.

Thus, Article 1.1 under Chapter V of the above Agreement provides that upon inception of the Agreement, the Transitional Government of National Unity of the Republic of South Sudan (TGoNU) shall initiate legislation for the establishment of the following transitional justice institutions, inter alia, an independent hybrid judicial body, to be known as the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS) (see; Article 1.1.2). This Article, therefore, establishes the Hybrid Court.

As provided for in the Agreement, the main purpose of the Hybrid Court is to try the following crimes: Genocide (see; Article; Crimes Against Humanity (see; Article; War Crimes (see; Article; and Other serious crimes under international law and relevant laws of the Republic of South Sudan including gender based crimes and sexual violence (see; Article

Enshrining crimes of Genocide; Crimes Against Humanity; and War crimes in the Hybrid Court for South Sudan indicates the intention of the framers of the Agreement who might want to domesticate the ICC Statute by implication. It should be noted that to adopt the general criminal principles in dealing with crimes in South Sudan is not a bad idea as long as it contributes to lasting peace.

However, the question we must answer before endorsing the idea of modern Criminal Justice in South Sudan is, can its adoption as envisaged in Article 3 of the Agreement Chapter V bring the lasting peace in South Sudan?

The answer to this question is negative. It cannot bring lasting peace or even temporarily halt the conflict because of the following reasons:—

First, the conflict in South Sudan is not normal conflict that may warrant criminal prosecution in the modern sense as understood in the West. But South Sudanese conflict is political violence. In this regard, political violence means the conflict perpetrated by either persons or governments to achieve political goals. Therefore, the solution to political violence is political settlement.

In political violence, criminal prosecution is not desirable as what is needed is political justice. Political justice is achieved through political agreement to meet political goals accompanied by reparations to the victims.

This implies that Criminal Prosecution as provided for under Chapter V of the Agreement is unrealistic as one of the methods of solving conflict in South Sudan.

Second, the proposed criminal prosecution to address crimes committed in the process of the war in South Sudan may not be effective for some reasons. What makes it ineffective and illusive in addressing human rights violations is that, it contemplates the prosecution of the President of South Sudan and other government officials.

Thus, under Chapter V of the Agreement, it is provided that a person, who planned, instigated, ordered, committed, aided and abetted, conspired or participated in a joint criminal enterprise in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime shall be individually responsible for the crime (see; Article 3.2.1).

The use of the words as “…a person, who planned, instigated, ordered, committed, aided and abetted, conspired or participated in a joint criminal enterprise in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime shall be individually responsible for the crime” implies the principle of command responsibility and because of that the president of South Sudan, Dr. Riek Machar and other army generals both in the oppositions and the government are all eligible to be prosecuted under the Hybrid Court in South Sudan.

The question is, it is feasible?

Of Course, it is not. Therefore, before adopting the Hybrid Court in South Sudan, the following questions must be answered: if prosecutions begin, where do they end? Should only the leadership be brought to justice? Should bureaucrats, judiciary personnel, members of police and security forces, members of the media, the medical profession, all of whom are often duplicitous in authoritarian regimes, be eligible for prosecution? Can a state finance such an endeavor?

Will the members of the elite allow themselves to be dragged through a criminal or civil proceeding? Will prosecutions ensure that future leaders do a better job covering up abuses so as not be subject to the same?

How will these prosecutions help a society move forward when a system is consumed with the past? How does a society prevent witch hunts and the guarantee of due process for those under prosecution?

If it is the military that’s the target of prosecutions, then there exists the threat of a coup in order for military leaders to protect themselves. Also, if only the top leaders, those who gave the orders, are prosecuted, then the junior officers, those who carried out the bloody orders, will move into top military positions, which may put us into uncertainty in relation to military.

Is criminal prosecution as we see in the case of Rwanda appropriate in South Sudan?

If the above questions are not properly answered and the typical criminal justice is hastily adopted as a method of conflict resolution in South Sudan, then there is likelihood that the future of South Sudan will be jeopardized.

Hence, instead of achieving lasting peace, the country may find itself in worse situations than what we are trying to deal with now. This means that there is a need for rethinking criminal justice as an approach to South Sudanese conflict resolution mechanism.

The criminal prosecution as was seen in the case of Rwanda is not applicable in South Sudan. This is because unlike Rwanda where the new government was already in place when the Court was being established, in the case of South Sudan, it is the same government, which is accused of human rights violations is the one expected to implement the provisions on the Hybrid Court, which is fallacy.

Entrusting the Government with the duty to prosecute herself is a mere dream that will never be realized in South Sudan. The president and other government officials and military will never accept to implement the provisions of the Hybrid Court in accordance with its spirit.

This is because the situation in South Sudan is different from that were prevailing in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

As already pointed out above, the Hybrid Courts that were established both in Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia were able to operate effectively because by the time they were established, there were already New Governments in place.

Therefore, the New Governments were able to cooperate with the Hybrid Courts in surrendering the perpetuaters of human rights abuses during the Rwandan Genocide and the conflict in Yugoslavia.

In South Sudan, however, the government will never accept to willingly surrender the accused to the Hybrid Court as the accused are part of the government unless it is forced to do so.

Nonetheless, forcing the Government externally to submit to court can be categorized as an assault on South Sudan sovereignty contrary to Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, 1945.

In addition, invading the country externally to force the government and its officials to surrender the culprits will be further throw South Sudan into even more chaos given the fact that a bulk of the members of our communities stand behind their own leaders.

For the above reasons, if the force is used against the government to obey Court orders then given the nature and mentality of the majority members of South Sudanese communities, there will be all out war between the invaders and the communities where leader comes from.

This means that in case of President Kiir and Riek Machar and any other personality from other tribes in South Sudan they cannot be prosecuted successfully without risking the country falling into further but more serious crises.

However if the government is still in power but not forced to implement the provisions on the Hybrid Court, then justice will never be done to the victims of human rights abuses. Hence, the government will remain operating as it was doing in the past and the country will continue being the same situation with no reforms.

What are needed in South Sudan are comprehensive reforms, which means that there is a need for safe transition that will help introduce strong democracy in South Sudan. This implies that the issues of criminal prosecution should be minimized, and instead, there is a need for dialogue with the President and other government officials to ensure that they accept reforms as we desire to see in South Sudan.

Apart from the above external issues that makes Hybrid Court undesirable, the provisions establishing the Hybrid Courts are not comprehensive enough to cover the human rights abuses that occurred before 15 December 2013. Article 3.1.1 under Chapter V of the 15 August 2015 Agreement provides, the Court shall be established by the African Union Commission to investigate and prosecute individuals bearing the responsibility for violations of international law and/or applicable South Sudanese law, committed from 15 December 2013 through the end of the Transitional Period.

As seen above, the Hybrid Court is incompetent to investigate and try the crimes committed before 15 December 2013. What those who formulated this position of law should have put into consideration is the fact that the killings on 15 December 2013 was between Dinka and Nuer. This means that the conflict is historical nature, which is the continuation of the massive killings that have been going between Nuer and Dinka between 1980s and 1990s.

In 1990s, there were mass massacres of Bor people under the Command of Dr. Riek Machar when he broke away from the SPLM/A mainstream in 1990. Unfortunately, when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed between South and the North of Sudan, the human rights abuses were not addressed.

It should be noted that the failure to address the human rights violations that occurred during the conflict between SPLM/A and the Khartoum and its affiliated militias from 1983-2005 provided for the fertile ground for future massacres. The 2013 massacres of the members of the Nuer community in Juba and the killings of Dinka people afterwards in the three States of Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile was caused by the failure to address the first human rights violation.

In respect to the above, if the Hybrid Court were to be established to address human rights violations in South Sudan, the timeline for the crimes to be investigated and tried should stretch back to 1990s. In addition, the Hybrid Court should have also contemplated investigating the conflicts between Nuer and Dinka Youths and among Dinka youth themselves and if possible try them as well. This is because these conflicts have been claiming thousands of lives since 2005 to date.

However, the weakness with the present contemplated Hybrid Court in South Sudan is that it will not address the violations of Human Rights that have been committed since 1990s or even before that. For these reasons, the people of South Sudan and in particular Nuer and Dinka will never be satisfied that justice has been done.

When people are not satisfied with justice, the chances of the future conflict reoccurring are high. In order to prevent the future conflict from reoccurring and at the same time ensuring the permanent peace, the dialogue, truth telling and reconciliation should be the way forward in South Sudan. The people obey the law not because of force but for the morals they attach to the law.

In regard to the safeguard of the rights of the Victims, Witnesses and the Accused, the standards differ. Article 3.4.1 of the Establishment of Hybrid Court under Chapter V provides that the HCSS shall implement measures to protect victims and witnesses in line with applicable international laws, standards and practices. While Article 3.4.2 under the same Chapter provides that the rights of the accused shall be respected in accordance to applicable laws, standards and practices.

The question is what, are these applicable laws, standards and practices, why not using the same language as in the case of the victims. Why? The difference in languages provided in the two provisions creates the difference in protection in regard to the protection of the accused. Besides, it is ambiguous and should be ratified.

Article 3.5.5 of the Agreement under Chapter V may be interpreted to have been intended to target the government officials and their subordinates only. This by implication excludes rebel commanders and their subordinates. Article 3.5.5 provides, “No one shall be exempted from criminal responsibility on account of their official capacity as a government official, an elected official or claiming the defence of superior orders”.

The fact that it specifically and expressly points out the government officials and those who took orders from them make it clear that the government officials are the target however excluding rebels and their commanders indicate that those who drafted the agreement were bias. The language of the Agreement should clearly mention both rebels and the government.

In summary, the criminal justice as found under the International Criminal Court Statute or as proposed under the Hybrid Court cannot. This is because the conflict in South Sudan is political violence which needs political settlement and the type of justice needed in South Sudan is restorative justice given the nature of injustices. The injustices committed in South Sudan are not pure criminal injustices but they are political injustices that have resulted into poverty and political violence, lack of confidence and distrust.

NB//: the author can be reached through: