Category: Featured

Ethnic balance with 42% increased Dinka-land if 28 states approved


A proposal by President Salva Kiir to divide the country into 28 states would make his own Dinka ethnic group the prevailing ethnic majority in administrative areas covering 42% of the country, according to maps of the proposal.

By comparison, in the current situation, the Dinka are the prevailing ethnic group in only 26 counties, approximately 25% of total land area, according to maps available for download below.

Considerable areas that presently belong to ethnically diverse states would be governed by new states comprising predominantly ethnic Dinka populations, for example, Raja County, Maban County and part of Makal County.

On the other hand, some Dinka-inhabited areas that were hitherto part of ethnically diverse states would be transferred into predominantly Dinka states, notably, Pigi County.

A map produced by the presidency to explain its 28-states proposal indicates the partial absorption of the Nuer-inhabited Uror County into an otherwise entirely Dinka-inhabited state and the largely Murle-inhabted Boma State.

Part of Nuer-inhabited Rubkona County would be absorbed into the new Dinka-inhabited Ruweng State; both areas have hitherto been part of the multi-ethnic Unity State.

Raja County is the largest territory that would be transferred into a Dinka-majority state, the proposed Lol State. Currently the county belongs to Western Bahr al Ghazal State, in which the Dinka are an ethnic minority. Under Kiir’s proposal, the county would be merged with two areas of Northern Bahr al Ghazal, radically shifting the ethnic balance in the state.

Meanwhile, the proposal for creation of 21 states by Riek Machar similarly creates advantages for his own ethnic group, the Nuer. Most notably, the Dinka area of Baliet County in present-day Upper Nile State would be merged into Nuer-dominated Sobat state.

The existence of a Dinka minority in present-day Unity State would remain unchanged under Machar’s proposal, whereas in Kiir’s proposal this minority would be given its own state administration.

Under Machar’s proposal, the Dinka minority in Pigi County would find itself isolated within a Nuer-dominated Phow State; presently the county is part of the multi-ethnic Jonglei State, in which there are other Dinka tribes in the southwest of the state around Bor.

The former vice president’s proposal would consequently result in an increase in predominance of his own ethnic group from 15% of total land area to 19% of total area.

Machar has also proposed that the minority Maban be merged with a new ‘Adar State’, which is otherwise Dinka-inhabited. At present they are part of the ethnically diverse Upper Nile State, which is dominated by no single group.

Both the proposal of Salva Kiir and the proposal of Riek Machar result in increased administrative influence of the Dinka and Nuer and less influence for smaller tribes.

—Last week’s constitutional amendments pushed through by South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir, establishing 18 new states and appointing governors have cast a shadow over the peace agreement and the formation of a transitional government.

President Kiir had invoked Article 101 (f) of the Transitional Constitution that allows him to initiate constitutional amendments and legislation, enabling parliament to pass a raft of amendments on November 19. The amendments now pave the way for appointment of new governors for the 18 additional states.

Amended was Article 162, which states that South Sudan, comprises 10 states and the states boundaries and names shall not be altered except by a resolution of the Council of States approved by two-thirds of all members.

Also amended were Article 165, which provided that governors are to be elected by the people. The amendments now gives President Kiir powers to appoint new governors and entrench the additional 18 states into the Constitution.

Superior law: Chapter 7 (3) of the agreement says: “This Agreement shall take precedence over any national legislation, and in the event that the provisions of a national legislation conflict with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall prevail”.

However, other stakeholders argue that the amendments will not hold because the peace agreement is supreme and any amendment to the Constitution are to be undertaken by the National Constitutional Amendments Committee to be formed under the Transitional Government of National Unity.

Is Corruption unbeatable in South Sudan?

BY: Dr. Lako Jada KWAJOK, NOV/19/2015, SSN;

Probably many of us would agree that a single word sometimes gives an impression about a person, an organisation or a government. For example, when you hear the name Al Capone, you think straight of a gangster who led organised crime in Chicago during the prohibition era despite the fact that it could be the name of a Catholic priest.

Likewise, the name Al Qaeda brings up the notion of terrorism without thinking it literally means “the base” in Arabic language.

In the same vein, there are few words that instantaneously spring into your mind whenever the government of South Sudan is mentioned. Among these words is corruption.

It has grown into a monster that is posing a real threat to the future of the country. It is widespread to the extent that it’s gradually being accepted as a fact of life.

Someone on this forum even tried to convince us that some degree of corruption is permissible!

Sadly this situation is gradually drifting to where corruption becomes an entitlement to anyone at a position of authority.

Paulino Wanawilla, the justice minister, said a couple of days ago, I quote: “I know in South Sudan corruption is not in one place, but it’s very sad when everybody is stealing.”

He went further to say, “I know there is corruption. I have evidences of people in this ministry [of justice] who are legal counselors and take bribes.”

The question is; if the minister has such evidences, why not indict and prosecute those corrupt officials? What is holding him back from performing his duties given the fact that he is the top member of the executive responsible for upholding the rule of law.

It is really unbecoming for someone in his position to say those words while he has the authority to get rid of those corrupt officials.

Instead of telling half the truth, the names of the corrupt officials should have been made public with accountability process put in place.

What the minister has done is similar to what president Kiir did 3 years ago when he wrote letters to 75 top officials who embezzled 4 billion US Dollars from government coffers.

President Kiir continues to refuse disclosing the names of the culprits. A wise man (Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher) once said I quote, “Where there is no publicity [i.e full disclosure] there is no justice.”

Transparency is key to tackling the whole issue whether past or present because once the names are known, the culprits would have nowhere to hide.

Wanawilla’s statements are rather expressions of helplessness and resignation than a signal for imminent actions to curb the corruption.

The minister can be commended for admitting the existence of corruption under his watch. Some of his colleagues in the cabinet would be more defensive and deny what is known to everyone including the gatekeeper in the ministry.

However he has a tough choice to make between putting up with the situation with the risk of getting soiled on the way, or quitting his job if he cannot effect changes in his ministry.

South Sudan ranked number 171 out of 175 countries on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of the 2014 Transparency International (TI) report. Below South Sudan are Afghanistan, Sudan, North Korea and Somalia.

It means our country is among the most corrupt countries in the world. It is a pity that such a young country with the abundant resources it has, finds itself at the bottom of the world.

TI defines corruption as “The abuse of entrusted power for private gain which eventually hurts everyone who depends on the integrity of people in position of authority.”

Unfortunately complacency is prevalent in our society. It is so often that people say -this is government money, government vehicle or government property- the implication is that it does not matter if these items get mishandled because they belong to no particular individual.

The fact of the matter is that corruption hurts everyone including the corrupt officials though in different ways.

Hypothetically, the 4 billion dollars could have enabled the government to build for example highways connecting our major cities (Juba, Malakal and Wau) and numerous small towns and villages along the routes.

This would have led to stimulation of economic growth, facilitation of service delivery to the people and beefing up of security around the country.

It was never to be in South Sudan under the current regime. But the hardships emanating from lack of infrastructure are not confined to the rural people only, the corrupt officials would suffer in one way or the other.

One aspect of this is that many of them would not dare visiting their own villages. While they live happily in Juba, their villages are left in ruin and abandoned.

The question is how would they campaign in the coming elections?! Would it be by using surrogates while they stay away in Juba?!

As we are about to open a new chapter in our political process, namely the establishment of the transitional government of national unity (TGoNU ), a new approach should be the order of the day.

We cannot allow inaction against corruption to continue in the republic of South Sudan. It should be regarded as a matter of national security.

In countries like China, government officials who commit grand corruption are handed down the death penalty.

In my opinion a long jail sentence coupled with confiscation of assets would be the appropriate measure. There are things the TGoNU could do that would have an impact in fighting corruption.

A lean government is one of the things that could help limiting corruption both directly and indirectly.

In South Sudan when a minister is appointed, the whole of his extended family and sometimes his clan move in with him. I wonder whether it’s a phenomenon only limited to South sudan.

The result is, many people loitering under trees in Juba doing nothing yet being maintained indirectly by the government. Some are kept indefinitely in hotels in Juba at taxpayers’ expense.

It is a culture of dependence and laziness that some people shamelessly seem to enjoy.

When you add to these the cost of education and health care abroad for all members of the minister’s family, the figure would be quite staggering.

There is no way that the minister’s salary and allowances could cover the costs hence he resorts to corruption and embezzlement of public funds to meet his personal expenses.

It is important that the TGoNU avoids the policy of accommodation.

We have seen numerous appointments that lack merits and some with no specific job descriptions.

Even those who were sacked from their ministerial or other top government positions do not leave the government for good. They get accommodated in other posts, mostly as advisors to the president or ambassadors without portfolios.

The events have shown that some of these ambassadors were used as “attack dogs” against the opposition. Others were allegedly used to commit murder and to do the dirty work for the government.

The policy of accommodation results in no new blood or ideas entering the government. At the end of the day we end up “recycling” the old corrupt officials who have got nothing new to offer for the betterment of the country.

Adoption of real federalism and empowerment of governors, state legislatures and institutions is the way forward.

This would remove any hurdles in the way of democratic governance and would uphold the rule of law.

Politicians would think twice before indulging in corruption because they would be closely scrutinised by their constituencies and would lose elections if they go astray.

It is unusual for a politician to embezzle funds that are allocated for say building a school in his area. It amounts to political suicide, however the same politician, who is inherently corrupt, would not hesitate to embezzle funds allocated for the same purpose but in another area.

There are people who are keen to develop their areas. They are not interested in getting employed in the government but want the government to get out of the way.

It is the insecurity caused by the SPLA and its allies that leads to hindrance of economic growth.

With the federal system, sons and daughters of the area would be the ones entrusted with maintenance of security and delivery of services to their local population. It is the recipe for stability and prosperity.

The majority of our citizens do not know how much our government is spending on our military. The following figures are extracted from the global military sizes and expenditures report for 2014:

**South Sudan: Total military size: 140, 000 Military expenditure(% GDP): 8.3

**Sudan: Military size: 211,100 Mil. expenditure(% GDP): 2.7
**Uganda: 46,800 Mil. expenditure (%GDP) 1.2
**Kenya: Mil. size: 29,120 Mil. size: 1.3
**Ethiopia: Mil. size: 138,000 Mil. expenditure(%GDP): 0.7
**Democratic Republic of Congo: 145,400 Mil. expenditure(%GDP): 1.4
**Central African Republic: Mil. size: 3,150 Mil. expenditure(%GDP): 0.5
**South Africa: Mil. size: 89,535 Mil. expenditure(%GDP): 1.1
**USA: M. size:2,226,635 %GDP: 3.5; **Russia: Size:2,821,255 %GDP:4.5
**UK: M. size:234,310 %GDP: 2.1; **China: M. size:6,927,000 %GDP:2.1

I must admit, the report was a big surprise to me. Here is South Sudan, the youngest nation on Earth, which has just risen from a long and protracted war, spending as percentage of GDP on the military more than the combined expenditure of USA, UK and China.

It is also more than the combined expenditure of the USA and Russia.

We are spending more than the superpowers. What is going on?! Is it really worthwhile doing so?

Is there any justification for this unbelievable expenditure or that huge army?

Look at the size of the Ugandan army (UPDF), it is 1/3 the size of SPLA. Yet the government had to seek the help of the UPDF to save it from collapse!

A big number does not always equate with a stronger army, it is the training and the firepower that matter most. Contemporary history has shown it clearly in the Arab-Israeli wars.

The SPLA is a leading source of corruption in the country. Arms deals are done without transparency and a lot of funds go into the pockets of the generals.

Salaries and allowances are being paid to people who do not exist or indeed dead. All these practices contribute to depletion of our national wealth. T

he SPLA or the would-be-South Sudan Army needs to be down-sized to 1/3 of its current size and more attention should be directed to training.

Professionalism should be introduced with eradication of the culture of looting, rape and brutality against civilians.

The brutal attacks against civilians in Unity state, Upper Nile state and the recent helicopter gunship offensive against unarmed civilians in Wonduruba, Mundri and Maridi areas, have changed civilians’ perception of the SPLA.

Right now if civilians in those areas are asked what is the number one threat to their lives, the answer would not be diseases, famine or environmental catastrophes, it will be without hesitation the SPLA.

Finally, we should all recognise that corruption has reached the worst possible stage and is edging towards irreversibility.

There is nothing that cannot be fixed in this world provided it’s humanly possible. However the first step to fixing all our problems is to have a responsible government in Juba.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok

Presidential Decree 36/2015 jeopardized National Unity in South Sudan

BY: Dr. James Kwajok, NOV/11/2015, SSN;

At the end of last month, South Sudan witnessed the emergence of a new rebel group called Tiger Faction New Forces (TFNF). It was the breakaway of SPLA units stationed in Manyo County in northern Upper Nile State. The faction is led by General Yoanes Okij with specific demands to be met by the government before the rebellion could end. It has already engaged the SPLA in combat. The faction is composed exclusively of members from the Chollo tribe and its demands are:

1- Immediate revocation of the unconstitutional presidential establishment order 36/2015 for creation of 28 new states instead of the current 10 states.

2- Establishment of a federal system of governance.

However the main reason for this unprecedented development is the division of the Chollo Kingdom into two parts with annexation of the part on the eastern bank of the Nile including Malakal to the newly established Dinka states.

It is the first time in the history of South Sudan that a movement was born solely to defend the land and interests of a single tribe. All the rebel movements that fought the government in Juba starting from George Athor group through Gatluak Gai group and ending with Aguelek which is a Chollo movement under General Johnson Olony, have national agendas and political opposition to the government.

Even the Cobra faction which is a Murle movement under David Yau Yau was the result of grievances about a rigged election.

With the rise up of the TFNF, South Sudan has entered uncharted and dangerous waters. It is even more likely that the other tribes whose lands have been snatched from them would follow suit.

The presidential decree seems to have stirred a hornet’s nest and the consequences are dire and unpredictable. Anyone who had the opportunity of visiting or living in Malakal would be very amazed to hear any tribe other than the Chollo claiming its ownership.

I have travelled by steamers and by land back and forth from Malakal to Juba and from Malakal to Kosti. The Chollo people are present on both banks of the Nile and this has been the case since time immemorial.

These are indisputable facts that could be substantiated by reading history books regarding the Chollo Kingdom.

The establishment order for the creation of 28 new states was an unwelcome surprise to the majority of the citizens and to observers of South Sudanese affairs regionally and internationally.

At the time when all attention was on the need to expedite the implementation of the compromise peace agreement within its specified time frame, president Kiir chose to undermine the peace accord by announcing his unconstitutional decree.

Any reasonable person would have thought that president Kiir at this particular time and following the signing of the peace accord, would focus more on promoting unity among the people and avoiding anything that would impede peaceful coexistence.

He did the opposite and the timing was even indicative of an attempt to derail the compromise peace agreement.

So, what was the rationale behind this big decision which could be detrimental to the very existence of South Sudan as one entity?

The government propaganda machine and officials are saying this is what the people want and they have answered their demand. But is it really what the overwhelming majority of the people want?

The decree is nothing but the creation of the new states while the same system of governance remains in place with president Kiir retaining his current powers.

What our people want is real federalism that entails sharing sovereignty between the federal government and the states, separation of powers between executive and the legislative institutions and independence of the judiciary.

In brief, it is a system where the president or prime minister can not remove an elected governor or indeed any elected official without due process.

Moreover the president or prime minister will have no powers to appoint members of the parliament. The judiciary will be empowered to ensure upholding of the rule of law.

President Kiir has been all along against federalism and his establishment order can only fool those who lack knowledge about it. Even his government track record exposes the fallacy of their claim of giving the people what they asked for.

People still recall the time when the government imposed a gag on government officials not to talk about federalism. The government was so sensitive and antagonistic to the extent of exerting pressure on the press to stop the debate on the matter.

A poor citizen was shot dead in Maridi by a member of the security forces, simply for voicing out his support for federalism. It amounted to a political assassination which should have drawn the attention of the top government officials including the president.

President Kiir neither condemned the incident nor gave directives to ensure justice for the victim and his family. As far as we know the killer is still at large.

The recent peace negotiations in Addis Ababa gave further evidence that the regime is anti federalism because they rejected it when tabled for discussion by SPLM/A-IO.

Creating more states would be acceptable to everyone should it be the will of the people and devoid of taking a piece of land from one tribe and giving it to the other.

Paul Malong, the SPLA Chief of Staff, could have his village made a state capital as he wished provided the decision comes through the proper channels, namely the national legislative assembly (NLA)and the Council of States (COS).

My personal opinion is that there is more to lose than to gain by increasing the number of states at this point in time. It will increase the number of the unproductive workforce, thieves and looters with little benefit to the public.

The government coffers has been losing millions of South Sudanese Pounds to bogus pay-sheets and ghost employees. This situation can only get worse with the creation of the new states.

Just look at the case of the previous acting caretaker governor of Northern Bahr El Gazal State, Salva Chol Ayat. He was hardly one month in office when accusation of embezzlement of millions of South Sudanese Pounds emerged.

His successor, the current caretaker governor Akot Deng Akot who is just over 2 months in office, has already been accused of embezzlement of SSP 3.29 millions to settle personal debts.

There is a wealth of evidence that embezzlement, theft, looting and corruption are commonplace in Northern Bahr El Ghazal state.

As the situation unfolds, it became clear that the president is executing a purely tribal agenda aimed at expanding his tribe’s territories and giving it dominance over other tribes.

By doing so, he has removed himself completely from impartiality and has become a tool for enacting a tribal policy dictated by the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) rather than a national policy for the benefit of all the people of South Sudan.

What baffles many of us is – does the president and his henchmen really think they could annex lands from other tribes and still expect South Sudan to remain the same?

When the government talks about our occupied lands in Abyei, Panthou (Higlig) and some parts of Northern Bahr El Gazal state and Northern Upper Nile state, it gets support from all South Sudanese.

These lands would ultimately be recovered by peaceful means or in the worse case scenario by going to war with the Sudan.

If indeed it comes down to war then all South Sudanese would participate in it including members from the tribes that have lost lands through annexation.

Would these people really be motivated to fight for liberation of those lands (which are by the way Jieng lands) when at the same time they feel threatened at home with their lands being taken away and given to the Jieng tribe?

There is no way that you can take the land of one citizen and give it to the other and expect both to remain citizens of the same country.

That can not happen in the real world and is all about Kiir and his cohorts living in fantasy.

Land ownership belongs to the communities as clearly enshrined in the constitution. No president should ever tamper with that as it would damage the unity of the people and unleash all sorts of problems for the country.

But what can we say to a president who has been blinded by tribal politics to the extent that he cannot see the obvious!

The Chollo are peace-loving people and very welcoming to members of other communities who are living, working and doing business in their land.

In the few clashes that we know with other tribes, the Chollo were never the aggressors but were always fighting in self-defence and in response to encroachments on their territory.

The immediate and overwhelming support for the new rebel group from the Chollo community points in the direction of a tribe that has been pushed to the limits with only one option left for it to take, which is rebellion.

General Yoanes Okij and his group are regarded as heroes in the Chollo Kingdom and I would bet my bottom pound that the Chollo members of Kiir’s government are supporting the group if asked privately.

It is a situation of determination and resolve by the whole tribe to face Kiir’s decree head-on no matter what sacrifices the community would have to make.

As we all know the Chollo tribe is not the only one affected by the presidential decree 36/2015.

The Fertit group of tribes is facing a similar situation where a large chunk of their land is carved and incorporated into the newly created states.

There is a growing opposition to the presidential establishment order among the Western Bahr Gazalians and the dissent could turn nasty if not already.

Even Governor Rizig Zakaria, who is a staunch supporter of president Kiir, expressed some reservations and asked for an additional 29th state to avoid parts of Raja county being annexed to the Dinka dominated Northern Bahr El Gazal state.

There is a consensus among the Equatorians from day one that rejects the presidential decree. This opinion is shared by those inside the country and the diaspora population.

Again there is dissent even among government supporters – for example the section of Bul Nuer that supports the government is against annexation of parts of their land to the new states.

The Murle and the people of Mabaan have shown opposition to the presidential decree despite the misleading propaganda from the government.

In conclusion, the presidential decree 36/2015 appears to have angered all South Sudanese communities except the president’s Jieng community. They have celebrated and even nominated governors for the newly created states.

It’s quite understandable as they are the only beneficiaries through the expansion of their land ownership and augmentation of their political influence.

When president Kiir took the oath as the first president of South Sudan, among his duties is promotion of unity among the people. Well, what we have seen so far is a relentless divisive policy that has pushed the country to the brink of disaster.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok

Pres. Kiir sabotages the compromise peace agreement

BY: ELHAJ Paul, NOV/05/2015, SSN;

President Salva Kiir has decidedly chosen to disregard the IGAD-Plus compromise peace agreement. However, the good thing is that the president’s obstructions are reparable if the structures envisaged by the agreement itself are put in place.

This agreement was made possible through threats of individual sanctions and threats of referral of President Kiir and Riek to International Criminal Court. The game of sanctions right from the beginning was a kind of a joke.

In the middle of last year the Troika applied it to enforce the constantly failing Cessation of Hostilities Agreement of 23rd January 2014. It hardly yielded any fruits. President Kiir and Riek continued to slag themselves while the civilians pay the price.

Instead of going after the real culprits who matter like the members of the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), the Troika wasted time targeting and sanctioning medium size fish like General Marial Chinoung of the presidential guards and General Peter Gatdet of the armed opposition movement etc.

South Sudanese were not impressed and as expected, the sanctions did not make any impact neither on the behaviour of the belligerents nor on the conflict itself. Frustrated with the ineffectiveness, the Troika imposed the compromise peace agreement.

Riek seized the opportunity and signed it without complaints. President Kiir arrogantly declined to sign it claiming it violated the sovereignty of South Sudan. Within a week of his foolery, President Kiir was dragged screaming and kicking to the table to sign it.

When they were cornered, President Kiir and the JCE made their feelings and intention clear through placing reservations on the agreement. The intent clearly was to destroy the agreement.

In their quest to achieve their aim, President Kiir began violating the agreement by attacking the armed opposition in Malakal and Unity state supported by Uganda air force using helicopter gunships.

Fearing collapse of the agreement, US tabled a sanction motion at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) against General Paul Malong Awan, the chief of the army and General Johnson Olony, the leader of the Agwelek forces.

Juba reacted swiftly and it enlisted support of Khartoum to win support of Russia which it did. It is not clear what Juba promised Russia, but it appears something substantial. When the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sat, the Troika were caught unaware by Russia.

Russia vetoed the sanctions with endorsement from Venezuela and Angola. President Kiir succeeded to neutralise the threats of sanctions waved at Juba by the Troika by opening up a new relationship with Russia as their protector.

The Russian veto basically became a manna to the regime in Juba. It turned into the Achilles Heels of the whole Obama strategy to achieve peace in South Sudan.

All of a sudden the regime in Juba on realising it is protected; it upped the ante in the game of destroying the agreement. Without delay it threw another spanner into the works.

This time, it went straight to the juggler of the Compromise Peace Agreement (CPA) by ordering creation of new 28 states to replace the current 10 which provides the central tenet of power sharing in the CPA. Without any doubt, this is President Kiir tearing the agreement in pieces.

This contempt for the CPA hopefully teaches IGAD-Plus a lesson. They have been asking for this type of treatment for quite a long time. All along they covered their eyes, plugged their ears and zipped their mouths as in the famous Japanese proverb: see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil in their dogged support of President Kiir.

In spite of the fact that the man committed ethnic cleansing of his “own people” (Nuer), he was received like a gentleman in Washington in 2014.

Here is a nasty dictator abusing and misgoverning his country and yet he was received in the White House like a successful African leader. What did the host think they were doing? Did they not realise that they were boosting President Kiir’s ego and reinforcing his awful behaviour? That treatment psychologically reinforced his abominable behaviour.

It must be noted President Kiir is abusing human rights and governance in the country worse than President Omer Al Bashir of Sudan. Just a reminder to the Troika, President Kiir is a brilliant graduate student of Bashir’s school of abuse and oppression.

President Kiir true to his nature is repaying the Troika with what he knows best – contempt. IGAD-Plus has not done itself any favour in the whole game of dealing with the government of South Sudan. Right from the start, consistently and persistently they colluded with President Kiir against the wishes of South Sudanese people.

South Sudanese must realise that they have no true friend whether regionally or far afield in the international community. They are on their own and they need to begin to chart their own future without the distractions of others.

This is a challenge that they can overcome. As Ben Okri, the British writer of Nigerian origin asserts, “It is our challenge to change the world (South Sudan) by the force and wisdom of our curious situation and angle.”

President Kiir no doubt is determined to derail the compromise peace agreement bit by bit and piece by piece by using all available means to him.

For instance, he with support of President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda use the Ugandan media, especially Chimpreports to peddle lies and confuse the people in the whole of East Africa and beyond by portraying the armed opposition as war mongers and violators of the agreement.

At the same time the Ugandan media promote President Kiir falsely as the legitimate authority. Just visit the Chimpreport website and read the articles they have published on South Sudan and it would be clear that President Museveni and President Kiir are twin brothers in the business of lies in advancement of oppression of South Sudanese.

As I write this piece, there is a serious development which raises serious questions about IGAD-Plus commitment to fair and just implementation of the already faltering agreement.

Given Uganda’s direct involvement in the war, how can it be a monitor of the cease fire? Will it be able to exercise impartiality? Uganda will not and can not be a credible monitor. It fought and fights the various South Sudanese opposition groups in support of the Juba regime.

Uganda’s military hardware like the helicopter gunships and tanks are used negatively in South Sudan to kill innocent civilians. Africa Confidential in its report of 6th March 2015 under the heading ‘South Sudan: A test of everyone’s will’ confirms that “SPLM-IO has failed to overwhelm President Salva’s forces, partly due to support from Uganda.”

Therefore, the supervisors and the monitors of demilitarisation without emphasise should come from neutral countries such as Tanzania, South Africa, Algeria, Ghana, Nigeria etc. Uganda simply will perpetuate insecurity as it is clearly biased in favour of the abusive and murderous regime in Juba.

President Kiir has already expressed that he wants to destroy the agreement. Making Uganda (Juba’s staunchest ally) to monitor the cease fire is asking President Kiir to swiftly run riot with the whole agreement with the Ugandan monitors’ potentially concocting untruth in his favour.

Its open duplicity with Juba against the opposition should come to an end. Unhelpful statements like the one made by the Secretary of the State John Kerry demanding Riek to go to Juba does not make things better.

His demands have actually baffled South Sudanese to the extent that people now think the US is not clued on. US is underestimating the brutality and the determination of President Kiir and the JCE to remove Riek should he come to Juba without adequate security.

If Riek gets harmed that would be it. We can kiss good bye to peace in South Sudan for a long time to come.

If anything Secretary Kerry’s demands helps in doing Kiir’s job of demolishing the CPA. Which brings us to the last ignored but crucial element of IGAD-Plus duplicity. That is, the issue of “moral equivalence”.

The entire mediation was clouded with this concept to portray Riek, the victim in the same vain with President Kiir. This is very unfair and unethical to say the least.

The crimes committed by President Kiir and the JCE from December 2013 to date on the back of the state of Republic of South Sudan can not be equated to the unfortunate crimes that took place in Malakal and Bentiu in April 2014 in terms of motive, intent and organisation.

It must be remembered one is the government with a wide remit to protect all the people of South Sudan and the other is a ram-shackled force acting in self defence after being targeted and aggressed ethnically by the state.

Even the recently released report of African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan acknowledges this fact. When President Kiir ethnically cleansed Juba of Nuer in December 2013, everybody kept quiet. The international media strangely enough covered the subject scantily and then it quickly went silent.

With such grave crime, South Sudanese expected the world to react instantly as with cases of similar nature in other parts of the world given the fact that the foreign embassies in the capital witnessed the mass atrocities.

The United Nations, Troika and IGAD zipped their mouths pushing the Nuer into a corner. Then in April 2014 the White army (a Nuer militia) deeply angered by President Kiir’s aggression against the Nuer and left with no choice, went into rampage in Malakal and Bentiu killing hundreds of people including fighters of Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) of Darfur in the Sudan brought in by President Kiir to support him in the war.

The UN, Troika and IGAD at the time leapt into this developing story loudly blaming the armed opposition without getting their facts right. The Representative of the Secretary General of UN in Juba Mr Toby Lanzer was all over the place leading the blame.

The same Toby who was mute when President Kiir was cleansing his opponents in Juba all of a sudden became lively and found his voice.

As an observer, I do not agree or accept what the White Army did and I unreservedly condemn it. However, what I am trying to highlight here is the unfairness of those pretending to be upholding the high moral ground.

This same Mr Lanzer failed to adequately speak out against Mr Michael Makuei, the minister of Information who in the same week mobilised Jieng militia in Bor. This militia attacked the UN Protection Camp leading into heavy death of innocent civilians in the camp.

Why was it good for President Kiir’s crimes to be muted and those of his opponents loudly broadcasted with embellishment?

The comparison is totally biased in such a way as to minimise what took place in Juba. This behaviour from the international community can be argued as acts imbued with racism because the people killed en masse by President Kiir were black they muzzled the world media and pretended as if grave crimes were not committed in Juba in December 2013.

The implication being the victims and the perpetrators all being black are ‘savages’ with no value. Therefore, there is no need for any action. Black people’s lives are not worth fussing over as their value is naught. In other words the victims were valueless to the world.

Even the international legal system could not be activated. The very United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has the duty and ability to make a referral to International Criminal Court (ICC) but this was not even considered.

Truly, racism is well and alive in the global structures of peace maintenance. Otherwise, how could the handling of South Sudan case be so shambolic without care for the people?

When President Slobodan Milosevic of former Yugoslavia killed less than hundred people in Bosnia, the world instantly reacted and bombs fell on him. When President Kiir kills over twenty thousand people in less than three days nothing happens.

For instance, both Washington and London assert that President Assad of Syria can not be part of a settlement because he kills his people.

According to President Obama, ‘the situation in Syria (is) “an assault on all our humanity.”’ This is a rational position.

What do you call this? Racism! Double standards! Or is it combination of both? You be the judge.

IGAD-Plus because of its composition should be aware of racial issues which on daily basis disadvantages all black people. Sadly this organisation buys in to this unfortunate approach.

Equally unfortunate are the South Sudanese because their supposed leaders in the opposition rather than articulating these serious issues for attainment of justice they engage in discrediting themselves, squabbles and petty fighting.

In April 2014 after the incident of Bor, Malakal and Bentiu, Dr Riek Machar publicly announced that he had set up a committee to investigate the actions of his fighters. After almost a year of raising the hopes of South Sudanese and the international community that at long last here is somebody doing something right, he dashed it by admitting that he had in fact not done anything on the subject.

How can such leadership be taken seriously? How can Riek claim to be e reformer when he is stuck to the culture of lawlessness? Is this not the continuation of the same culture of lawlessness of the SPLM/A brought to South Sudan?

What chance has South Sudan got with these supposed leaders and the SPLM/A?

While these morons of SPLM in their different forms and shapes continue to let the people down, members of the international community sing that they care about the people.

However, although President Kiir has severely undermined the agreement, it can still be stitched back together and put on track. Of importance IGAD-Plus should reflect on its conduct and do the following:

1) Order Uganda out of South Sudan
2) Avoid the temptation of assigning any role to Uganda in the implementation process, which means it should not be part of the monitoring mechanism.
3) Cease its duplicity in support of the regime of terror in Juba.
4) Order President Kiir to immediately rescind his decree number ‘36 Establishment Order’ by making a public announcement over the media.
5) Strongly remind President Kiir of his obligation under the Compromise Peace Agreement so he does not start to play games with the Chairman of the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission. Any mischief should be tackled head on.
6) Request UNSC to refer President Kiir and the JCE to ICC for the atrocities of December 2013.
7) In line with the Compromise Peace Agreement, President Kiir and Dr Machar having been identified as suspects in the AUCISS Report , must not be allowed to take part in the Transitional Government of National Unity. Their respective parties can choose other persons to represent them. As President Obama of USA and Prime Minister Cameron of UK have categorically said “killers” can not be part of the solution. Therefore, neither of the two qualifies for participation in government of national unity.
8) Ask the newly appointed Chairman of Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC) Mr Festus Mogae to exercise his powers to reign in on the abuses of Juba. Mr Mogae should also arbitrate on the issue of the 28 states decreed by President Kiir as his say is final in all areas of disagreements according to the Compromise Peace Agreement.
[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]
Elhag Paul

Was Machar, his group and Nuer military generals’ combined lack of intelligence responsible for Dec. 15, 2013 Juba Massacre?

Now that the long-awaited African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) Report has been made public, the most outstanding revelation now exposed is that Dr. Riek Machar and those now with him in the SPLM-IO had absolutely ZERO intelligence on the cooking Jieng master plan of genocide against the Nuer on December 15, 2013.

How could President Salva Kiir and his closest Jieng advisers as far way back as 2009 conceive, prepare and execute their murderous scheme in full public view, using the national resources that incorporated the national military personnel and facilities without anybody in Dr. Machar’s camp not having the slightest intelligence info?

Seriously, how could Machar as the next powerful person in government and an Army Lt.general, for that matter, not have his own people in the intelligence agencies and even as insiders in president Kiir’s camp since the two top leaders were mortally antagonistic against each other?

Moreover, Machar’s own Nuer tribes-people were so predominant in the army, police and national security services, that surely they could have easily spied on president Kiir’s and Jieng’s nefarious maneuvers at the behest of Machar and their self preservation.

Plainly, reading the Obasanjo-led AUCISS Report, it was shamefully and embarrassingly clear the Dr. Riek Machar, ex-governor Taban Deng, Pagan Amum, Dr. Majak Agot, Oyai Deng Ajak, Alfred Lado Gore, John Luk and the many so-called high-ranking Nuer generals, and also including those of Dr. Lam Akol and opposition politicians, all fatally missed the warning signs of the impending massacre.

On the genesis of the conflict, this is what the AUCISS reported:

49. From its consultations with leaders and other sections of South Sudanese society, the Commission learnt that prior to the outbreak of violence on December 15, 2013, there were indications as early as 2009 that all was not well, and that differences within the party portended violence. The Commission heard that conflicts emerged within the SPLM in 2009 as Southern Sudan prepared to hold elections in 2010. At the time, differences between the President and Pagan Amum, the then Secretary General of the SPLM had threatened to derail progress towards elections. The differences were eventually resolved, with many urging for unity of purpose as the elections and the eventual referendum approached.

50. The other dimension to these developments was the relationship between the President and his Vice President. The Commission established that long before the 2010 elections, the relationship between the two leaders was already strained, and that these differences were overlooked for the sake of unity within the party during the Interim Period (2005-2011). It is was suggested that the SPLM split in 1991, and the reordering of the SPLM leadership to accommodate Riek Machar on his return were partly to blame for the frosty relationship that carried on into government after independence. In 2010, the two leaders are said to have supported rival candidates in a number of key electoral positions, particularly the governorships of several states.

Now, the most serious question supporters of the opposition might query is, how much competent and qualified are those of Machar and his group to aspire for the country’s leadership when the reality now exposed shows their utter incompetence even to safeguard themselves leave alone millions of other South Sudanese citizens?

Once again, the AUCISS revealed that:

Article 52. Perhaps the strongest signal that the situation could deteriorate into violent confrontation was the developments in political circles. The dismissal of the Cabinet in July 2013, heightened tensions and fostered a sense of exclusion in sections of South Sudanese society. The Commission heard from many respondents that following this event, and in the lead up to the SPLM meetings held in December, there were rumours around Juba ‘that the Dinka and Nuer are going to fight’, pointing to deteriorating security situation around the capital.

Clearly, for any normal and even lesser intelligent person than these Ph.D. holders-cum-leaders in Machar’s and Lam Akol’s camps, the impending predicament was inevitable; it was going to be either Kiir or Machar being extinguished, as there was no mutual co-habitation anymore between the these two.

The question is: how much was Machar and his ‘co-conspirators’ prepared for this eventuality since they had publicly vowed their opposition to president Kiir?

Once again, the AUCISS clearly revealed in the following two paragraphs that:

62. With the frosty relationship between the President and Vice President as a background, the Vice President’s declared ambitions to contest for the position of party chairman (and subsequently the Presidency in 2015) coupled with his criticism of the government further politicised the discussions within the party relating to the adoption of the party constitution, manifesto and rules and regulations in preparation for its registration under the new Political Parties Act, 2012. It is in this context of souring relations within the party, that the President is said to have acted, reportedly stripping the Vice President of his executive powers in May 2013.
63. Eventually, President Kiir would dismiss, on 23 July 2013, the Vice-President along with the entire Cabinet (with the exception of 4 ministers) and suspended SPLM Secretary General, Pagan Amum for alleged corruption.

Obviously, as revealed by the AUCISS, Machar and supporters seemingly had ample time to prepare themselves for the D-Day, since now it was publicly as plain as sunlight that Machar and Kiir were on collusion course as unrepentant and deadly rivals. One of them was surely going to be hurt, and very badly!

The AUCISS Report had this to say:

51. Respondents described to the Commission a difficult working relationship, and that throughout the interim period and after independence, there had been no direct communication between the Office of the President and that of the Vice President, with each cultivating other relationships and working directly with other government officials. Based on the remarks of a senior government official who served with both leaders that ‘there was no file moving from (Office of President) OP to VP’s Office and vice versa’, it appears that for sometime, there were two parallel governments, and that the political differences within the SPLM merely accentuated the factionalism revolving around the two leaders. In this regard, one respondent narrated as follows:
I recall it every time especially when we had this transitional period of the CPA of the six years. The evidence made me know that one day something will happen is that there are two governments. You know if you are a civil servant, you know what is going on in the system. The President was there busy with his own goal to reach the referendum and the Vice President was given all the powers but he was setting [working with] his own people who were affiliated to him … in all ministries and we can see the soundness [implications] of what was going on.

Now, from the above developments explicitly exposed by the AUCISS, most of which were no secret to most ordinary South Sudanese citizens in Juba, it was just a matter of time before something catastrophic would occur.

Moreover, the Nuer of Machar and his other allies had people in the top positions of the national security (second in command was and still is a Nuer), the SPLA chief of staff was a Nuer and the national security minister, Oyai Deng was Machar’s co-collaborator.

Isn’t it really mind boggling that Machar and his allies missed the “intelligence” about the impending massacre?

These developments below were very foreboding and should have been of great and serious concern to Riek Machar and his group, plus those Nuer military generals and the politicians.

Once again, the AUCISS revealed the following:

53. Respondents also noted that the recruitment exercise carried out by the army added to the suspicion and tension that was building up in political circles. On this issue, the Commission was unable to establish the exact number of those recruited, as we received conflicting information. Figures ranged from 7,500 to 15,000. The Commission heard further that the recruitment was conducted mainly from Bahr el Ghazal by the then Governor of Northern Bahr el Ghazal Paul Malong as a response to the build up of tensions with Sudan over Heglig. The President confirmed that 7500 were recruited. A majority of the newly trained soldiers were not regularly integrated into the SPLA. According to officials, between 330 and 700 of these soldiers were eventually integrated into the Tiger Unit (Presidential Guard) following a commissioning ceremony attended by President. It was not clear, from the Commission’s consultations, what happened to the rest of the newly trained recruits. However, the Commission heard that some of these were deployed around Juba disguised as ‘street cleaners’ in the weeks leading up to December 15.


59. Although most senior political leaders are not in the factionalism that marks the political terrain, particularly within the SPLM finds expression in the military and, in the end, sections of the military identify with particular political leaders because of the lack of cohesion within the SPLA, which many respondents described as a ‘collection of ethnic militia.’

187. The third concern that was raised by many respondents is the lack of diversity and reported Nuer dominance of the SPLA. The Commission established that by December 15, 2013, 65-70 per cent of the SPLA was of Nuer ethnic extraction. This imbalance is said to be in part a product of amnesty and integration policy that brought several militia into the SPLA. In this regard, one witness informed the Commission that ‘what brought the ethnic people, Nuer, the majority in the army was because they were a majority in the militia, and they were integrated to the Army’. The concentration of militias within the SPLA, and the dominance of one ethnic community is seen as part of the factors that created the current crisis in the SPLA (its lack of a national character). In this regard, a senior SPLM official stated that:
[b]y December 15th. 70% of the National Army was made up of militias all from Upper Nile and from one ethnic group. Isn’t that a problem and militias? 70% people who were not loyal to the government not loyal to the command and illiterate and people who were at one time fighting the same Army they absorbed in. That is a problem.

Inevitably, it was clear that president Kiir’s recruitment of his own Jieng of Bahr el Ghazal was an expeditiously evil and counteractive attempt to offset the numerical superiority of and dominance of the SPLA by Machar’s Nuer tribesmen.

Once more, the AUCISS has proven that president Kiir’s Jienge soldiers made the preemptive assault and the fatal beginning of sequence of ethnic cleansing:

387. All reports indicate that when fighting broke out within the Presidential Guards in Juba, Dinka members of the Presidential guard and other security forces targeted Nuer soldiers and civilians. Violence spread to various neighbourhoods in Juba i.e Munuki 107, New Site, Eden, Gudele, Khor William, Mangaten, Mia Saba, Jebel and Lologo as Dinka soldiers, members of Presidential guard and other security forces conducted house-to-house searches, killing Nuer soldiers and civilians in and near their homes. It is reported that some were arrested and killed elsewhere. Police stations and security installations were alleged to be sites of killings. Some were allegedly suffocated in containers, survivors were shot. Mass burial sites are said to exist.

Politically, it’s time that Riek Machar and his group expeditiously come to the reality: this monstrosity called the SPLM/A is frozen in time, it has demonstrated the “inability of the party to resolve the political conflict that spiraled into the current crisis which is partly because of lack of internal democracy, and the failure to institutionalize good governance:
the SPLM has been having problems may be since its inception as a result of just one single factor of lack of organization and absence of institutions of internal governance. So always when contradictions got out they easily translate into violence and military confrontation.”

313. Most respondents and commentators agree that the current conflict grew out of the ruling party’s inability to resolve conflicts internally. The Commission found that conflicts surrounding leadership contests seem to be a common feature of the recent history of the party. Examples cited include the 1991 split and the 2004 crisis arising out of the differences between Dr John Garang and his deputy Salva Kiir in 2004.

251 It is the Commission’s view that these party conflicts are due, for the most part, to lack of institutionalization. Indeed, one commentator suggests that the 2013 conflict (relating to the choice of new party officials) was expected, given that in 2008, the party resolved not to elect new officials following disputes over certain candidates. It thus seems evident that ‘the political upheavals within the SPLM follow a cyclical pattern that habitually surfaces before SPLM conventions.’

In the final analysis, the SPLM/A has proven again and again that it’s a failed institution and those of Machar and SPLM-IO collaborators should by now have painfully come to the stark realization that their possible reintegration into the SPLM won’t be a joyous event since they are an unwanted butch of “traitors.”

So long as the Jieng of Kiir enjoy their predatory advantage, this SPLM/A as it is, will never change, it keeps killing its supposedly own citizens without compunction or accountability or justice.

Today, in Machar’s own backyard of Unity State, president Kiir has wickedly ‘hired’ the same Bul Nuer of Machar’s ethnicity to ‘cleanse’ all supporters and other innocents Nuer citizens at Kiir’s Jieng behest. Shamefully, it’s no longer the rival Jieng raping and killing the Nuer but Nuer ethnic cleansing itself.

Finally, if the truth be exposed and said openly, Dr. Machar the leader of the SPLM-IO and many now with him, like Generals Gadet, Tanginye, Gatkouth, Kenyi, or others like Dr. Mulla, Alfred Lado, Taban Gai and many others, had once defected, abandoned or rebelled and fought against this same monstrosity called the SPLM/A under Garang and the same president Kiir.

Separately or en mass, they were simply forgiven and reinstated and many of them sufficiently accommodated as ministers, and thus in collusion with the same president Kiir they looted and messed up the country.

Mr. Luk, for instance, a Nuer, as legal affairs minister abetted in drawing up the current so-called national constitution that basically empowered president Kiir to become a dictatorial president.

Those of Oyai Deng and Dr. Majak de Agoot were in ministerial positions with president Kiir when Mr. Isaiah Abraham was brutally killed by government security agents and till now they said or did nothing.

Dr. Riak Machar himself and others now in SPLM-IO were there with president Kiir when the list of the 75 top looters in government was exposed and still till now Machar and group has said nothing further.

Anyway, whilst those of Machar and co-collaborators who in their previous political lives happily colluded with the same Kiir to mess up the nation, are now preparing to go back to another round of sharing power with Kiir again, however, millions of Nuer tribes-people, the Wonduruba citizens, the Western Equatoria and Western Bahr el Ghazal citizens and others have apparently died in vain and without recompense or recognition.

Will there ever be real justice for those innocent citizens that are being killed and are dying, and will there be real justice against those perpetuating, perpetrating and persecuting the killings of thousands of innocent citizens across the nation? Oh! Cry the Beloved Country!

AU Report finally out: Juba mass killings were ‘state policy’, ‘coordinated’


The African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan has released its final report concluding that “widespread and systematic” killings took place in Juba in December 2013, with violence later spreading elsewhere. The AU investigation found that the killings in Juba were carried out pursuant to a state policy and were coordinated and possibly also planned.


464. The evidence gathered by the Commission suggests that there were killings committed by elements of security forces from 16th December 2013 in residential areas like Muniki 107, Khor Williams, New Site, Gudele one, Mangaten, Mio Saba, Customs, Nyakuren. The Commission was informed that Juba was subdivided into four operation sectors which are Maharat, commanded by General SALVA MATOK; Gudele and Mio Saba which was commanded by General BOL AKOT; Mangaten which was commanded by General GARANG MABIR; and Khor William which was commanded by General MARIAL CHANUANG306. Roadblocks were set up around Juba and were manned by policemen and soldiers. The officers were checking identities and arresting suspected Nuer men.

AU investigators found no evidence of a coup attempt as claimed by President Salva Kiir but instead concluded that a gunfight within the Presidential Guards was the immediate trigger for further violence in which “Dinka members of the Presidential guard and other security forces targeted Nuer soldiers and civilians… killing Nuer soldiers and civilians in and near their homes.”

A number of Kiir’s personal associates and presidential guard commanders are named in the report as operational sector commanders who led the operations that the AU Commission said resulted in mass killings in residential areas mid-December 2013 including Munuki 107, Khor William, New Site, Gudele One, Mangaten, Mia Saba, Custom and Nyakuron. Tens of thousands of members of the Nuer ethnic group fled to the UN Tongping base in the wake of these killings and still remain under UN protection today.


The Commission also received evidence of possible torture or ill treatment of civilians in Gudele One area. According to witnesses, SPLA soldiers gathered Nuer civilians on 16th December 2013 and subjected them to beatings before compelling them to jump into a lit bonfire. The Commission also heard evidence that some of the people who had been gathered were compelled to eat human flesh while others were forced to drink human blood belonging to a victim who had been slaughtered and his blood collected on a plate308. This evidence finds corroboration in witness JWA’s statement who said that she saw SPLA soldiers burning dead bodies and compelling Nuer women to eat burnt flesh of burnt victims. According to the witness, one of the people who were forced to eat this flesh has reportedly lost his mind and is at a refugee camp in Kenya.
476. The Commission was also informed about rapes that were perpetrated against civilians in Juba between 16th and 18th December 2013. The Commission spoke with witnesses who averred that they had been raped by SPLA soldiers. Witness Martha testified that she was raped by SPLA soldiers between 17th and 18th December 2013. Additionally, she described the coercive circumstances surrounding the rape incident including the killings and how she lost people related to her and observing acts of inhumane nature309. Another witness, JWY testified that she was in Juba when the conflict erupted and she fled when she realized that government soldiers were targeting Nuer women and raping them310. Witness JWB and witness JWS both testified that while at UNMISS PoC Site in Juba they came into contact with women who had been raped by soldiers when they tried to go outside the camp to look for food.

The AU report details numerous accounts of murders, rapes, torture and other atrocities including alleged cases of forced cannibalism perpetrated by members of the army and security forces. Articles 810, 811, 812, 813 and 814 of the report make the case that such acts were carried out with a degree of organization and planning.

In Article 810 the report notes that attacks against civilians in Juba “could have been planned,” according to some of the Commission’s informants. “Suggestions of evidence of planning are varied and the Commission has considered all the suggestions carefully weighing it with the totality of the information it has, and testimony it heard,” the report notes.

Indications of planning and coordination include testimonies that irregular forces disguised as “street cleaners” allegedly scouted areas of Juba in the weeks before the massacres, as well as division of Juba into “four operational zones” and the setting up of roadblocks and checkpoints around the city.

“House to house searches were undertaken by security forces. During this operation male Nuers were targeted, identified, killed on the spot or gathered in one place and killed,” states the Commission report.

The AU report identifies the four operational sector commanders as General Salva Mathok for Amarat neighborhood, General Bol Akot for Gudele and Mia Saba neighborhoods, General Garang Mabir for Mangaten and General Marial Chanuong for Khor William. Salva Mathok is a relative of Salva Kiir and Marial Chanuong is the head of Kiir’s presidential guards. Bol Akot has been identified in previous reports as a “civilian” who led militia at the time of the massacres and whom Kiir later gave a senior rank in the army.

‘The violence was organized’

The AU report goes on to quote the Minister of Defense Kuol Manyang as saying that a militia loyal to Salva Kiir known as Rescue the President (Dut Ku Beny in Dinka) “killed most people here [in Juba] — from 15th to 18th.” This refers to a force that other witnesses describe as Kiir’s “personal army”, which he allegedly recruited and based at his private farm at Luri near Juba.

Radio Tamazuj earlier this year interviewed ex-combatants of this militia recruited in Kiir’s home region Bahr al Ghazal who confirmed that they participated in operations in Juba and also reported disciplinary and morale problems owing to poor training and consumption of alcohol.

“They were not part of the SPLA, they were not part of the police, they were not part of the National Security. It was a private army which Salva trained… The fighting in Giada was just to provoke. It was just only to be a signal for these guys to start their work,” says one witness quoted in the AU report. “So immediately when this fighting started in the others, these guys were now deployed and they did the killing… So it was a deliberate, it was something planned.”

Other testimonies in the report, however, point more to the role of organized forces in the killings rather than the so-called private army.

Article 812 of the Commission of Inquiry report concludes, “The evidence thus suggests that these crimes were committed pursuant to or in furtherance of a State policy. Indeed, the method under which these crimes were committed prove the ‘widespread or systematic nature’ of the attacks. The evidence also shows that it was an organized military operation that could not have been successful without concerted efforts from various actors in the military and government circles.”

Professor Mahmood Mamdani, a Member of the AU Commission who authored a separate opinion on the Inquiry report stated, “The targeted violence was organized, not spontaneous. It was directed from a center.”

Massacres at presidential palace and police station

According to the African Union report, there were at least two large massacres perpetrated in Juba, including one at the so-called ‘J2 palace’ and another at the Gudele Joint Operation Centre, a police station.

“The Commission was informed about an incident that took place at J2 palace (which is adjacent to the Presidential palace) on 16th December 2013 where about 90 Nuers and 21 soldiers were gathered by soldiers and executed with only 13 soldiers escaping with their lives. It was alleged that the 90 Nuers were civilians who were running away from the fighting that had erupted all over Juba.”

“The 21 soldiers, the Commission heard, were Nuers who were part of the President’s first ring of protection and had earlier on been disarmed by a senior military officer. It was alleged that the person who ordered the killing of the civilians and the disarmed soldiers was Lt. Colonel Lual Maroldit who was attached to the VIP close protection unit otherwise known as Tiger Battalion or Presidential Guard,” adds the report.

Forensic evidence and witness testimony further pointed to “the targeted killing of about 134 Nuer men in Gudele joint operation centre” on 16 December. This massacre has previously been reported by the United Nations and other rights investigators.

War crimes in Bor and Malakal

The AU Commission of Inquiry says that war crimes and atrocities were also committed by rebel forces later in the war: “The Commission believes that war crimes were committed in Bor town through indiscriminate killings of civilians by the SPLA/IO and White Army forces allied to Dr. Riek Machar.”

Atrocities were also reported to have been committed by Machar’s forces or allied forces also in Malakal and outside Malakal in Baliet County where the AU Commission reported “much carnage.” For example, the Commission cited a witness who said that SPLA-IO killed 10 hospital patients in Malakal in January. Female civilians who were sheltering in the hospital at the same time were also abducted by the rebels and have not been seen again.

“Gang rape was (and continues to be) a common feature of the atrocities committed during the on-going conflict in South Sudan. Women and men as witnesses and survivors have given statements with reference to rapes of women and girls by more than one person… There were reports by respondents on the wide use of objects such as stones, guns and sticks to rape women. In most instances, that was reported as a new and horrifying phenomenon.”

“There are clear patterns of a vicious cycle of violence within violence developing,” reads the AU report.

The African Union report was produced after research by investigators in 2014 but its release was repeatedly delayed by the AU Commission and AU Peace and Security Council for almost a year.

For mre reading, click

The origin of the “so-called born to rule” folktale: A South Sudanese perspective

BY: Rambang Deng Gach, Khartoum, Sudan, OCT/26/2015, SSN;

With the cliché’s origin deeply rooted in the history of Scythians who roamed the earth and thrived in anarchy and war more than seven thousand years before Christ, tells a lot about how outdated the concept is. This confirms that the concept cannot be resuscitated and applied in this age and time, only a moron can argue to justify its relevance.

As South Sudanese, It is important we dialogue on the aspects of the ‘born to rule’ mentality; focus some light on how this controversial and violent cliché finds its way into our peaceful, obliging and God-loving communities.

An exchange about such issue is important for us in order to understand the complexity of the origin of the cliché and how it influenced and consumed the psychic of the entire community.

Born to rule has a lot to do with domination and marginalization amongst others, which are the salient features of the rejected old Sudan’s policy of suppression and trepidation.

Military dictators (Abuod, Numeri & El Basheer) who frequently usurped power under the pretext of preserving the unity of the country, dominated the political space in the old Sudan, as such, inspired and contributed in the reconstruction and reintroduction of this social vice and helped resurrect the so-called “born to rule” cliché.

After the successful revolt in Torit 1955, the mutineers were ubiquitously spitting poisonous venom in the deep jungles of the south. In the corridors of power in Khartoum, the ruling elites were getting impatient and irritated by the surging number of this ragtag group.

The ensuing fighting was fierce and rampant, forcing Garang, Gatluak and Ladu to leave their villages and relocate to Khartoum in search of security and peace. They arrived Khartoum safely and immediately pledged to support one another in such an alien terrain, reassuring themselves “united we stand”, to comfort and strengthen their brotherhood.

To keep up with the latest news, the trio agreed to regularly meet and discuss how they could overcome difficulties of Khartoum’s busy life as well as follow the developments in the jungles and how they could render a hand.

Employment opportunities were getting a bit scarce and Garang was petrified of becoming a hobo, he was soon domesticated and became a “house Negro”, a job only reserved to the very few who are willing to sacrifice their life for the ‘Massa’ and his family.

Ladu preferred to take a hike and be humiliated by Kenyans and Ugandans; hoping to procure more poison that could boost Lago and company.

Gatluak on the other hand, was suspicious of Garang’s movements and eventual tied involvement with Mohamed, he accepted to endure humiliation and stayed put to keep an eye on him, and document while taking a labor job in the booming construction industry nearby.

Garang’s decision to stay put proved beneficial as notable changes gradually started to appear on his skin (shedding those dead flakes), physical structure (belly protruded) and the way he carries himself (observes social customs); now in clover, Garang spectacularly transformed as he copycat all aspects of Mohamed’s lifestyle including his religion.

The exemplary loyalty and dedication earned him the trust and love of Mohamed. As a result, the domestic helper gained recognition, status and soon entered into smelly deals with Mohamed to contain the spread of poison in the jungle.

Now, the domestic helper turned politician, and with financial and organizational backing from Mohamed, evolved and quickly learned the tricks of Mohamed who groomed him to represent the 63.

In lieu of loyalty and adoration, Mohamed instilled in Garang the arts of manipulation, corruption and the theories of ‘divide and rule’. Garang’s confidence to lead grew and dangerously consumed his psychic, inducing uncontrollable passion to manipulate the system in order to lead forever.

Mohamed practiced the Machiavellian game repeatedly with Garang and advised him at his graduation, to always “tamper and manipulate the ball”, to keep the folks in disarray, indeed Garang incorporated to the game, his new method of “hide the ball” to keep the folks baffled.

Mohamed was impressed and commended Garang’s ingenious technique of ball hiding, patting him on the back and with a smile “you’re born to rule”. Hence, the emergence of ‘born to rule’ cliché in the Sudanese vocabulary.

Mohamed wants his prodigy (Garang) to learn high level organizational skills and therefore, introduced Garang to the El-Mahadeiyah and El-Khatimeiyah religious sects (these religious sects are among the well-established political powerhouses in the Sudan that survived military suppression over the years).

Garang’s fascination and growing obsession with power took him to every Mosque in the triangle capital to study Islamic secrets of manipulation and control.

Armed with knowledge and blessings from the Sheikhs and Mullahs, and to the amazement of the faithful, Garang was able to successfully hide the ball from everyone including El Sadiq El Mahdi and Mohamed El Marghani.

Garang’s imitation of the two religious sects helped make him a well-recognized political household name, and the viceroy who dictated the terms when it comes to the politics of South Sudan.

Any group or individual who exhibited leadership aspirations in South Sudan is perceived to be a threat to Garang’s interest and hence, a non grata in any political discourse as he/she becomes the target of sinister campaign and accusations by Garang’s establishment, portraying that group or individual as enemy and traitor hired by the Arabs.

In spite of Garang’s proximity to the source of power (Arabs) more than anybody else in the south, and his well-established connection with ruling elites, Garang looked with extreme suspicion and raised eyebrows to any group or individual who ventured close enough to rub shoulders with the dominant ruling elites.

The generally expected and acceptable standard from all South Sudanese, is to voluntarily relinquish any leadership aspirations and accept that Garang is the only credible link between the North Sudan ruling elites and South Sudanese, he who wants to go to the ruling elites must first seek endorsement and blessings from the anointed prodigy.

Garang believed that any other South Sudanese citizens are incapable or informed enough to manage the relations with the ruling elites as they could be used, cheated or blackmailed.

The anointed one would not hesitate to describe as ‘Nyagat’ any group or individual who defies the blanket ban on all South Sudanese to engage in national politics.

Ladu once confided to Gatluak that, the connection between Mohamed and Garang is rumored in some circles to have been knotted before Sudan’s independence, as such they stood the test of time in spite of recent ambitious attempt by Dr. Lam Akol from tiny Chollo community, whose challenge for the leadership was deemed a grand conspiracy with far reaching external arms.

Garang remained the most trusted ally of the ruling elites and throughout their long commitment, Garang’s establishment was rewarded generously with three Vice President Positions (Abel Alier, George Kongor and Prof. Machar) and Deputy Prime minister (Aldo Ajou) in addition to numerous ministerial posts.

Only Gen. Joseph Lago, from Equatoria was able to out-smart the anointed one and managed to maneuver his way to Vice President’s office. A move that confounded Garang’s machination to this very day.

Owing to Garang’s proximity to the system, he indeed established himself as a force with regional and international connections that apparently availed to him enormous educational, economic and political advantages over other South Sudanese.

Being a stooge and apprentice of the master manipulator for many years helped Garang perfect the game of trickery and conspiracy to control and abuse the innocent and God fearing people of South Sudan.

Luckily enough, Garang miscalculated the resolve of South Sudanese people who fought passionately to defeat the Arabs’ policies of marginalization, domination and unbalanced development.

As the saying goes, “the best prediction of future behaviors is past relevant patterns”, Garang had exposed his agenda and narcissistic egomaniacal attitude; he is running out of both luck and options.

For the records, the only trick up Garang’s sleeves is bribery, and with the dwindling cash flow and deteriorating economy, Garang’s days are indeed numbered.
The end!

By Mr. Rambang Deng Gach
Khartoum, Sudan

Tricky Legal Game Between Parliament And Judiciary on Kiir’s E/O#36/2015

QUOTE: “Laws prevented people from doing violent deeds that could be seen – Sophist Critias

By James Okuk, PhD, Lecture political Science, OCT/21/2015, SSN;

In its Sitting No.7/2015 in the First Session (2015) at the National Legislative Assembly’s Main Hall in Juba on Tuesday 20th October 2015, the National Legislature (in its joint NLA and CS Setting) agreed to the Presentation of Transitional Constitution, 2011 (Amendment No.2 for 2015) by Minister of Justice.

In adherence to Article 83(1) Hon. Paulino Wanawilla Unango tabled the draft amendment based on the directives of the Extraordinary Meeting of the National Council of Ministers that was chaired by President Salva Kiir Mayardit on Tuesday 13th October 2015 in Juba where the creation of 28 states got approved as per Republican Establishment Order (EO#36/2015).

According to him, the proposed amendment has been drafted in accordance with powers vested in the President of the Republic under Article 101(f), and also vested in the National Legislature under Articles 55(3)(a) and Article 199 of the Constitution.

The justification was that further decentralization of system of governance has been a popular demand and that H.E. Mr. President decided to respond, subjecting amendment of Articles 162(1), 164(1) and 165(1) which provides for the 10 currently existing states of South Sudan and their Legislative Assemblies and Governors who are supposed to be elected by their eligible residents respectively.

The Amendment is intended to abolish the 10 states and give the President of the Republic more powers to appoint new Governors and Members of the Legislative Assemblies of the new 28 States.

However, the Leader of Minority in the NLA, Hon. Onyoti Adigo Nyikwec, and in practice of his constitutional right (Article 71(b)) of the second reply to a presentation in the August House, raised a Procedural Order by referring to the National Legislature Conduct of Business Regulations (2013) under Chapter IX of Rules of Debate (Sub-Judice Rule 54) which stipulates that “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which judicial decision is pending in such a way as may in the opinion of the Speaker, prejudice the interest of any party to the action.”

As it is known, the matter has been taken to Supreme Court on 16th October 2015 by the National Alliance led by Dr. Lam Akol, seeking a stay of execution and invalidation of the EO#36/2015 because it violates the Agreement on Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) that was adopted by the National Legislature on 10th September 2015 after it was signed by President Kiir in Juba on 26th August, and because it lacks fundamental legal basis as it violates the Transitional Constitution (2011) and usurps powers of the National Legislature.

Mr. Speaker Hon. Manase Magok Rundial noted the objection in accordance with Article 73 (2) which obliges him to ensure that the Conduct of Business Regulations of the House is respected and enforced.

Nonetheless, instead of staying the draft amendment he chose to refer it to the Inter-House Committee that he directed to study the matter before tabling it to the August House in one month time as required by the constitution so that it is discussed and passed by two-thirds majority if the quorum is reached.

Thus, the game of the law-making and law-execution with eagle eye from the non-violence opposition is now at the pitch with a tricky wait for the announcement of the winner. Article (93) of the Transitional Constitution stipulates that “No court or any other authority shall call into question the validity of any proceedings of the National Legislature or any of its two Houses on the basis of violation of its Conduct of Business Regulations.”

Also Articles 125 (3)(4)(5) and 126 (1) (a) defines the Supreme Court as composed of the Chief Justice, Deputy and not less than nine other Justices who should act as custodian of constitutional interpretations as they issue final and binding verdicts above Parliaments, Governments or President of South Sudan.

But it has been witnessed that the Chief Justice has already crossed the territory of the ‘Conflict of Interest’: “Your Excellency President of the Republic Salva Kiir Mayardit, I, the Chairman of the Aguok Community in Juba, Justice Chan Reec Madut on behalf of the entire Aguok Community and on my own behalf seize to take this opportunity to congratulate you for your bold decision for the creation of Gogrial State among others …Go ahead with the implementation and we are fully behind you.”

Will the Chief Justice excuse himself from the Panel of Supreme Justices so that the ruling is not prejudiced and justice aborted on the petitioned matter that is now before him at the Court Room? What a Civil Game!

The Judiciary might have desired the Parliament to endorse the EO#36/2015 first before the verdict of the Supreme Court on the National Alliance’s Petition. But the Parliament might now wait for the Judiciary to finalize the case before proceeding with the proposed draft constitutional amendment deliberations.

The donkey of El-Sheikh is now stuck at the crossroads. Perhaps, the President will take the law into his hands and go ahead with execution of his EO#36/2015 when the thirty days have elapsed by the first week of November instant, especially when names of nominated governors and MPs are now flying to his office.

But it is said in political wisdom that unchecked powers corrupts while absolute powers corrupts absolutely. Our democracy is indeed in big trouble.

An ancient Sophist lawyer called Protagoras once presented an eristic court suit argument regarding a conflict in payment of education fees by an intelligent student. They have agreed before that the Sophist will teach him wisdom and virtue in return for money. At the same time the ancient Greek law obliges honoring of contracts that has been entered by the parties.

Now before entering the court room the Sophist lawyer said: 1) if the student wins, he must pay according to the agreement; 2) If I win, the student must pay according to the law.

But the Student was saying: 1) If I lose, the agreement hasn’t been fulfilled, so I don’t have to pay; 2) but if I win, I shouldn’t have to pay according to law, which now overrides the agreement.

Dr. James Okuk is a lecturer of politics reachable at

What Uganda Army (UPDF) withdrawal means for Salva Kiir

By Risdel Kasasira, DAILY Monitor, OCT/18/2015, SSN;

When UPDF deployed in South Sudan 22 months ago, three reasons were given for intervention, including evacuating Ugandans caught up in the fighting.

The second reason was that UPDF had been invited by a legitimate government to ensure order and the third reason was that the regional bloc, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad), had sanctioned the intervention following a request by the UN secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon.

What government didn’t say was Khartoum’s invisible hand in the conflict and also the need to protect Uganda’s economic interests.

According to military sources, President Omar Al-Bashir has been close to Riek Machar whom the regime in Kampala sees as an adversary.

Despite the war, South Sudan remained the biggest market for Ugandan products such as cement, beverages and agricultural produce.

Therefore, it was not a surprise that as the conflict escalated, Ugandan troops started fighting on the side of forces loyal to President Salva Kiir.

In the end, UPDF become a protagonist in the conflict and was accused of propping up Kiir’s regime. And indeed, If UPDF had not intervened, President Kiir would probably not be president to date.

What next?
However, with UPDF leaving, are Uganda’s security and economic interests protected? Is President Kiir’s interest to remain president secure?

Answers to this question depend on the internal political, economic and security dynamics in South Sudan, regional and international community interests.

But majorly, its regional and internal politics will be critical in determining the internal politics in world’s newest nation.

“There is a very big shift in geopolitical interests. President Museveni has reconciled with President Bashir who has been hostile to Uganda.

Therefore, even if Machar comes to Juba as President, his government may not be hostile to Uganda,” says Hassan Kaps Fungaroo, the Shadow minister for Defence and Internal Affairs.

Historical relations between Uganda and Sudan have been tense, with both countries backing armed proxies fighting over the status of South Sudan.

But in September this year, President Museveni made a rare visit to Khartoum that represents a significant shift in the relations between the two countries.

It was a smart diplomatic move by President Museveni to reach out to President Bashir because Kampala will now have less control over events in South Sudan without a presence in Juba and other parts of the country.

If regimes in Kampala and Khartoum are close allies, they can easily compel Juba to do what they want because South Sudan majorly depends on the two countries for survival.

LRA issue
South Sudan’s economy entirely depends on oil with the refineries located in Sudan and almost all food and other goods like beverages consumed coming from Uganda. Therefore, reconciling with Khartoum is not only good for Uganda but also for South Sudan and Sudan.

Anyone who wants to economically and politically distabilise Uganda will first distabilise South Sudan for it to be a safe haven for negative forces like the Lord’s Resistance Army rebels under Joseph Kony.

Northern Uganda is peaceful because South Sudan is Uganda’s buffer zone and that’s why Kony who was allegedly getting support from Khartoum was pushed out and later fled to the Central African Republic (CAR).

Some have previously argued that LRA can come back and attack Uganda and South Sudan with the help of some hostile regimes but no government or regime would want to be associated with a person like Kony who is being hunted by Americans and also wanted by the International Criminal Court.

Another critical factor that will determine South Sudan’s security situation is the 12,600 strong-UN force that is replacing the UPDF.

The force will be deployed under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter and it authorises the force to use “all means necessary” to protect civilians and deter violence.

If “all means necessary” includes carrying out targeted offensive operations to neutralise parties that violate the peace deal like Force Intervention Brigade in DR Congo, the UN force could help to bring peace.

But the challenge with such UN force is that it’s drawn from different countries with different interests and it’s not always cohesive.

“It might be business as usual where you have these UN troops getting good salaries and all the benefits but the local people are suffering.

It has been happening in DR Congo and other parts of the world,” says Sam Mwebaze, a Master student of International Relations at Makerere University.

It should also be understood that President Kiir in January 2014 accused the UNMISS, which is replacing UPDF of supporting the opposition, an allegation the UN strongly denied and dismissed.

Even last week South Sudan’s information minister Michael Makuei Lueth, told reporters in Juba that Salva Kiir was not attending the September 29 UN meeting because the UN had been treating Kiir like a “schoolboy.”

Role of UN
Therefore, there is already lack of trust between the UN and president Kiir.

More worrying, Juba is supposed to be demilitarised, and all government forces, according to the Addis Ababa agreement signed on August 26, are supposed to move 25km out of the capital and therefore president Kiir will be majorly at the mercy of this UN force.

However, Mr Ateny Wek Ateny, the government spokesperson, says the president will remain with about 5,000 presidential guards, fire brigade, police and wildlife warders.

“There will be no security vacuum. With these presidential guards and police, the city will be safe and the president will also be safe,” he said.

Mr Ateny also says government has more than 100,000 soldiers that can be deployed to defend their country.

But what he does not explain is why the government has failed to defeat Machar who now controls a swathe of territory with an intact fighting force.

A UPDF retired captain, who doesn’t want to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, currently working for a European security firm in South Sudan, describes SPLA, as “ a disorganised and poorly trained force”.

“They cannot stand and fight an organised force,” he says
He says when UPDF deployed in December 2013, it was not only fighting Machar but also reorganising the SPLA at the frontline.

“They have guns needed to fight any war in this terrain. But they are disorganised. They are poor at command, planning and war execution. They really need training,” he says.

Another problem president Kiir is facing is the ailing economy. And with this big number of soldiers, it might be hard for him to raise the money to pay the soldiers.

In May this year, Mr Kiir acknowledged in his speech that South Sudanese have been hit hard by the ailing economy.

He blamed the fighting and falling crude prices for hobbling his country’s oil industry, which is South Sudan’s economic lifeline.

In the same month, a team of South Sudan officials led by vice president Wani Igga was in Kampala to seek financial help but government sources say Uganda only promised it would offer financial advice.

With these changing dynamics, Mr Fungaroo argues that the regional leaders are “ditching” President Kiir because he has failed to solve governance problems within SPLA/M and they are tired of continuously supporting his government from falling.

“There is a shift in geopolitics. Salva Kiir is being ditched” he says. But spurning President Kiir would not be easy.

It’s also risky because edging him out would be opening another frontline that could divide the country that is already ethnically and tribally divided. END

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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