Category: More Views

An open letter to African Union: No UN Trusteeship

cc. Embassy of United States of America, Juba
cc. United Nations Mission in South Sudan.
By: Bol Madut Ayii, Juba University, MAR/29/2015, SSN;

The leaked report and proposals made by AUCISS prompted me to react and question its legality under the principle of international law, with this regards, the functions and powers of the AUCISS were not extended to call for the exclusion of the constitutionally elected president in the proposed transitional government of national unity but rather to investigate the atrocities committed during the crisis and the persons responsible.

Under the principle of international law, it is a violation of the state sovereignty and peoples’ rights to meddle into the internal affairs of sovereign state.

The proposal made by African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) is beyond its mandate and therefore amounts to ultra vires.

My legal argument is based on the followings;

Part A: powers and mandate of AUCISS:
The mandate of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan were the following:
–To investigate the human rights violations and other abuses.
–To investigate the causes underlying the violations.
–To make recommendations on the best ways and means to ensure accountability, reconciliation and healings among South Sudanese communities with view to deterring and preventing the occurrence of the violations in the future.
–To make recommendations on how to move the country forward in terms of unity, cooperation and sustainable development.

Having spelt out the mandates of African Union Commission of inquiry above, the leaked report by AUCISS which recommended the exclusion of the constitutionally elected president from the transitional government of national unity is a clear demonstration that the AUCISS acted beyond its mandate and therefore amounts to ultra vires.

What the AUCISS did to South Sudan is the same cause that led Morocco withdraw its membership from African Union and up to date, Morocco is not a member of Africa Union.

Morocco withdrew from African Union due to the following reasons:
1–The AU recognition of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is a portion of Western Sahara that shows the bias of African Union.
2–The African Union is undoubtedly a corrupt and weak institution and includes countries of even worse human rights record.

Part B: UN trusteeship:
Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations (UN), designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence. With the independence of Palau in 1994, the council suspended operations.

The Charter does not specify the actual territories to be placed under UN trusteeship. Article 77 merely states that the system shall apply to three categories:
–(1) territories still under mandate,
–(2) territories “detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War,” and
–(3) territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

South Sudan doesn’t fall within the category of UN trusteeship, Article 76(b) of the UN Charter provides; to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement; as the definition signifies, South Sudan is an independent state and has its elected government, South Sudan is not under the mandate of any colony and therefore it doesn’t fall in trust territory.

South Sudan did not declare its inability to administer and run its administration and therefore, there was no voluntary placement of UN trusteeship, lastly South Sudan gained independence as the outcome of the internationally recognized referendum and thus it was not just a detach from an enemy state.

With the above detailed conditions of placing a country under the UN trusteeship, there are no legal grounds that qualify south Sudan to be placed under the trusteeship.

Again, the Charter is equally nonspecific on designating the administrators of trust territories. It states simply that the individual trusteeship agreements shall designate the authority in each case, which may be “one or more states or the Organization itself.”

Therefore, it will give UN and its influential members such as United States of America a chance to nominate a person of their choice which might not be in the interest of the said trust country as well as international law norms.

During the World War 1, there were 11 trust territories placed under UN trusteeship, and seven countries were designated as administering authorities. These figures exclude the former German colony of South West Africa, which after World War I had been mandated to the Union of South Africa, because South Africa refused to place the territory under UN trusteeship.

Among those placed under the UN trusteeship and their administers are:-
–In East Africa: Ruanda-Urundi administered by Belgium, Somaliland by Italy, and Tanganyika by the UK;
–In West Africa: Cameroons administered by the UK, Came-roons by France, Togoland by the UK, and Togoland by France;
–In the Pacific: Nauru, administered by Australia and on behalf of New Zealand and the UK, New Guinea by Australia, Western Samoa by New Zealand, and the Pacific islands of the Marianas, Marshalls, and Carolines by the US.
–In September 1975, when New Guinea acceded to independence, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands became the only Territory on the agenda of the Trusteeship Council.

All these countries were placed under UN trusteeship because they were not independent and the objects of Article 83 of the UN charter apply to their territories.

Article 83 in its entirety doesn’t apply to south Sudan and therefore any unilateral attempt by AU and its counterpart to place south Sudan under UN trusteeship is of no legal base under the principle of customary international law.

Part C: Sanctions framework and United States of America resolution
The draft resolution of United States of America was unanimously adopted by UN Security Council without deliberations and was swiftly voted for, this makes the writers to ask the distinction between UN and US?

The interest of U.S as a member of UN is not the interest of the whole world, no doubt that U.S is the world super power but that does not imply impunity.

We are pessimistic that peace and reconciliation cannot be achieved by imposition of sanctions, moreover sanctions will hinder the search for peace and increase the suffering of the people of south Sudan, under international law, we are not aware of the country that attained peace by sanctions imposition and that sanctions are not the practical solution to south Sudan problem.

Relatedly, US as a member of UN is at a right track to raise a motion before the UNSC expressing its position and opinion about South Sudan but its opinion is not absolute rather than subject to debate on its merits.

As I have stated above that there is no difference between US and UN, the facts of violation of South Sudan Sovereignty by AU, US and UNSC is of no doubt to what US did to Nicaragua where US supported the rebellion in Nicaragua by passing the budget in the Congress to back the rebellion.

In this case, Nicaragua brought a suit in the International Court of Justice ICJ and the court found US guilty, so in relation to this there is clear evidence that US and UN are supporting the rebellion in South Sudan directly and indirectly. Example is the arrest of weapons in Lakes state Rumbek in 2014.

To find the full text of the above cited case see Nicaragua v. United States of America (1984).
Travel Ban, Paragraph 9. Of the sanctions draft resolution states; decides that. For an initial period of one year from the date of adoption.

Of this resolution, all Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of any individuals who may be designated by the Committee, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige a State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.

My question is, how will travel ban bring inclusive and sustainable peace in South Sudan? Of course the answer will be definitely NO because the denial of entry and transit of some individuals cannot be durable solution to South Sudan problem.

In conclusion I do hereby recommend the following:
1. AU must refrain from South Sudan internal affairs otherwise we will have no option than what Morocco did.
2. US must revive its resolutions and make sure that there is different between it (US) and UN.
3. UNSC must not sit idly waiting for US proposals to endorse without studying its effectiveness.
4. Removal of elected president through illegal means due to foreign interest will deteriorate the situation in South Sudan.


Drawn and Filed by Law Student from University of Juba and he can be reached through the following address: Bol Madut Ayii, or 0956252721

IGAD Mediation Model is flawed: It’s time for African Union (AU) or AU/UN Hybrid Mediation to take over South Sudan Peace Process

By: Oyhath Aromi, MAR/25/2015, SSN;

Enough is enough. The South Sudanese President Kiir Mayardit and his former Vice President Dr Riek Machar were given ample opportunity by Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediators to negotiate and arrive at a compromise to bring peace to the war-battered country, but they failed that opportunity time and again – it is as if these leaders learned nothing from the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which was by and large a compromise deal that in 2005 brought an end to over 20 years of war between the SPLM/A and Sudan government.

IGAD mediators afforded President Kiir and SPLM-IO leader Machar every chance, including to go it face to face, yet each time they failed to agree on almost everything.

Even as IGAD walked an extra mile in order to give the warring parties extra time to find a solution, even as the mediators granted the 2 principal negotiating sides their wish to exclude other South Sudanese stakeholders, like civil society organizations and political parties, from taking part in the peace talks, they are still nowhere near a compromise way forward.

The question is for how long this unproductive stalemate is supposed to continue? Don’t these leaders realize the magnitude of trauma, destruction and desperation this crisis has inflicted on South Sudan? Don’t the leaders feel the urgent need to bring an end to this war?

As prospects for a peaceful settlement to this crisis under IGAD mediation appears painstakingly remote, it is time to try an alternative approach.

My contention here is that IGAD mediation has failed to get the warring South Sudanese parties to find a stop to this unnecessary war and that this failure has to do less with interests of some IGAD members in South Sudan and more to do with a fundamental flaw in the IGAD mediation model itself.

IGAD, as a mediation model, has failed miserably not only in its on-going efforts to bridge the gap between the South Sudanese government and the SPLM-IO forces led by Dr Riek Machar but also in its earlier attempts at CPA negotiations.

I know some people will find this view a bit controversial, but the truth remains that the CPA could never have come to light had it not been sustained, determined US pressure which in the late phase of CPA talks literally forced the SPLM/SPLA leader, late Dr John Garang, to stay stationed in Kenya while his counterpart, Vice President El-Uztaz Ali Tah shuttled back and forth between Kenya and Khartoum to obtain further authorization from President Bashier.

Do I still remember those days? Yes I do, although I was obviously nowhere close to those negotiations. So, let us refrain from pretending that IGAD mediation was a success story at CPA negotiations and want now to replicate that experience this time around.

It was not and, again, my point here is that there is something fundamentally wrong with IGAD as a mediation model.

The theory that a crisis somewhere in East, West, North or South Africa is somehow best mediated by a group of countries in that region of Africa needs to be revisited, for it has so far produced mixed results at best.

It might have been fruitful in a few cases, as in the case of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in West African region, but it has certainly not been met with success in the case of IGAD, as explained above.

There is, therefore, a danger that a region-based model of conflict mediation (at least in the African context), like the IGAD mediation model, is piecemeal, patchy, inconsistent and inherently prone to bias, not least because of obvious interests of the group of regional countries involved.

The European Union, for example, does not employ such an approach in mediating conflicts arising within the European Union or even in crises in non-EU countries within Europe. The EU is always represented as a block.

In 2000, for example, the EU moved swiftly to save former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia & Montenegro from collapsing into chaos following violent demonstrations that erupted as a result of dispute over alleged elections fraud between supporters of former President Milosevic and his political opponents.

I don’t know why a failed regional conflict mediation model such as IGAD is being insisted upon by the Troika (Norway, United Kingdom and United States). Perhaps it is an experiment being tested in Africa? Or simply a manifestation of mediation fatigue on the part of the Troika stemming from their involvement in mediation efforts in an increasing number of hot spots in other volatile parts of the world!!!

I don’t subscribe, though, to the notion that the Troika (or IGAD) is to blame for helping establish “a politically unchallenged armed power in South Sudan”, as stated in the leaked draft report of the AU’s Commission of Inquiry.

Actually, all the Troika did was help South Sudanese get what they always wanted since the start of their first liberation struggle in 1955 –independence from Sudan –through their (Troika) help in making the CPA a reality.

South Sudan is not the first country in the world to attain independence and the Troika was not supposed to baby-sit the new nation. Therefore blaming the Troika for a catastrophe created by the SPLM, and the SPLM alone, is absurd, scapegoating and utterly pointless.

The AU should instead reevaluate the IGAD mediation model and embrace a more credible mediation strategy to help find a solution to South Sudanese war.

In the search to find a practical solution to this war, the most effective mediation model seems to me to be the AU or an AU/UN hybrid arrangement now stepping in. After all, AU/UN hybrid conflict mediation is not a new concept, as it has, indeed, already been in operation in Darfur (a region of Sudan just next to South Sudan), albeit in a human rights monitoring role.

To help South Sudanese people regain trust in themselves as a nation, if this alternative model succeeds, an AU/UN hybrid mission should lead a transitional government of national unity in South Sudan, as already suggested in the leaked draft AU’s Commission of Inquiry’s Report.

In short, an AU/UN–led transitional government will, among other desirable things:
o Stop land grabbing, a time bomb capable in its own right to send South Sudan into chaos.
o Combat corruption and theft of public monies, thereby saving much-needed resources to rebuild South Sudan.
o Give South Sudanese a break in terms of security, stability and real peace and allow return of internally displaced persons and refugees to their areas and villages.
o Neutralize tribal agenda which, by the way, is the centerpiece and the real monster behind this whole thing.
o Build the foundation and set example for a sound, transparent public service and create the right environment for a leveled playing field for a vibrant private sector in the young nation.
o Transform the current suffocating political and security climate inside South Sudan to a positive hope for an inclusive future for all South Sudanese communities.
o Pave the way for establishment of a people-centered representative governance system that will realize the principle of government of the people by the people for the people.

The AU/UN-led transitional government should make it one of its core objectives to help South Sudanese vote on such a governance system which they will follow to govern themselves at the end of the transitional period.

There is a danger, despite good intentions of the AU, UN and the Troika, of South Sudan sliding back to square one if such a system is not defined before the end of the AU/UN-led transitional period.

Of course, in every conflict, such as the present South Sudanese crisis, there are the culprits.

In the interest of healing, reconciliation and unity of South Sudanese and to send a powerful message to everyone that the prevailing culture of impunity cannot and will not be tolerated, anyone found to have been responsible for the killings of innocent civilians and violations of other human rights should be made accountable for their crimes, regardless of which side of the fence they stood during this war.

Justifying the Fallacy of Bashing Both Sides in South Sudan Conflicts

By James Okuk, PhD, JUBA, MAR/24/2015, SSN;

As long as both the SPLM-IO and the GRSS continue to use violence means for securing their political interests, facts and fictions will always get mixed to produce propaganda fallacies in attempts to justify one’s evil actions. The article of Stephen Par Kuol is not absolved from such one-sided bias. It is his right to be biased for the interest of the SPLM/A-IO, but he doesn’t have a right to force it on our throats without a response.

Mr. Stephen has already damaged his credibility when he lied that he was an eye witness of ‘genocide’ in Juba while he lived in comfort in New Sudan Palace Hotel and was driven on a standard car to Juba Airport for flight check-in to Nairobi as the city was under threat of rebel attacks.

Even myself who lived in 107, dodged some bullets to escape death narrowly on 16 December 2013, swallowed the bitterness of my house being attacked and looted badly with damages, and communicated with some of my neighbors who managed to reach UNMISS camp alive, cannot temper with my credibility to lie with a conclusion that ‘genocide’ took place in Juba.

Yes, some targeted killings took place but not ‘genocide’ as the SPLM-IO propaganda machine used to lie to the international community.

Also not all those who were killed in Juba during the outburst of the crisis hailed from one ethnic group. Other ethnic groups were affected too, including some foreigners.

If 20,000 members of one ethnic group were killed in Juba on 15, 16, 17 and 18 December 2013, then who would have been left among them in 107, Kor William, Gudele and Jebel to run for a dear life and take refuge in UNMISS camps?

Even those who took refuge in UNMISS camps were not all from one ethnic group. That was why you could see signposts in UNMISS camps pointing to one ethnic group on one side and other ethnic groups on the other side.

Armed Forces Status Issue: The amalgamation proposal is a recipe for another future eruption of senseless violence. The case of the CPA’s model of the Joint and Integrated Units (JIUs) is still fresh in our memories where the two armed forces clashed thrice in Malakal, for example. Thus, neither integration nor amalgamation of the armed forces of the two warring parties will work as long as there is no trust and good faith between them.

Also the proposal of proportional representation of the 64 tribes in the national armed forces will not set a good precedent for a one nation-building because it will, instead, entrench tribalism as criteria for tackling national issues of South Sudan.

Hence, it could be safer if the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement model is adopted for tacking the issue of armed forces of the warring parties. Thank God that veteran Gen. Joseph Lagu is still alive and kicking for consultancy on this matter.

Public Disclosure of Debts: If the SPLM/A-IO has already given a verdict that the debts of President Kiir’s Government are illegal then why should it be disclosed at will?

Why should Dr. Riek’s Resistance Movement negotiate with a kleptocrat and an illegal president if at all there is honesty in what the SPLM/A-IO posits? They should not stick to overthrowing him via violence means if they thought it was an easy matter to usurp power that way?

But is the SPLM/A-IO legal itself to demand for legality of another? It should be the citizens who have not taken arms against the state to demand such disclosers of government debts; not outlaws rebels.

Also the law-abiding citizens of South Sudan will not bother themselves asking for disclosure of debts of rebellions because rebels are never accountable to the citizens; only the legitimate government.

The Coup or No-Coup Narratives: This has not been falsified yet because no court verdict has taken place so far. The case has been stayed only until further notice.

But how do you call shootings in an army barrack which make politicians escape from their homes and declare rebellion resistance movement against the government within a very short period?

If it is running for dear lives why not run to non-violence asylum in another country rather than to violence rebellion in the bushes? Remember that a victim cannot resist, hence, no rebel can be regarded as a victim in the current crisis of SPLM failed leadership in South Sudan.

That is why the Intra-SPLM Arusha Reunification Agreement forced all the so-called SPLM leaders to apologize to the people of South Sudan and be ready to answer any proven war crimes against humanity. Victims don’t apologize.

Peace Talks in Bad Faith: In Pagak consultative conference, the SPLA-IO generals told Taban Deng Gai to carry on with peace negotiations in Addis but they will continue to conduct the violent approach on the ground with Paul Malong until President Kiir is gone for good.

Where is the good faith to demonstrate from the SPLM-A-IO even if the GRSS failed to bring peace out from around the corner of Makuei Lueth?

Hence, comes double standards of contradiction of mixture of both dialogue and violence at the same time but with the result of collapse of negotiations and continuation of warfare. This makes the region and the world skeptical about seriousness of the warring leaders of South Sudan in bringing good news to their people.

Thus, an agreement could possibly be forced on their throats by/before July 2015 as their hands are held on pens to sign it unwillingly with international guarantees for its implementation.

Diplomacy is an anti-thesis to Militancy: Diplomatic language is a language of nice and flattering expressions in order to cool the environment for tackling hot issues and gain something out of the deal at the end of the day.

The diplomacy of blaming and condemning both the warring sides is a correct one as long as the SPLM/A-IO and GRSS senseless war continues. This language may only change if the principals agree or are forced to end the war by any means.

So, it would be better for Stephen Par Kuol to keep his appeal to the regional and international community to himself because they are doing what diplomacy is supposed to do when there is no will for peace from the warmongers.


Dr. James Okuk is lecturer and public analyst in the area of politics. He lives in Juba and can be reached at

The Fallacies of Bashing Both Sides in South Sudan Conflict

By: Stephen Par Kuol, MAR/23/2015, SSN;

The diplomacy of war and peace making on the prevailing crisis in South Sudan has ushered in a querulous language that tends to blame both sides of the armed conflict for every thing on equal measure. It is a fallacious rhetoric that defies the logic of cause and effect.

Evidently, it has it that nobody is at the receiving end of this crisis. It lyrically goes: Both sides are dishonouring Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COH), both sides are frustrating the mediators by not negotiating in good faith, both sides are responsible for the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the country, e.t.c.

For lack of words, we have called it “both sides narrative.” It is a long thread of diplomatic literature loaded with prejudice and intentional ignorance. Subsequently, the records are misinformed beyond rebuttal.

Even worse, Makuei Lueth’s SSTV has done some permanent damage on the psyche of its captive national audience who must be told exactly what Kiir’s fascist regime needs them to hear. Like in Joseph Geobel’s culture of anti-Semitic Propaganda, in Makuei Lueth’s culture of demagogic propaganda, a lie repeated so many times can be accepted to be the truth.

It is a fallacious communication in which, the three “f “words: facts, fictions, and fallacies are woven to mean the same thing (political lies).

One blatant fallacy Juba is apparently getting away with, for instance, is the distortion that the opposition is demanding two armies for the same country. This must be exposed as a malicious misrepresentation of our position on security arrangement calling for “a gradual and systematic amalgamation” of the two armies to create a new national army with true national character before the end of the transitional period.

The opposition also presented the crisis as an opportunity to recruit from the under-represented communities and regions into the inherently Jieng and Naath dominated army.

This is timely and critical, not only to end the cycle of political violence that tends to take on ethnic lines, but also to establish a new professional national army that reflects all the faces of South Sudan as an ethnically diverse nation.

In demographic term, this means proportional representation of all our 64 ethnic groups in the new national army.

Our position also calls for demobilization of all irregular armed groups including our Civil Defence Force (White Army), Mathiang-Anyor, Dotku Beny or any other active community based armed groups throughout the country.

Another fallacious fiction is the narrative that the opposition demanded payment of war debts it has incurred since it took arms in December 2013.

To the contrary, what we have demanded and are still demanding is the public disclosure of all the illegal debts Kiir’s Kleptocracy has been incurring in the name of the sovereign people of South Sudan (sovereign guarantees).

That we see as our rights as citizens of South Sudan who will inherent those debts by virtue of being citizens under the international law of agency. We have also presented wealth sharing between states and the centre in a decentralized federal system.

Speaking from ten years experience we believe that our proposal is beneficial to all our people in the states as the later has always been taking a lion share of the national budget (90%). This does not mean wealth sharing between the two waring parties as has been fallaciously presented in Juba’s media.

This is another bizarre mis-representation of the facts and issues presented in written public documents.

This fallacious propaganda cannot be allowed to go on without rebuttal. The facts must be filtered from fictions and fallacies to get into the crux of the issues at hand. In order to resolve this conflict, a new tone of communication must be created.

The diplomatic community and the global media must scientifically put the accurate weight of responsibility on a balanced scale. It is imperative that each party is squarely held responsible for what it does or does not do in this blame game without rules.

In another word, there is a critical need to put blame where it is due and credit where it is long over due. Flatteries and diplomatic niceties do not resolve conflicts.

A crisis of this magnitude in South Sudan needs aggressive and preventive diplomacy that must start with fundamental questions to address the root causes of the conflict as follows: what triggered the crisis in the first place, who did what then and who is doing what now!!

Unlike in December 2013 when Juba managed to mislead the world with the devilish gimmickry they called coup attempt, time has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kiir himself manufactured the ongoing crisis as a ploy to extend life span of his fascist regime.

That exploded in his face when his own institutions including the court and the military intelligence dismissed the coup narrative he is still chasing like a wind. Events since then have proven that it is the same tyrant regime that cooked the crisis, which is now violating all the agreements it signed with opposition since January 2014.

The UN and the international humanitarian community in South Sudan have also witnessed that it is Kiir’s regime that has been hampering humanitarian operations by harassing United Nations Mission and murdering aid workers in Greater Upper Nile.

With Yoweri Museveni behind him and appeasement from the region and beyond, Kiir has been overtly violating all the agreements including the COH. Militarily, the two fascist regimes of Kiir and Museveni’, their allied Sudanese terrorist groups and other foreign mercenaries have been on the offensive gaining more territories to dictate the terms of negotiation on the table until today.

On the diplomatic front, Kiir’s regime has been using the dialogue as a public relations exercise. They were always in Addis-Ababa to buy time as they continued to toil for military solution.

In what looked like a monologue with the deaf, they proposed that it is the opposition as the aggrieved party to make presentations and the government reacts to those presentations. This non-dialogical approach was designed to waste time and frustrate the whole process.

We welcomed that in good faith and proceeded as agreed upon. From the political framework to rainbow document, the opposition made elaborate presentations on all the areas of needed reforms in Kiir’s dysfunctional system.

On structural and institutional reforms, we made the case for the need to overhaul the current civil service and the public security sector, which are currently dominated by Kiir’s clan.

At the constitutional level, we exposed the decay of the regime by pointing out that the two branches of Kiir’s government (judiciary and executive) have been made the dockets of Kiir’s home state.

To entrench and institutionalize their kleptocracy, they have also taken the docket of treasury (both Finance and Central Bank).

For those who know the truth, this depicts Kiir’s clannish oligarchy as a criminal establishment that must be dismantled to form an inclusive national government.

On governance and system of government, we made the case for amendment of the existing one-man’s constitution to implement full-fledged federal system. In response, Kiir’s delegation acknowledged that federalism is historical and a political demand of the people of South Sudan but maintained without elaboration that the time to address it is not now.

On demobilization of irregular forces and formation of a new army, they have maintained that their political status as a legitimate government grants them the right to recruit from their ethnic states of Warap and Northern Bar-Elghazal.

In sum, the opposition forces and other stake holders made the case for institutional reforms, democratic transformation, peace, reconciliation and accountability for war crimes committed by both sides of the armed conflict.

Kiir’s delegation dismissed all the grievances and made it a point that they will not allow any thing that tempers with the status quo. To them, meaningful power sharing with other parties for a democratic transition leading to free and fair election means regime change and ouster of Salva Kiir.

That is very clear from their English, which is heavily loaded with legitimacy and the sovereignty of South Sudan. From what we have heard so far, Kiir and company have arrogated the sovereignty of South Sudan to themselves as their sole possession.

According to them, legitimacy and sovereignty give them all the rights including the right to amend the existing transitional constitution to indefinitely cling on to that dictatorial power.

It goes without informing the people of South Sudan, the region, Africa and the world that the same rule of guns attitude that Kiir and his cronies used to obstruct the democratic process and commit mass homicide, has not been deterred.

They took it to the peace table in Ethiopia, not only once, but several times during the course of the IGAD mediated peace talks. That attitude was well represented on the table by Kiir’s cheeky team of negotiators.

We the opposition and the IGAD envoys have been through the thick and thin of that since January 2014. We had always been there to take the pain of Nhial Deng’s eloquent blusters, Makuei Lueth’s sarcastic outbursts and Kok Ruei’s thunderous tantrums!

The truth must be told that Kiir’s delegation had never gone to Addis-Ababa in genuine search for peace. Counting on military victory in the field, they had only two things to offer on the table: permanent ceasefire and re-integration of opposition forces into their tribal army ( Mathiang Anyor) within three months.

Any thing else is deferred to what they called National Dialogue in Juba.

They also challenged the opposition to represent only those areas under their military control. The Mediation and all the stakeholders present heard that loud and clear as a negotiation of the victors versus the vanquished. The rest are contemptuous gestures against the opposition parties (whether armed or not), civil society organizations and the clergy.

It is a militaristic attitude that tends to push all to protracted armed struggle. Otherwise, one can conclude with ease that Kiir and the company have lost the political debate. The only song they can sing with rhyming lyrics is the Legitimacy.

What they are deliberately ignoring though is the cold truth that the clock is ticking toward the end of their bogus legitimacy. It is time for Kiir and the sycophantic group surrounding to understand that the etiological meaning of the Greek word “tyranny” means illegitimate rule!

In Dr. Richard Mula’s recent articulation at the talks in Addis-Ababa, “Kiir’s legitimacy has been eroded by his own despotic behavior that has plunged the country into this mess.”

Secretary Kerry of United States also put it correctly that “Legitimacy is not a presumed right of Kiir’s government”. True, it is the people who confer legitimacy and it is never a divine entitlement.

It follows that the same people who conferred it can revoke it at any given time. The conventional practice teaches that it is not the election that sustains legitimacy but how the elected political leader in question governs the country.

In any case, this destructive war of shame must be ended sooner than later. But this needs courageous leadership from both sides. Dr. Luka Biong of Juba University has said it all in his recent article that, “the Chairman of the SPLM and the President of the Republic has a moral and national responsibility to provide leadership toward national consensus to resolve this crisis”.

Other parties and stakeholders including civil society and the clergy have the same responsibility to bring peace but the reality on the ground in South Sudan is that Salva Kiir wields the most omnipotent power to bring it by a stroke of a pen.

Kiir in his diatribe blamed Dr. Riek Machar for everything but the world should have known by now that Dr. Riek Machar has lost it all since July 2013. To add insult to the wound, members of his community were callously butchered in Juba. The survivors of that genocide are now subjected to protracted suffering in UN camps throughout the country. He had to escape for his own life in what turned out to be a fabricated coup.

Putting the credit where it is due, he has courageously managed to turn all that humiliation and mass anger into a national resistance movement calling for institutional reforms, peace with justice, democracy, reconciliation and national healing.

He does not have any thing else to offer, but he is ready to do every thing including swallowing his pride to work with Salva Kiir again to stop the bloodletting. He has been in Ethiopia now for the last one year to achieve just that.

Hence, the ball is on Salva Kiir’s court. The word though is that the time for presidential amnesties, re-integration, cosmetic deals and political accommodations is over.

The prevailing crisis in South Sudan needs comprehensive political and security arrangements to get our people out of this slippery pool of blood.

Kiir ‘stage-managed’ coup against himself to paint me in bad light, claims Machar

By FRED OLUOCH, Interview with Dr. Riek Machar of SPLM/A-IO in Addis Ababa (DAILY NATION), Saturday, March 14, SSN;

QUESTION: Why is it so difficult for you and President Salva Kiir to agree on a peaceful settlement after 14 months of talks?

MACHAR: It is not about the two of us but the issues that have been affecting the country since Independence. For instance, we have basically raised the issues of reforms and restructuring in government to meet our diversity.

To that end, we are advocating federalism. We have also suggested arrangements that would assure the people of South Sudan of their security. But the government is opposed to these proposals.

QUESTION: Igad has postponed the South Sudan talks indefinitely. What is your take?

MACHAR: I understand that they are recommending a new mechanism to include other regions of Africa. We welcome it because some of the Igad countries have direct interests in South Sudan. For example, Uganda interfered physically in South Sudan, deploying troops to fight us. So it is best to include other regional blocs because they may look at things differently, which could bring peace.

QUESTION: President Kiir has categorically stated that he is not ready to work with you as the First Vice-President.

MACHAR: I did not ask to be his vice president, nor do I wish to be one. Our position is that Salva Kiir’s government committed genocide in Juba. What happened in Juba after December 15, 2013, was ethnic cleansing and we don’t want this to be repeated. So Kiir should just resign and give way to another person.

QUESTION: You have also been accused by human-rights organisations of having massacred civilians, especially in Bentiu?

MACHAR: This was on April 15, 2014. The government was being supported by four groups of Sudanese rebels, one of them being JEM (Justice and Equality Movement). When we dislodged them from Bentiu, a lot of them died but also a lot of them ran to the mosque. There was a battle in the mosque and a good number of people died.

However, we also investigated through our own machinery and it is not true that all of those who died in the mosque were civilians. The majority of them were armed soldiers, even though some civilians died.

QUESTION: Then, are you in favour of the Obasanjo commission report that lists those who committed atrocities?

MACHAR: We have requested the AU to make this report public because it is important for the whole world to know what happened. If there are issues where anybody would be asked to account, then it should be a transparent process. I am disappointed that the AU Peace and Security Council did not discuss this report during the January Summit.

QUESTION: The leaked version of that report calls for the exclusion of both you and President Kiir from the transitional government. Why are they trying to balance the blame?

MACHAR: I am the victim here. Why would I not be allowed to participate in the transitional government while I was forced into the current situation? The person who planned the genocide should shoulder the responsibility.

QUESTION: The president says you had planned a coup but when it failed you turned it into an insurgency.

MACHAR: I planned no coup. He arrested and tried some of my colleagues who participated in the December 6, 2013 press conference calling for reforms within the SPLM. But they were acquitted by the court and the charges that they planned a coup, including me in absentia, were dropped. In fact, he stage-managed a coup against himself.

QUESTION: At that press conference, you called for internal party reforms because SPLM had lost its vision. Could you explain that?

MACHAR: It is true the party has lost its original vision and that is why we believe in the reform of SPLM to go back to its original vision and that is why we signed the Arusha Accord of January 21, which addressed the causes of the conflict within the SPLM.

In the vision, we wanted to create a united South Sudan as a democratic and prosperous country. But what Salva Kiir is running is a disunited country riddled with insecurity, corruption and exclusivity.

QUESTION: Do you have the moral standing to talk about corruption, when you were the vice-president when corruption took root?

Well, you can be a vice-president and yet things can be done without your knowledge. Look at the Dura Saga in which the government paid nearly $1 million for cereals that were never delivered.

At one time, the president issued a “List of Shame” naming 75 personalities involved in corruption but when parliament challenged him to take these people to court, he threatened to dissolve it.

QUESTION: You are portrayed by the government as a serial rebel, having done it in 1991 and now in 2013.

MACHAR: [Laughs loudly]. 1991 was a split in the movement over differences in ideas on what to fight for. I called for the right of self-determination, while others like Dr John Garang wanted a reformed, united Sudan.

In the end, my idea of self-determination became the overriding objective of the struggle. You can now see we are independent and it is I who have won the ideological debate.

In 2013, I was forced into the current situation and that is why we are demanding the restructuring of the state by applying the new system of governance, which is federalism, to address our diversity.

This is not rebellion.

QUESTION: Still, some people accuse you of betraying Dr John Garang in 1991.

MACHAR: Dr Garang and I were contemporaries. My objective was self-determination, which has now been realised. How then did I betray the struggle if Dr Garang later signed the CPA that contained the provisions of self-determination?

QUESTION: But you entered into a deal with President Omar al-Bashir, whom the Southerners were fighting. Was that not betrayal?

MACHAR: On the contrary, my move was to further the concept of self-determination. For the first time, Khartoum put self-determination in the Constitution in 1998 as a result of our Khartoum Peace Agreement.

I had the courage to negotiate with Khartoum and force them to accept self-determination.

But when they could not implement it in four years, I went back to the bush and re-joined Dr Garang. In the end, the CPA benefited from the Khartoum agreement which ensured that self-determination will be exercised by the people of South Sudan.

QUESTION: The same CPA had provided a six-year interim period for Khartoum to make unity attractive. Suppose they did, what would have happened to your vision?

MACHAR: Had the people of South Sudan chosen unity, my vision would have died. But my vision did not die because those who wanted unity with Khartoum were given six years to advocate for it. But it failed when we went to a referendum with two options of secession and unity, and the secessionists won. I am therefore exonerated!

QUESTION: Some of your critics describe you as a man with undying ambition and that you will stop at nothing to get the presidency.

Well, my main ambition is to build a state that can be a proud member of the community of nations. I led the drive for self-determination, creating a federal, democratic and yet united state at the national level. If this is what you call undying ambition, so let be it because according to me, I have a vision to create such a state.

QUESTION: Critics say that you should not complain because during the interim period when President Kiir was the first vice-president of the larger Sudan, you were actually the man in charge of the Southern sections and could have made changes.

MACHAR: That is the biggest lie I have been hearing. Initially, I thought it was just propaganda from his sycophants, but when I heard it from the president himself in the last Igad session, I confronted him and told him not to rewrite history.

He was in the South most of the time and in fact it was I who was shuttling between Khartoum and Juba as the one charged with the implementation of the CPA. I used to spend three or four days in Khartoum but I always made sure that I attended the Council of Ministers meetings on Friday. In short, he was never in Khartoum, after he left in 2006. He is now selling this view because he does not want to accept the responsibility of what has gone wrong in South Sudan.

QUESTION: President Kiir said that Khartoum is supplying you with weapons and offering moral support.

MACHAR: Where is his proof? I get my arms from him. On the contrary, he is the one who buys arms and ammunition from Khartoum and we capture them on the ground whenever we overrun their stations.

QUESTION: Are you saying you don’t have external weapons suppliers?

MACHAR: I wish I did. If I get, I will definitely go for it but it is very difficult to get arms from abroad and therefore we have to look internally. As you know, it is a war situation and everybody needs arms.

QUESTION: What, according to you, is ailing South Sudan?

MACHAR: It is simply an issue of bad governance. The institutions of governance and accountability are weak. We all tried to strengthen these institutions but it all boils down to leadership. If the ruling party SPLM is working at cross-purposes with government, then things will definitely go wrong.

QUESTION: Should you be given a chance to rule the country, what would you do differently?

MACHAR: First of all, South Sudan will be a federal, democratic state with multi-party democracy. We will fight corruption and strengthen institutions of governance, at national, state and county level.

We will introduce new blood into governance at every level; the party will be rejuvenated. So we will be a forward-looking state capable of competing with our neigbours and also taking advantage of the talents and experiences available among our neighbours to build the country in the shortest possible time. END

Wrong solution can give wrong results

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, UGANDA, MAR/11/2015, SSN;

It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the prospect of achieving peace to end the current conflict in South Sudan is dwindling. This is not because warring parties do not want peace to come to South Sudan but because there is a lot of external influence and interferences from different groups that have personal interests in South Sudan.

The examples of the groups that want to achieve their own interests as their conducts show are the USA, the UNMISS and IGAD. The USA, the UNMISS and IGAD want to see that their interests in peace talks are met, and if not met, the peace will never be achieved in South Sudan, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of South Sudanese will keep on dying or suffering under cruel war.

I have made an accusation against the above bodies although I do not have any personal evidence to show that the USA, the UNMISS and the IGAD have interests in South Sudan but their behavior in regard to peace talks and war in general have proved them beyond any shadow of doubts that they have interests in seeing the government of South Sudan overthrown, and hence, substituting with their puppet government of Riek Machar or any other person who will serve their interests that they want to achieve through the current war.

As I have made an assertion, there is a need to prove it. The truth is that the USA and the UNMISS have been active in the field supporting rebels while the IGAD has been active in seeing that peace talks is signed in favour of rebels. This is the fact as it is known by the majority of South Sudanese.

For instance, the UNMISS has done two things during this war that made it to stand out and clearly show that it is supporting rebels.

The first dangerous thing the UNMISS did was when it was about to deliver assortments of guns and ammunitions to rebels, fortunately, South Sudanese’s God was working hard since those guns and ammunitions were detected in Rumbek and stopped before falling in the hands of rebels.

That incident alone shows that the UNMISS did badly and barbarically because it did violate the rule of law that governs international community and civilization.

The rule of law of the independence of nations, national sovereignty and respect of territorial integrity are the basis of the modern international law and sources of civilization but were violated by the UNMISS as shown by that single incidence.

Another thing the UNMISS did that showed it that it was supporting rebels against the government was what happened recently when it transported the government officials to rebel areas where they were about to be murdered in cold blood thanks to the concerted efforts by the government and threat to the UNMISS base in Bor by mighty Jonglei youth.

The incidence I am talking about here is that of Chol Aruai and his colleagues who were transported and handed over to rebels by the UNMISS earlier this year.

Besides the destructive role of the UNMISS in South Sudanese conflict as explained in the above paragraphs, the USA has been accused of supporting rebels against the government and majority of South Sudanese are aware of such facts as many rebel members here in Kampala have been boasting that they are being supported by the USA and that they are likely to win the war against the government.

Finally, the IGAD has been active in peace talk’s process as it tries to influence the result of peace talks in favour of rebels. In fact it can be summed up that the USA, the UNMISS and IGAD are using rebels as their proxies to achieve what they planned when the coup that was initially attempted failed miserably.

Of course, many people who have limited understanding of the intricacies involved in the current raging South Sudanese war as it is marred with divergent personal interests may dispute this statement especially when I mentioned the term “attempted coup” and the USA, the UNMISS and IGAD interests in South Sudan.

However, as a matter of fact, all these three parties are supporting rebels but have been keeping incognito to avoid being viewed as parties to the conflicts and attract more enemies criticisms and also to avoid being accused of bias since they pretend to be “neutral” in attempting to negotiate peace for South Sudanese.

Nevertheless after the collapse of peace talks, they have now come out openly and at full-scale ready to execute their plan of destroying South Sudan if they fail to overthrow the legitimate government of South Sudan.

I have used the term legitimacy objectively in this context as it is based on the concept of national laws of South Sudan and international law in general and whoever claims that the current government of South Sudan is illegitimate has misplaced, misconceived concept and he or she is laboring under the deficit of international law concept of legitimate government.

What makes the government legitimate under the international law is a matter of facts and law. According to the international law, a legitimate government is defined by the fact that it is by the general acknowledgement as being in control of a nation and deserving formal recognition from other nations, which is symbolized by the exchange of diplomats between that government and the governments of other countries. This is exactly what the government of South Sudan is, and therefore, it is a legitimate government.

Coming back to the point as I have already made, after the USA, the UNMISS and the IGAD have failed to overthrow the government of South Sudan militarily through their proxy Riek Machar, they are now out to destroy South Sudan in totality by trying to reduce her full independence to the status of trusteeship. It is despicable plan that should never be condoned if proved to be true by time.

Such a plan to reduce the independence status of South Sudan to trusteeship has been discovered in the recent leaked report from the African Union (AU), which revealed it in its one of the recommendations that South Sudan should be put under the AU administration.

Of course, this a leak report and its content is not yet fully disclosed, which is against the fair hearing if it is just condemned out-rightly.

However, has it has been observed through the old adage that there is no smoke without a fire, there is a likelihood that what that leak report carried may be the true content of the document.

If that is going to be true, then, I must point out that the USA, the UNMISS and the IGAD have misfired in trying to bring peace in South Sudan. This is because wrong solution can give wrong results.

Instead of bringing peace through the people of South Sudan, the USA, the AU, the IGAD and the UNMISS are creating other problems as they are digging a hole to fill a hole. The country or the state cannot be destroyed as a means of achieving lasting peace.

No South Sudanese can accept to lose their citizenship simply because there is a peace to be achieved.

Where will one enjoy such peace? It’s tantamount to slavery and indirect colonialism since South Sudanese will again in the near future have to struggle to achieve their independence.

The way I feel strongly against such a plan is the same way other majority of South Sudanese feels about it and it will automatically cause a serious war against AU or any other body that will take charge of South Sudan.

The question the recommendation given by the AU invoked in our minds are many, and particularly, the main question is: How many countries have been engaged in the war like that of South Sudan or even worse than that but they have never been recommended to put under either the AU or the UN or European Union or SEATO or ASEAN or SAARC?

For example, Somalia was a failed state until 2012, Rwanda witnessed a deadly genocide, Bosnia saw a lot of massacres against Muslims, Central African Republic saw a deadly conflict between Muslims and Christians in which the hatred had reached the deadly level of which human beings ate other human beings, DR. Congo was in conflict for so many years, Libya and Syria has been in conflict since 2011 but none of these countries has ever been recommended to put under the international or the regional bodies.

However when it comes to South Sudan, it is treated as an exception. What is so special about South Sudan? I believe there must be something wrong with South Sudan as viewed by the AU and the USA.

Therefore, it is imperative to remind the regional bodies like the AU and IGAD and the international body like the UN that South Sudan is an independent country inhabited by the independent people and independent government under the international law.

It is somehow disappointing to see IGAD behaving as if it is a dictatorial government and as if it does not know what it is doing.

The way the IGAD is trying to bring peace in South Sudan is wrong and I will see how it will be successful as the time will tell. Nonetheless, the fact is that wrong solution can give wrong results.

The IGAD does not have an excuse of deciding to take the direction it has planned to take. If it is the violation of human rights that took place or ethnic cleansing that occurred as some people termed is the cause of destroying South Sudan, then, the approach of destroying the whole country in order to bring justice to the victims is not the correct one.

In fact, the majority of South Sudanese are not happy with South Sudanese leaders for killing their own citizens but they are not even happier with the AU for recommending to destroy South Sudan and they are ready to face the AU if need be.

In summary, all South Sudanese should be ready to fight against the AU if it comes in to take over South Sudan. The last word is that South Sudan should only be taken over our dead bodies.

The Author is a South Sudanese in Uganda and he can be reached via:
Email:; +256783579256

Dr. Riek! …Now that “Convincing” is failing, try “Confusing”

BY: KON Joseph LEEK, South Sudanese commentator, MAR/06/2015, SSN;

A certain US president once said that, “if you cannot convince them, then confuse them.” …. What’s the strategy Riek has resorted to doing now?”

‘Salva Kiir lost his case in Arusha, he should just resign… He took the country to war because of that, now he comes and admits he is wrong, so why would he remain in power?’ radical Riek Machar told his apostles in Nairobi a day after the Arusha reunification.

Riek’s issue is a case of a vulture rejoicing over carcasses and corpses…. a sensible person would not insist on what he has failed to do since Dec, 2013. Who is delaying and denying you to remove him [Kiir] from power? It has now become a typical solo song that you sing and still responded to by the same you.

It is vividly clear that you are fighting a lone game, a game you will not win because you are playing against yourself, and you are not yet aware of that.

If Riek is talking of Kiir’s removal, it is clear that he means violent means, and South Sudanese are tired of that, we are now in peaceful resolution and he is again visioning to frustrate it.

What I belief he is doing is just a “bluffing” but not reality to the rebel generals who are not satisfied with the reunification’s agreement in ARUSHA.

The reunification only favors him since it was only focused on SPLM and the rest were not part. The Tanzania’s Chama Cha Mapinduzi [CCM] believes that the crises in South Sudan were generated from the SPLM power struggles but was all cracked by the dismissal of Riek Machar from the government with some of his subordinates [the chain he had constructed was broken – hence, provoking him to take up arms against the gov’t].

This is why they [CCM] decided to reunite the SPLM and again show them guidelines of how a party can be managed. This saw Riek, a rebel leader is reinstated back to his place as Deputy SPLM chairman.

The rest [Gatwich Dual, Gatdet Yak and others] became furious that if they were the ones who helped Riek to resist fighting the government since 2013 by mobilizing the youth to cover-up the governments guns’ nozzles, then who is Riek alone to be part of the “distribution” of which they were left out?

They insisted to choose between fighting the government to the end, until Kiir runs away from the seat or they rebel against Riek. Riek wouldn’t like anyone to fight the government to the end because to him, it is all politics and politics is not always straight. It zigzags and curves with a lot of U-turns through “belonging and bleeding” of the inferiors – Gatwei, Gatdet and other rebel generals are still not aware of that.

He [RIEK] too wouldn’t feel comfortable seeing anyone rebelling against him because they are the people he is using to get his interest and if they turn against him [RIEK], he would then be nobody. He can simply opted to committing suicide. So, he better use his mighty power of thinking to stay with them until his mission is accomplished – then drop them later

For Riek to convince these people is to CONFUSE them that, the agreements signed are all naïve, useless and a sham and would not ever come back to Kiir’s government unless Kiir is removed. He say these as a trick to the people he is militarily using as another political way for his “military fame.”

He is afraid to hurt them in any case because upon doing so, he would be declined militarily and his political strength would sink straight away.

He is doing this for now, and when time comes later, he would hasten run to JUBA leaving angry generals in the bush – like he always does.

In DUK County now, many GAWAAR and LOU-NUER youth are coming to graze their cattle around the swamps denouncing RIEK’s war.

Gatwech Dual, who is the chief of staff of Riek’s forces is being excommunicated and isolated by LOU chiefs because they [chiefs] believe that RIEK whose state [UNITY STATE] is relatively stable and has a lesser number of youth who participated during the crises [2013-early 2014] is looking forward to sweeping the LOU-NUER youths into the front-line against the government.

The chiefs see this as another RIEK strategy to prolong the war because, ‘if the former clan-chief of chieng-BUR [Gatwech Dual] is not appeased with a big post,’ Riek thought, “no one else can manage to mobilize the LOU youth because he [GATWECH] is one of the most respected and feared military generals in the area.’

And any war in which LOU have not accepted and participated in cannot be accepted and participated by the other Nuer on the grounds that they are the more aggressive and fearless NUER any military bright – NUER politician would want to use as in 1991. They were used through WURNYANG GATKEK LUOM [a spiritual leader from LAK Nuer – killed by the white army in 2006 during disarmament], and so is it in 2013 by the same person [Riek] through DAK KUETH DENG MAYEN [A Dinka from DUK, though migrated to GOGOOR/PIERI-WUROR county].

For the case of GATDET YAK, he is another desperate general who is losing ground in BUL [his clan in MAYOM county, BENTIU], he is known as a several-times-side-switching general, who is addicted to rebellion and defection, and any soul from his area is afraid to follow him because he starts this today and the other tomorrow like a violent lunatic, hence making you [follower] confused either to remain where he brought you or go back with him. ONLY a lunatic follows a fellow lunatic!

Riek is someone whom they [military generals] see as another loose politician who uses death as a tool of fame and position. He rebels with the members he influences to defect with him and again makes a U-turn leaving his subordinates on the other side like he did in 2001 when he came back with his wife and may be his secretary.

All the others came thereafter on their own – and he is still a role-model to many! He informs his subordinates and comes back without informing them again whenever he is rejoining – he often rejoins alone!

Those generals are the right people who have a full control of the army; RIEK is just an opportunist who is only exploiting their illiteracy and ignorance. If they decide to join the government today or if they are the ones to sign any peaceful agreement or cease fire with the government, you would see Riek hanging himself if he hates not being a president too much or automatically banishing/exiling himself from the country on his own.

Riek is in confusion of the word to entice the people, beginning with himself – that he can do it, then his wife – that he is a bold husband who cannot, and does not fail, then to his friends in the bush – that he is an animal of a man that gets what he wants and uses whatsoever means to make them confident.

Instead of being a politician who uses massive blood to get power, please try peaceful means this time around to challenge KIIR if you think he is the problem… for elections are zooming.

The writer is a commentator on contemporary South Sudan
He can be reached on & 0955091449

Open Letter to Pres. Kiir & Riek Machar’s Adult Children!

BY: Mayak Deng Aruei, USA, MAR/04/2015, SSN;

The beautiful history of the Republic of South Sudan that many martyrs have died for has been tainted at the last part of the long struggle. There is no crucial time than this, and all of you must come out of your hiding and share the pains with your country-persons. It had been a terrible year of senseless war, your dads are equally responsible for the ongoing conflict in the Republic of South Sudan.

This letter is directed to you because South Sudan has been run by your fathers, and any future moves that you will make will be scrutinized by South Sudanese, especially your educated age-mates who witnessed every bit of the conflict.

I personally don’t know how many of you are out there, but you should be handful of you. To the readers, this letter was written in both first person and third person tone because it is a letter and a message to children of Elites the South Sudanese. Just tune the wires and enjoy the glitches!

The fate of South Sudan is very uncertain, and all citizens are rambling to find a viable solution to the stalemate caused by tribal hatreds. At the forefront are warlords, and who have been known throughout the liberation struggle as key holders to peaceful and stable South Sudan. What does not adds up though is their disconnection with realities of the modern State.

In your independent capacity, all of you (readers and kids in question) are presumed to be politically conscious and should be reading South Sudanese’ minds around the clock. Getting to the bottom of all the unfortunate events in South Sudan require heavyweight political and social Machines to refuel for a day-long hard labor.

There is going to be time where you will recognize the importance of South Sudanese and their togetherness. The slaughtering of many innocents by the opposing armies has diminished our nation’s capacity to accelerate needed developments or heal the wounds.

Any person of a sounds mind would be compelled to ask for forgiveness from the citizens, and for peace to take its course. There comes the need for concerned citizens to let people think of individuals who can change the political landscape should they choose to be part of the equation.

But, being wary of you is something legitimate, and well entertained by supporters on both sides of the political spectrum. An African proverb/saying in Kiswahili goes as follows: “mtoto ya nyoka ni nyoka.”

You may turn out to be like your dads, and we (South Sudanese) have rights to know you and be very ready for discomforts that you may cause.

Diverging from the pinpointing, some people will be asking this question: what does Kiir & Riek’s political rivalry and its subsequent arms race has to do with their children?

Well, their children are grown up, and their fathers’ political Goldmines are their lifetime treasuries. So, they should be part of whatever is going on in the Republic of South Sudan.

Had South Sudan been ruled responsibly by their dads, they would have slid into highest seats with little or no resistance from the general public. And for that reason, South Sudanese want to see what they (kids) are capable of, especially in a time like this when most citizens, flailed by the war are out of touch with nationalism.

Their (kids in question) busy lives should not make them invisible from the general public views. Who told them that children of nation’s leaders are to be off political radars? Unfortunately, something is terribly wrong with children of elites in South Sudan or may be Africa in general.

For the most part, some of those kids are busy with foreign born partners (exotic lovers), and Kiir and Riek’s children have been involved in this same episode.

However, that is not the theme of this article, but it has to be touched because their political future centers around what they do now, and for sure records are very loud in that regard. But, let’s have mercy on them and try to have them on the good side of the nation’s history.

Next to the an unmarked graves of all martyrs, you (kids) are the light or should be the light of South Sudan. You know/should know very well that South Sudan was won after enormous sacrifices, and some children whose fathers perished fighting successive Khartoum based regimes have not be given the benefits their fathers died for.

Mind you, this is not an inherited throne, and should not ring in your minds as such. There are so many twists that take place in all corners of life, and some unnoticed events may carry huge political prices.

I am still wondering what you make of your juniors (young boys across South Sudan) being made to fight unnecessary war?

It is very true that your fathers have made lots of sacrifices, and in the name of the Republic of South Sudan minus the ruins they have inflicted on the new republic, and as of recent years.

Knowing you only through the incidents laid above (marrying foreign nationals and causing troubles at your families’ Mansions) raises some questions as how you would be regarded come that time?

If President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya and President Barrack Obama of the United States of America are using social media to get their political messages across, then why not you?

But hey, it is your choice, if you want to be hiding forever, then it’s your choice & you definitely own it.

The major concern as we go through the many catastrophes caused by the two leaders (Kiir & Riek) is how to get citizens back on track.

There is no doubt, everyone know that leaders comes and go, and their legacies, bad or good remains part of nations’ histories. And for sure, President Salva Kiir and Dr. Riek Machar are not exempted from the repetitive nature of the world’s politics.

In my mind are President Apollo Milton Obote and notorious President Idi Amin Dada of Uganda. They both reigned over Uganda, toppled themselves, and have been toppled forever.

If you don’t catch up with your fellow South Sudanese, you will be looked/booked down as enemies of the State(South Sudan), and your families will have woes just like those historical/prominent families in neighboring Uganda.

Do not let huge supports that your dads enjoyed across the nation galvanize your takes in the conflict.

As far as political maneuvers are concerned, records revealed that there will be no stability under your fathers, and if you don’t speak up now, or do something that would distinguish you from your fathers, then the little they have done will be shattered after the war.

You shouldn’t be hit hard, but your influences in a nation like South Sudan is needed now, and you surely do need to get involved before the light goes off.

Believe it or not, President Salva Kiir and Dr. Riek Machar are about to sign a historic Peace Accord on South Sudan, but that would not solve not even a single problem.

Since the beginning of this week (first week of March, 2015), and as the deadline is approaching, South Sudanese around the world are eagerly waiting to see the outcome of the last round of peace talk.

It should be noticed that level of mistrust is really very high, and that bitterness is likely to cause more unrests should the warring parties attempt to mishandle the remaining items of the Peace Agreement.

Moving downward, charming devils from the deadwood was a superstitious practice that saved some lives, but no longer make sense to the educated masses.

Just like other fragile States, politics in South Sudan is too fluid, and uncertain to some extent.

Back to the physical world, there is no reason to prick you too hard, but beware that your native land is in serious political and military crisis. Of course, there are other elites kids in the country, and whose parents are instrumental in the wrecking of the country, and you lead the way.

As a nation, we are searching for the right medicine to treat our beloved nation, severely wounded at the course of installing illegitimate democracy.

Here is how you can/should be instrumental: connect with South Sudanese youths around the world, discuss the way forward, organize charities works for the displaced persons in South Sudan, raise money for the desperate South Sudan children and have a delegation visit those children on your behalves.

There are lots of gears shifting going on in South Sudan, and I just wish some of you should be part of the whole wobbling in a better way.

Be informed that South Sudan is very different now, there are many educated folks who are politically informed, and if you don’t do something now, then things won’t be on your side.

Lastly, it doesn’t hurt or should never freeze balls for me to throw out some friendly advices, even though I don’t know who you are and what your future preferences are.

I only learned about some of you when it was reported that Riek Machar’s son (Teny) got married to a Polish girl, Kiir Mayardit’s daughter (Adut) married to Ethiopian national, a drama that sent some vocal Reporters to jail temporarily, and for talking about the President’s daughter exotic love.

In the midst of the ongoing war, Kiir Mayardit’s son (Manut) reportedly threatened family members in Nairobi, Kenyan police was called in & was booked in, later released when the whole thing went viral on the social media.

Now, you have learned the little I know about you as a private citizen. Again, waiting until your fathers finished with the wrecking of the nation or whatever they are doing to the nation of South Sudan is a terrible political drawback, and somebody got to give you a hint before the River dries up.

Whichever the case, South Sudan is your country, and all of you should embrace Peace under all circumstances. Also, remember that every generation has its elites, and you may be elites of your generation or be locked out completely.

If there are folks who read or scan the net on your behalf since money can do almost anything, then let them take all issues as national agendas, and not act as personal defenders/spy agents!

Overall, SOUTH SUDAN is now a battlefield where regional and international players just want to settle their differences. The Reserve (Oil and rare minerals) that we have beneath the blessed Land invite woes to engage themselves, and far away from their homelands.

If this article reaches you by any chance, then you ought to consider finding exit strategies for your dads. They have done more than enough damage to the nation of South Sudan, and they should leave politics as soon as situation allows.

There is nothing personal here because I don’t know you, but positions occupied by your families in South Sudan make people to think about you, and in your hiding places.

The reason as to why you were paired in this article is because every problem has two sides, and it happens that your fathers are the opposing sides of the ongoing conflict in South Sudan.

When Southern Sudanese, now South Sudanese took charge of their nation/portion of SUDAN, your dads hit a jackpot, and wasted time touring the world of wonders.

With that being said, nobody is charging you with any wrongdoing, but your political future rests on what your fathers have done.

Therefore, your voices, especially in critical times, are needed or nobody will listen to you in the near future. Enjoy yourselves to the fullest, but remember that South Sudan needs everyone’s input, and you should not be left out.

-Cheers ladies and gentlemen!

This letter was written by Mayak Deng Aruei, a doctoral student in Organizational Leadership: Organizational Development. He is the author of ‘Struggle Between Despair and Life: From Sudan Marshland Village, Child Soldiering, Refugee Camp and America.’ He can be reached at

You can’t straighten an object’s shadow without first straightening the object itself’

By: Justin Ambago Ramba, South Sudanese, FEB/28/2015, SSN;

Following the conspicuous absence of President Salva Kiir Mayardit from what is largely supposed to be final round of the IGAD mediated Peace Talks for South Sudan, many observers begun to doubt the sincerity of the Juba administration to realise an inclusive just peace in a country ravaged by a civil war of its own making.

Also of concern to all is the implication of what seems to be an ill-intentioned absenteeism given the fact that any backtracking from previous signed positions by any of the principals of the two warring factions will adversely destroy any chances of bringing peace back to this new African country.

However there is much that in president Salva Kiir‘s absence than that meets the eyes. In a personal interview President Kiir gave a statement to the Kenyan Daily Nation in its Thursday, February 26, 2015 edition under the heading: “Why Machar will not be my Number 2”.

You may forgive me for not being keen to go into the details of President Kiir’s interview with the Kenyan Daily Nation which can be accessed by following the link provided below :

However for the purpose of this article it suffices to know that contrary to previously signed agreements between himself and Dr Riek Machar, the president has abundantly made it clear that he is reneging on all those agreements and won’t be sharing any power with Dr Riek Machar Teny, a man who served as his deputy for nearly eight calendar years.

Yet it all seems to me that President Salva Kiir Mayardit was not only being blatantly obvious, but what he said should in fact have been the case from the very beginning given the great visionary disparity and apparent incomparability and incompatibility between the two men.

And to be very fair to all – it really takes a lot of sacrifice from any learned person to accept being second to an individual like Kiir who shouldn’t be presiding over a sovereign country to start with, although it was only those several unplanned events that brought him to the top office.

The African Union, the IGAD and the international community have all said that President Salva Kiir should have kept his word when he signed a deal to attend the final rounds of the Peace Talks that kicked off in Addis Ababa on 20/02/2015.

The United Nations Security Council and the US administration have both talked of possible sanctions plus or minus arms embargo on individuals or entities who directly or through their policies are seen to be blocking the progress of the peace talks.

Well to say the least, President Salva Kiir now squarely lies in that category of “spoiler” of peace and rightly deserves all sanctions from ban on global travel to freezing of assets, of course a heavy embargo on the flow of arms to his notorious army and allied militias.

It is equally important that the UNSC understand that the Ugandan People’s Defence Force (UPDF) is part of the ongoing war in South Sudan and must also be included in the arms embargo and any other sanctions for that matter.

Any attempt to exclude President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda from facing similar sanctions as his partner in crime President Salvatore Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan will not bring about the anticipated outcome.

In fact the only way to have an effective and water-tight sanctions is by including the Ugandan military and political leadership into the lot as a share of their role in sustaining the crazy war and directly engaging in the battles.

Museveni and his UPDF must taste their share of the bitter medicine soon to be declared by the UNSC, be it in the form of sanctions or ban on foreign travels or freezing of all assets and a total arms embargo.

It will not be too much for international justice to demand that both Museveni and his friend Salva Kiir Mayardit enjoy equal level of punishment. Together the duo are partners in the crime of setting South Sudan ablaze. This should remain so until such a time that they are both prepared to negotiate peace in good faith. I rest my case.

As for my fellow compatriots in the reform camp, urgently reconsidering our priorities where we stand now could mean the difference between succeeding and failing.

To allow for a timely achievement of the tabled list of reforms, it is necessary to adequately reprioritise these programs, for otherwise there is a real risk of not being able to implement them any time soon.

Informed by the quickly changing dynamics of both the political and socio-economic parameters of our joint struggle for a peaceful coexistence and regardless of whether at this stage one believes in the IGAD mediated talks or not, certain things are much of foregone issues.

However there is one truth that all reformists in South Sudan need to know at this particular point in time and it is the one fact that Salva Kiir and reforms can never coexist in the same administration. In other words there is no daylight between the two. Each one will do everything to obstruct and eventually eliminate the other.

So if you are indeed a person or a group who is contemplating to see reforms dawn in South Sudan then you are practically only left with this one single priority and that is to partake in the removal and disposal of Kiir administration from power as a first step towards any anticipated national reforms.

Salva Kiir Mayardit and his administration are the very opposites of reform and they can never at any time become your partners in actualizing any dreams which are more likely than not to bring an end to their corruption riddled existence.

Everyone who believes in reforms for that matter should have long known that allowing Salva Kiir to continue running the country under any pretext is in itself a defeat to the very realisation of any reforms how big or small they be.

It doesn’t any more whether he extents his stay in power through a manipulated approval by his rubber stamped parliament or as a part of a hard won transitional government of national unity.

You are not expecting Salva Kiir to negotiate himself out of office and negotiate his bitter enemies (the reformists) into power, are you? I hope not, otherwise you are being naïve and rather simplistic.

For as top as Kiir is now on the list as the most powerful person in Juba (obviously not all over South Sudan any more), his removal from power should equally top the list of any constructive reform agenda aimed at salvaging whatever is left of our beautiful country.

It is only after getting the priorities right then and only then can reformists celebrate the start of a new dawn characterized by a good and focused campaign.

And regardless of how tough the implementation of each and every stage might seem, yet down inside we also know that every step the struggle takes is being informed by a total conviction not to compromise its very basics – the Peoples’ quest for Justice, Good Governance, Equality, Economic Prosperity, Accountability, Stability and Peaceful Coexistence which is now in full gear.

After all no one in their right state of mind will even for a second consider being second to Kiir as an end in itself.

In another turn of event I found it quite refreshing to read the article by Bol Mathieng A, titled: “Lack of Accountability and Causes of Current Political Instability: A Case of South Sudan,” which appeared in the, Feb/26/2015, and SSN;

Although it was ironically written entirely to project President Salva Kiir Mayardit as the only saint in the midst of SPLM political sinners, I still consider it another beautiful article in a long series of articles that not only condemn the rampant corruption that continues to engulf South Sudan, but also one that went on to suggest accountability as the way forward.

The article was absolutely on spot when it pointed out that the current sad state of affairs in the country could have been avoided if only we had a competent leadership and administration from the word go in 2005 to deter the widespread corruption and glaring impunity displayed by the incumbent Salva Kiir’s “rotten to core” administration.

However when we talk about the introduction of accountability as suggested by the author, Bol Mathieng A, as a one important aspect which has completely been absent since the beginning of the CPA era of the SPLM administration under Salva Kiir Mayardit, it will be an impartial demand to see to it that all are held responsible – from top to bottom or better still to put it in the authors’ own words,” regardless of the title of the culprit”.

Being in total agreement with Bol Mathiang in his suggestion for a national pursuit of an impunity free South Sudan as an entrance to a peaceful and stable South Sudan, although I wonder how much thought has he given to the fact that for such line of thought to succeed, it is paramount to hold each and every one who wronged the people of South Sudan accountable beginning with those who abused the public office the most!

In such a top down approach the weeding of corruption must start right at the top from the office of the president – then the naming and shaming can successful be allowed to proceed down that gradient.

The logic is that had the person at the top acted promptly on corruption from day one, given the fact that he wields more constitutional powers in the country than anyone else, then we would be today living in a corruption and impunity free South Sudan.

However no one should attempt to sell us the “too cheap” narrative that the president was indeed a saint in the middle of a cabinet of sinners who in fact were his own buddies.

Birds of the same feather flock together – and this explains why the president never took an action past his “in famous” letter writing, to either pin corruption right in the bud or to weed it afterwards.

For all practical purposes when cannot be so blinded to the obvious that the true salvation of South Sudan lies outside the incumbent administration, given the fact the administration all across its decade long history has repeatedly resorted to corrupt means of extracting loyalty from the few that it succeeded to blackmail using what literary amounts to an institutionalized trend of a nationwide corruption and impunity network.

You may agree with me that, ‘you can never straighten an object’s shadow without first straightening the object itself’.

Author: Dr Justin Ambago Ramba. The Voice for the voiceless all across South Sudan.

Lack of Accountability and Causes of Current Political Instability: A Case of South Sudan

BY: Bol Mathieng A, JUBA, FEB/26/2015, SSN;

Accountability can be defined in a layman’s language as giving an account on how a given action was taken or a sum of money has been spent, this has been lacking since formation of Government of South Sudan. The aim of this article is to show where the notion of accountability has been seen lacking, the article will give a way forward.

Accountability has been lacking in our governance system since 2005 as evidenced by the following arguments: In CPA, two percentage of total production of oil revenue was to be given to the producing area. That sounded developmental because the two percentage could cater for relocation of those affected villages in terms of developing the areas that they would be settled in.

The development was expected to bring into those particular affected communities or states at large, things like modern schools fully equipped laboratories, well stocked libraries and employing most qualified teachers that the oil money would fetch, hospitals, tarmac roads, electricity and employment of youth in various sectors.

In fact, given that the writer has never been to greater Upper Nile, the writer has been assuming that Unity state and Upper Nile state are the most developed states in South Sudan. However, Colleagues of the writer that have been there have vehemently refuted that fallacy.

Failure to make the governors (particularly for Unity state) to strictly account for the 2% of total oil revenues is widely believed to have boosted his ego for bigger positions in GOSS.

In other words, having looted the oil money, his accounts fattened and made him fund the coup and the current rebellion. If every dollar sent to those states was accounted for, they (governors) would have remained with their basic pay necessary for their families’ upkeep, but because they were not quarterly audited since they assumed offices as governors, their money accumulated and they thought that they could be bosses of themselves, if not top men in GOSS.

The next area where the accountability has failed to be seen and heard respectively, is at GOSS level. The publication of the 75 top corrupt people is evidence to that claim.

I also believe that if the stringent system was established since 2005, the so-called G10, SPLM-IO or whatever group, would have not been available. They would have remained loyal to the president or else, they would lose getting their basic pay necessary for their basic requirements.

The presidency should note that, in Africa here, weakening political opponents economically whether in the same party or in opposition, explains why some countries in Africa are not having serial rebellion.

Therefore, failing to make every government official accountable explains why, most of the former ministers looted some money and started their own companies, became critics of the government they were part of and eventually rebel when they were removed.

Corruption or lack of accountability is not a new phenomenon in South Sudan, just visit, read particularly in the archives article titled “top 13 corrupt.”

In conclusion, if we want to live a peaceful life, and develop this nation by spending every coin rightfully as budgeted, and if the political opponents of the government of the day are to be tamed economically so that they cannot harm this nation through useless wars, accountability must begin from today not tomorrow and it has to be implemented in a merciless format regardless of the title of the culprit.

The writer is south Sudanese living in juba …you can reach him by mail