Category: More Views

Do we have leaders in South Sudan or just murderers?

By Peter Gai Manyuon, OCT/12/2017, SSN;

According to different scholars globally, leadership style is the way a person uses power to lead other people. More so, scholars have also identified a variety of leadership styles based on the number of followers. It’s also noted, the most appropriate leadership style depends on the function of the leader, the followers and the situation but more interestingly, some leaders cannot work comfortably with a high degree of followers’ participation in decision making.

Hence, in the context of South Sudan, each leader is for himself or herself, no paying attention or caring for the masses. Most of leaders lack the ability or the desire to assume responsibility in good manner- which is accountable, acceptable, peaceful and transparent to the civil population in one way or the other.

Furthermore, Leaders in South Sudan, are only good on spreading’s lies, inciting conflicts, spreading rumors or rhetorical manipulations that eventually infected the minds and hearts of people.

More so, each and every one is only focusing on ethnic’s perceptions, cultural philosophies and sectarian politics which have destroyed the peaceful co-existence of the societies in the Country.

Notwithstanding, sometimes leaders must handle problems that require immediate solutions without consulting followers in amicable manners, however, among South Sudanese, leaders are not for the people but rather for themselves.

Leaders do things based on ethnicities, individual interests not for the benefits of the masses that they represent. More interestingly, Leadership in South Sudan is defined by how much each one accumulates (wealth) through corruption practices, killings and worshipping idols.

In comparison, it’s always good to be realistic sometimes in order to inform the world or masses on what is right for the betterment of the incoming generations than telling lies that doesn’t help audiences.

Specifically, those who advocates for good governance, rule of law and respect for human rights to prevail in the Country are regarded as “Rebels” and those who tell lies, praises and worshipping individuals are called “Loyalists” or “patriotic” citizens in the Country.

Where are we heading as the Country? Some goons, doesn’t know the different between the words “Rebel,” “Journalists” or “writers” who aired out their voices for the betterment of others.

It’s should also be noted that, most of the government plans are planned tribally, ethnically, prematurely, primitively and sectarianism or clans’ politics is affecting the progress of peace in the Country.

Consequently, the ongoing fighting in Country is currently, twisted and the genesis of the crisis was changed already into way of looking for positions or wealth’s for building bellies and the entire civil population are mostly displaced and other got killed in thousands due to tribal political ideologies.

Do we have leaders or we only have politicians who are murderers in the Republic of South Sudan?

Unquestionably, since the Independence of the Republic of South Sudan in 2011 up to date, many followed only philosophy of Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) forgetting that, the leaders of the SPLM are looters, killers, thieves and stooges who doesn’t have the future of the Country but rather looking for ways to get riches and exploits citizens for their interests.

Additionally, all those in both the government and oppositions are all liabilities who don’t value the lives and social co-existence of the communities.

Admittedly, all the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) leaders both in the government and outside the government have looted the country for decades.

Resources of the country are taken and banked in different parts of the world by corrupts leaders of the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) starting from 2005-2017 respectively.

Even though currently masses divided themselves behind tribal chiefs, still there will be end as per this man-made catastrophe is concerned, where each and every one of the SPLM top leaders will account for the resources of the Country they mismanaged and crimes against humanity they have committed so far.

The Republic of South Sudan (RSS) is not for SPLM but all people have the rights to exercise their democratic rights no matter what might be the case, regardless of the parties’ affiliations, gender or parallel ideologies.

What are we going to do with these, scary, menacing, criminal, felonious, egotistical and immoral leaders in South Sudan?

Author is Independent Journalist, Columnist & Researcher who has written extensively on issues of Human Rights and Democracy in South Sudan. He is the Co-Author of the Nuer Nation” a book currently widely distributed or sale on amazon.com. Reachable on southsudanjournalist@gmail.com

Phow State SPLA-IO Governor Maj-Gen. Johnson Gai-Nyoab Speech: We’ll win against Kiir

OCT-08/2017, SSN;

Dear Compatriots of Phow State,

Delight and warmly greeting from/to Machar Teny Dhurgon PhD, Strategist Planner, Chairman & C-In C of the SPLM/SPLA-IO!

My appreciation to entirely Phow State people and its Government, particularly IO GHQs Commanders and Field Commanders of Sector One’s 7th Division in collaboration with its gallant forces in various units.

In order to achieve many objectives to take advantage from different battle-fields since 2015 down to the recent recapturing of Tonga along Wichpanyikang (Wunkur) in May 2017, that resulted in the disbarment of Taban’s and Salva’s ally militias and capture of these weapons by our forces which we have now in SPLA-IO’s 7th Division HQs. It did not happen at all anywhere in SPLM/A-IO controlled areas to capture artillery SUCH AS THESE in less than 3 minutes since 2013 except you Fangak and Phow State People!

When you compare Phow State People with others states of SPLM/SPLA-IO controlled areas, you will get that you are the best, well organized and respected people who have ability to overcome and contain the enemy whenever it attempts to touch our land.

In addition to your hospitality to those who are coming from different states particularly Bentiu and others as well as stability of security. You are really maintaining the spirit of honesty and integrity because no Robbers and Looters in Phow State territory to loot people’s properties along the roads, Air or River Nile route.

Therefore the overall SPLM/SPLA-IO’s Top Leadership, Liberation Council under able and visionary leader Chairman & C-In-C of SPLA-IO, Riek Machar Teny Dgurgon- PhD. Strategist Planner, is very happy with you.

I would like to appreciate Former and Current Leadership of Fashoda State Government under leadership of Lt Gen. Johnson Olony Thabu, Military Governor and Sector One Commander and I would like also to extend my appreciation to Division One and Aguelek Division Commanders for their hospitality they rendered to my team as Phow State Governor.

Final appreciation goes to Phow State’s Diaspora Community (USA, Australia, Canada) for their much contribution, specially treatment of all critically wounded and provision of other facilities in Sector One’s 1st and 7th Infantry with collaboration with Greater Fangak People (Phow State Community in Sudan).

Offering some of guerilla items or military logistics support to our gallant forces in 7th Infantry division within its different brigades that could help us contain enemy’s negative actions toward Phow State people.

In April 2016 when SPLM/SPLA-IO left its HQs, Pagak for Juba, its intention was to implement the 2015 Compromise Peace Agreement (the ACRISS) in accordance with its provision as it was signed by two rival leaders, the peace partners, witnesses, grantors and international observers on 17th-26th August 2015.

Unfortunately, that peace agreement could not hold water because the regime in Juba was not happy with its implementation with mysterious reasons — JCE backed reservations which obstructed the progress of compromise agreement.

Salva Kiir started and declared peace collapsed on 7th July 2016 by attacking the SPLA-IO forces on Gudele Road to Ministries.

In a meeting convened on 8th July 2016 at J1 or Presidential Palace, where Salva Kiir in collaboration with the so-called SPLM/SPLA-IO former chief negotiator (Taban Deng), former security chief (Thoy Chany) and former chairperson for foreign affairs (Ezekiel Lol) declared the final collapsing of the peace agreement by imposing Dog Fight on SPLA-IO’s joint forces (FVP’s Bodyguards) at the Presidential Palace (J1) in which some of our beloved comrades lost their lives.

Salva Kiir and Taban’s intention to assassinate the Powerful FVP, Dr. Riek Machar Teny, who was then surrounded by his fearless and well trained soldiers. Those fearless and well trained SPLA-IO forces taught Salva Kiir militias a very good and unforgettable lesson at J1.

Thousands of appreciations and thanks to the SPLA-IO’s joint forces who managed to rescue our Chairman from J1 to his residential area in Jebel Kunjur aka Pagak Two.

Kiir militias falsely convinced themselves that because the size of their army was so big, so what they planned was first to disarm the FV’s Bodyguards and then arrest our Chairman.

This was impossible, our protection unit could not allow Salva Kiir’s militias to win the battle despite the fact that Dr. Machar’s Guards were less in number only two companies (1,370 out of 2,910 troops agreed upon in the security arrangement, CPAII) without Tanks or Wulids at the same time.

But it’s matter of how to control the forces and their confidence upon the issue they are defending and protecting regardless to the number of the forces.

Two weeks later President Kiir came up with a bias and illegal decree, relieved Dr. Machar from FVP and appointed Taban Deng Gai as FVP on 25 July 2016, hence the Worldwide, Peace Partners (IGAD, Troika and International Observers) and overall SPLM/SPLA-IO Leadership Council understood that, the Compromise Peace Agreement has been abolished by Kiir and Taban in addition to JMEC Chairman-Festo Magae.

Meanwhile the government soldiers were still continuing to attack on SPLA-IO position in Equatoria with one single aim; to kill the Chairman by using heavy artillery, Drone aircraft to detect the location of Chairman and the American Black Waters bombardment Company for killing terrorists, but by help from our Almighty God and SPLA-IO’s joint forces and its troops in Greater Equatoria, they defended and managed to rescue the Chairman safely.

All those attempts to kill Dr. Machar could not succeed because he and the SPLM/SPLA-IO are fighting for the rights of the majority South Sudanese; a democratic nation in order to establish good governance for the people of South Sudan.

Kiir-Taban militias and companies achieved not the target, Dr. Machar was not harmed until we reached to South Sudan-DRC border where he was airlifted by UN to DRC then to Sudan for medical treatment after 40 days of walking by foot.

Thanks to DRC government & UN Former Secretary General, Ban Kimoon! Thanks to Sudan Government for her care of Machar’s health!

We in the SPLM/SPLA–IO have so far said and we still say it today that the 2015 peace agreement had collapsed but Kiir & Taban faction is responsible; no peace and no legitimacy of Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) anymore in Republic of South Sudan.

But (SPLM/SPLA–IO) becomes stronger than before and ready to tackle, contain, resist the acts of that Satan in details and request the public to continue with popular uprising against the clique and rogue regime’s brutal activities of lying and killing its own citizens.

Therefore, the People’s Movement by all costs would have to fight hard to bring the last Peace of Purpose to restore hope and stability of South Sudan people to establish Federal Governance, Democratic, Human Rights, Justice & Equality, Accountability and Respect of Rule of Law; would pursue & hold to account all those who committed the atrocities during 2013 massacre of civilian nationwide to be subjected to the court.

The SPLM/SPLA-IO has won the war politically and economically as per as $1= SSP 25 in Juba while is $1=13 SSP in the IO’s controlled areas.

It’s manpower is in high morale, alert and confident to overcome the regime soon while Kiir and Taban lost the confidence on their troops that ts seen by looting in the national capital.

Now the SPLM/SPLA-IO Top Leadership organs change its scenario of believing in Peace without Purpose as it was disappointed by what happened in July 2016; we lost the confidence and trust on Juba JCE regime and JMEC who are happy with the killing of vulnerable people of South Sudan through their several violations of peace agreements.

The SPLM/SPLA-IO will accept the peace of purpose that will attain and address the root causes of 2013 civil war with fair power sharing and clear security arrangement in order to avoid bias reservations of Kiir and his ally militia Taban El-Taban.

We cannot accept the so-called national dialogue which Salava Kiir and Taban is imposing to replace the ARCISS.

Action and mobilization remain the top priorities of the People’s Movement to assure public of peace and to be aware of all combatants to liberate and protect the nation from disintegration and transformation into an ethnic state as well as Kiir’s dreaming by create tribal states and annexing lands of certain communities to others.

For instance, Greater Pigi County is annexed to Malakal while its community was not consulted, this is a day dream that will not happen.

And historically, the people of Greater Pigi belong to Phow State (Greater Fangak) that comprised of former three counties read as Fangak, Ayod and Pigi County, geographically, culturally and socially.

The regime’s ideology has shown that it really wanted to disintegrate and create permanent conflict in the world’s youngest nation.

Through SPLM/SPLA-IO commitment, struggle, confidence and it’s manpower (SPLA-IO troops) under the visionary leadership of Dr. Machar, we will bring back our nation to stability, harmony and we will make it great again.

Viva………………………….………….. Dr. Machar………………………………..Viva!
Viva……………………….……..Phow State People……………………………….Viva!
Viva…………………….………..…SPLM/SPLA-IO………………………………Viva!
Viva…….………………………………South Sudan…………………………..…..Viva!

Thank you very much

Amnesty exposes Kiir’s illicit US$46m South Sudan arms deal brokered under UK government’s nose

Amnesty International, 26/SEPT/2017, SSN;

Research released by Amnesty International today reveals how a shell company in the heart of London’s West End acted as an intermediary in huge prospective arms deals to war-torn South Sudan and other countries, thanks to regulatory gaps which are making the UK a hotspot for companies involved in illicit arms transfers.

Commercial documents name S-Profit Ltd, a tiny UK-registered company, as the ‘supplier’ in a 2014 deal to provide at least US$46m worth of small arms, light weapons and ammunition to the South Sudanese government.

The report, From London to Juba: a UK-registered company’s role in one of the largest arms deals to South Sudan, also reveals that the UK government has been aware of similar practices taking place on British soil for more than eight years, without taking effective regulatory action.

“South Sudan is awash with weapons that have been used to kill and maim thousands of civilians, causing Africa’s biggest refugee crisis. The UK government has been a vocal proponent of a UN arms embargo on South Sudan, yet is turning a blind eye to illegal deals taking place right under its nose,” said James Lynch, Amnesty International’s Head of Arms Control and Human Rights.

“Glaring gaps in UK company regulation mean a dealer of illicit arms can go online and set up a UK company to front its activities with fewer checks than joining a gym or hiring a car. The UK must urgently review its company registration procedures – right now it provides the perfect conditions to become a hotspot for the kind of irresponsible arms transfers that have devastated South Sudan.”

The weapons in question form part of a previously undisclosed 2014 contract between a Ukrainian state arms company and a UAE-based company to procure US$169m of weapons on behalf of South Sudan. These include thousands of machine guns, mortars, RPGs and millions of rounds of ammunition.

If fulfilled, the total deal would constitute one of the largest publicly disclosed arms transfers to South Sudan since the outbreak of fighting in December 2013.

Amnesty International has not been able to determine whether some or all of the weapons listed in these documents have yet been delivered to South Sudan. However, a UK company may violate UK export control laws even by being involved in the negotiation of an arms deal to South Sudan.

The involvement of the Ukrainian state-owned arms company and a UAE private company in weapons supplies to South Sudan also potentially contravenes the Ukraine and UAE’s obligations as signatories to the Arms Trade Treaty.

S-Profit’s director –a Ukrainian national based outside the UK – denied to Amnesty International that the firm had supplied military products to South Sudan, but has not responded to further questions, including whether it played an intermediary role.

As well as the South Sudan deal, documents seen by Amnesty International show a sequence of commercial offers and contract negotiations involving S-Profit Ltd – some unfinished — for the prospective supply of armoured vehicles, weapons and aircraft to Egypt, Senegal, Mali, Rwanda, Ukraine and Peru, as well as to private companies in Serbia, Ukraine, Poland and Australia.

Amnesty International has been unable to identify UK trade control licences for any of these negotiations or deals.

Turning a blind eye

Amnesty International has provided UK authorities with the documents and information it has obtained. The report also reveals that the UK government has, for more than eight years, been aware of UK shell companies being used unlawfully as contract vehicles for weapons dealers to supply arms to human rights violators and embargoed destinations including Syria, Eritrea and South Sudan. The UK has made no regulatory changes to address these gaps.

The UK government has also failed to take any meaningful enforcement action against the companies involved, despite powers under UK company and insolvency law designed to allow the government to wind up companies acting unlawfully or fraudulently.

A regulatory vacuum

S-Profit Ltd is emblematic of how companies that wish to operate in the shadows can benefit from regulatory gaps at Companies House, the government body responsible for registering companies. Anyone in the world can set up a UK company online without needing to provide any identity documents.

The day after its registration, the shareholding of S-Profit Ltd was transferred to a Ukrainian national who lists a non-existent UK office address and a commercial ‘virtual telephone switchboard’ service for official communications.

This should be a wake-up call for the UK government to hold UK-registered companies accountable.

“S-Profit Ltd’s company filings give no indication of its involvement in the arms trade – but then UK law does not require them to. This kind of weak regulation is seriously undermining the other robust domestic, EU and international controls which should make any UK involvement in arms transfers to a war zone like South Sudan unimaginable,” said James Lynch.

“This should be a wake-up call for the UK government to hold UK-registered companies accountable. Simple measures like checking the veracity of names and addresses and setting up a register of arms brokers would make it much harder for foreign arms dealers contributing to serious human rights abuses to set up shop in the UK.

“If they have not already reached South Sudan, these deliveries must be halted. In the meantime we continue to call for a comprehensive UN arms embargo on South Sudan that includes any brokering, financial or logistical activities that would facilitate these kinds of transfers. Without an embargo, weapons will continue to flow into South Sudan, and the consequences for civilians will continue to be catastrophic.”

Background

S-Profit is one of three companies named in the documents, alongside the UAE-based International Golden Group and the Ukrainian state-owned arms exporter, Ukrinmash.

Amnesty International has repeatedly documented the devastating abuses against civilians in South Sudan since the 2013 civil war began, most recently in the report, “Do not remain silent”: Survivors of Sexual violence in South Sudan call for justice and reparations.

S-Profit is one of three companies named in the documents, alongside the UAE-based International Golden Group and the Ukrainian state-owned arms exporter, Ukrinmash.

In response to the report, Ukrinmash published online a letter it claims to have sent to Amnesty International which, along with statements made by a Ukrinmash spokesperson, confirm that it signed a contract for the proposed transfer of US$169 million worth of small arms and light weapons to South Sudan. However it states that the contract was not executed and that “no flows of goods and services were performed”. Amnesty International has no record of receiving this letter.

Amnesty International’s report is very clear that it was not possible to establish from the available documents whether these arms had been delivered to South Sudan. However the letter’s contents fully support Amnesty International’s findings that negotiations took place, contracts were drawn up and signed, and End User Certificates were obtained from the South Sudanese Ministry of Defence.

Amnesty International has repeatedly documented the devastating abuses against civilians in South Sudan since the 2013 civil war began, most recently in the report, “Do not remain silent”: Survivors of Sexual violence in South Sudan call for justice and reparations.

Amnesty International is calling on Ukraine to cease supplying arms to South Sudan and uphold the object and purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty which includes reducing human suffering and establishing the highest possible common international standards for regulating the international trade in conventional arms. END

End conflict, bring peace & conduct true National Dialogue not Elections

BY: DANIEL JUOL NHOMNGEK, KAMPALA, UGANDA, SEP/14/2017, SSN;

For elections to be considered and declared to have been conducted freely and fairly, they must have been conducted in accordance with the law which represents the will of the people.

In respect to South Sudan, there are many speculations even from government officials that the government is planning to hold general elections in 2018. This is unacceptable and should be opposed by all South Sudanese who love South Sudan as a country.

Whereas the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan provides for the elections to be held regularly as a sign of democracy (see; Article 194) but where the elections are called and held in bad faith with the intention of maintaining power, then, such elections are in fact amounted to the breach of the Constitution itself.

In respect to “fair’ election, it means that all registered political parties have an equal right to contest the elections, campaign for voter support and hold meetings and rallies. This gives them a fair chance to convince voters to vote for them.

A fair election is also one in which all voters have an equal opportunity to register, where all votes are counted, and where the announced results reflect the actual vote totals.

The question is, if the elections are held in South Sudan, can they be free and fair? Of course not.

As things stand now, there are rampant insecurities that will not allow citizens to vote freely and fairly. In addition, many citizens are displaced within and majority are sent into exile.

As the UN report indicated since December 2013, the conflict has devastated the lives of millions of South Sudanese and more than 3.5 million people have been forced to flee their homes.

This shows that if the elections are held while the substantial section of the population is displaced then they will not be free and fair in the real meanings of the terms.

In other words, majority of the ethnicities making up South Sudan will not vote in the said general elections.

Thus, for free and fair elections to take place, there is a need for the government and the oppositions to come together to agree to end the conflict, bring peace to the country, return all displaced citizens and conduct true national dialogue.

Without these the free and fair elections will never take place in the country. Therefore, in my opinion, elections are not a priority in South Sudan.

For meaningful elections that are going to be free and fair to be held, the following should be done:

First, violent security Forces should be reformed; second, the amendment or repealing of the laws must be made to produce the laws that protect human rights; third the state controlled media should be made political neutral to ensure fair access for every citizen.

This will help candidates to express their views freely and be able to air out their opinions on national matters; Third, independent Election Commission should be formed to oversee the conduct of general elections; fourth, the independent interim government should be set up to help in implementing reforms as agreed by both the government and the oppositions;

Fifth, the Constitution-Making Body/Process should be formed and launched to write the constitution that will provide very clear two terms limit; after the peace is achieved, the true and genuine national dialogue should be conducted alongside the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with issues of accountability and reparation and finally the census should be conducted to know the number of eligible voters.

It is after all these are done, that is when the general elections that reflect the will of all South Sudanese can be held successfully.

In conclusion, I appeal to all South Sudanese to boycott the proposed elections by the government unless the above proposals or recommendations are implemented because allowing the government to go on the elections in the present situations, it will entrench the ineffective government that will reforms desired by South Sudanese impossible.

Consequently, if the reforms as stated above are not carried out, South Sudan will never achieve peace and the war will remain in the country indefinitely. It is therefore my passionate appeal as well as the international community, the AU, IGAD and East African Community not to allow the elections continue unless all the above mentioned reforms are conducted.

All South Sudanese should not sacrifice the future of South Sudanese for individuals’ interest to hold to power. We must stand up against all power hungry politicians to achieve the future South Sudan we want.

The Author is a lawyer by profession; he graduated with honors in law from Makerere University, School of Law. He participated in various workshops and training in community mobilization in awareness of their constitutional rights in Uganda. He is the member of Public Interest Law Clinic (PILAC) and NETPIL (Network of Public Interest Lawyers) at Makerere University; he is currently doing research with NETPIL on private prosecution; he is trained in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); he participated in writing Street Law Handbook on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Uganda. He is practicing with Onyango and Company Advocates Bunga—Ggaba, Road Kampala He is currently staying in Kampala Uganda where he is undertaking bar course training. He can be reached through juoldaniel@yahoo.com or +256784806333.

BREAKING News: U.S. sanctions Gen. Malek Rueben, ex-Gen. Paul Malong and Minister Michael Makuei & networks

US Dept of Treasury, FINCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) SEPT/06/2017, SSN;

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is issuing this Advisory to alert U.S. financial institutions about the possibility that certain South Sudanese senior political figures may try to use the U.S. financial system to move or hide proceeds of public corruption. This advisory reminds financial institutions of their due diligence and suspicious activity report (SAR) filing obligations related to such senior foreign political figures.[1]

It also highlights persons who have been subject to sanctions because of their actions threatening the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan. High-level political corruption can damage a nation’s economic growth and stability as it can interfere with the international community’s efforts to support and promote economic development, discourage foreign private investment, and foster a climate where financial crime and other forms of lawlessness can thrive.

Situation in South Sudan
The U.S. Department of State has been publicly documenting the unfolding situation in South Sudan.[2] As noted, in 2011, after a bloody and protracted conflict, the Republic of South Sudan gained formal independence from the Republic of Sudan. In 2013, a new political conflict began within the ruling party of the nascent South Sudanese nation, growing into a broader conflict.

An estimated 1.9 million South Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries, with another two million displaced internally, including more than 200,000 civilians who have sought refuge in UN-protected camps within South Sudan. The warring parties have failed to adhere to an agreed ceasefire, leaving the civilian population suffering through widespread violence and atrocities, human rights abuses, recruitment and use of child soldiers, attacks on peacekeepers, and obstruction of humanitarian operations. The ongoing conflict also has resulted in widespread food insecurity.

South Sudanese Political Corruption
During this time of internal conflict and devastation, certain South Sudanese senior political officials, representing both the government and the opposition, have engaged in and profited from corrupt practices.[3] According to the U.S. Department of State, various forms of endemic corruption in South Sudan have increased since the beginning of the South Sudanese Civil War in December 2013. For example:

Abuse of position and use of shell companies: Government officials have regularly abused their positions to enrich themselves illegally under the guise of conducting government business. South Sudanese government corruption is often conducted through the use of shell companies belonging to the relatives of government officials.

Abuse of government contracting, particularly involving natural resources: Government officials misappropriate public funds outside the parliament-approved budget to supplement limited government salaries and to enrich themselves. Corrupt officials steer government contracts to businesses—particularly in the natural resource (oil and gas) sector—in which they, their family members, or close associates have some level of beneficial ownership and control.

Use of international financial system and real estate: The funds accumulated through the proceeds of South Sudanese corruption are moved to accounts outside of South Sudan. Once the funds are held in accounts in other countries, they are used to purchase real estate (among other things) in third countries.

Abuse of military procurement: South Sudan’s military spending is the highest in the region. Public reporting indicates that senior military officials in South Sudan have also engaged in corrupt practices similar to their political counterparts to enrich themselves, their families and associates. Corruption has been particularly egregious in the procurement of military matériel and services, which account for nearly half of South Sudan’s annual budget.

Abuse of military payrolls: Corruption in the military payroll system also is rampant: generals appear to routinely siphon off civilian budgets for their personal benefit or of their organizations, as well as to procure arms and supplies that have directly threatened the peace, stability, and security of South Sudan. Military commanders have even reportedly stolen soldiers’ salaries.

Another example is the proliferation of “ghost soldiers”—fictitious soldiers who only exist on payroll documents—has been identified by academics and journalists as one of the primary means by which funds are diverted to senior military officials.

Designated South Sudanese Persons
To further assist U.S. financial institutions’ efforts to protect the U.S. financial system from laundering the proceeds of corruption, FinCEN is providing information on South Sudan sanctions designations by the United States and the United Nations. Including the September 6, 2017 designations, the United States has now sanctioned nine South Sudanese persons and three companies.[4] The United Nations has sanctioned six of those same persons. As warranted, the United States may issue further designations related to South Sudan.

OFAC Designated Individuals and Entities

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has designated certain persons in South Sudan pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13664 (“Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to South Sudan,” issued on April 3, 2014, placing them on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).[5]

The OFAC sanctions broadly prohibit U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, from engaging in transactions involving designated individuals and entities, including but not limited to the making or receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, for, or from such persons without a general or specific OFAC license or applicable exemption. For each designated person, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

United Nations Sanctioned Individuals

United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2206, adopted on March 3, 2015, established a global regime of targeted sanctions on individuals and entities to support the search for an inclusive and sustainable peace in South Sudan. The Security Council has renewed UN sanctions with respect to South Sudan annually, most recently in UNSCR 2353 (May 24, 2017). The UN sanctions are managed by a sanctions committee (Security Council Committee on South Sudan, or “Committee”).[6] The UN sanctions place a travel ban and an asset freeze on individuals and entities designated by the Committee as responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan.[7] Member states of the United Nations are required to administer and enforce domestic sanctions in compliance with UN sanctions regimes.

Suspicious Activity Reporting

A financial institution may be required to file a SAR if it knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect a transaction conducted or attempted by, at, or through the financial institution involves funds derived from illegal activity, or attempts to disguise funds derived from illegal activity; is designed to evade regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA); lacks a business or apparent lawful purpose; or involves the use of the financial institution to facilitate criminal activity.[14]

Additional SAR reporting guidance on Senior Foreign Political Figures

In April 2008, FinCEN issued Guidance to assist financial institutions with reporting suspicious activity regarding proceeds of foreign corruption.[15] A related FinCEN SAR Activity Review, which focused on foreign political corruption, also discusses indicators of transactions that may be related to proceeds of foreign corruption.[16] Financial institutions may find this Guidance and the SAR Activity Review useful in assisting with suspicious activity monitoring and due diligence requirements related to senior foreign political figures.

SAR filing instructions

When filing a SAR, financial institutions should provide all pertinent available information in the SAR form and narrative. FinCEN further requests that financial institutions select SAR field 35(l) (Suspected Public/Private Corruption (Foreign)) and reference this advisory by including the key term:

“SOUTH SUDAN”
in the SAR narrative and in SAR field 35(z) (Other Suspicious Activity-Other) to indicate a connection between the suspicious activity being reported and the persons and activities highlighted in this advisory.

SAR reporting, in conjunction with effective implementation of due diligence requirements and OFAC obligations by financial institutions, has been crucial to identifying money laundering and other financial crimes associated with foreign and domestic political corruption. SAR reporting is consistently beneficial and critical to FinCEN and U.S. law enforcement analytical and investigative efforts, OFAC designation efforts, and the overall security and stability of the U.S. financial system.[17]

For Further Information

Additional questions or comments regarding the contents of this advisory should be addressed to the FinCEN Resource Center at FRC@fincen.gov . Financial institutions wanting to report suspicious transactions that may potentially relate to terrorist activity should call the Financial Institutions Toll-Free Hotline at (866) 556-3974 (7 days a week, 24 hours a day). The purpose of the hotline is to expedite the delivery of this information to law enforcement. Financial institutions should immediately report any imminent threat to local-area law enforcement officials.

###

FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities.

The SPLM govt. is a monopolist govt. but without control

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda. AUG/07/2017, SSN;

While it doesn’t help to blame people when there’s a problem, the best thing to do is to fix the problem first and then to blame later but in cases where the problem is recurring constantly, then the one who fails constantly must be targeted and blamed.

The conflict in Gok State like other States in South Sudan is the clear failure of the SPLM Governments both in Juba and in different States. The government of South Sudan has failed to know that citizens accepted her rule to protect them.

When the SPLM government fails through inaction then that is a neglect of duty. It is sad to see the government officials just sitting there watching at the citizens butchering each other like nothing while blaming them.

It means that there is a problem with the SPLM.

Moreover, it means that we do not have the government at all as the government in power is the government which clearly know hows to steal resources from the citizens but not how to protect them.

How can the government allow citizens in Gok State and other States to commit such despicable crime against each other while just sitting there doing nothing.

The conclusion one can reach is that the government of South Sudan is worse than the imperialist government that was controlling Africa from 1914 to 1990s. The imperialists or colonialists were even better since they could protect citizens and stop them from killing each other.

We liberated ourselves just to come and put ourselves in a cage of bad governance where government is doing its own things and citizens are doing their own things.

Government of South Sudan is only effective when it comes to taking of resources from citizens.

What is the use of those gunships and jet fighters that were used in fighting against Riek Machar?

What if the government ordered the citizens to surrender all their guns and if they refuse then they should be declared as terrorists and dealt with in accordance with the international and national laws governing terrorism by even employing these gunships and jet fighters?

Where they bought purposely to protect the president against Riek Machar but not to protect citizens and nation? Why are we sold alive for power?

What is happening in Gok state is the tragedy caused by the inaction of the SPLM Governments both in the State and Juba.

We must blame the President of South Sudan, General Salva Kiir Mayar for interfering with the way the Government of Gok State was running the State.

The people of Gok State should know that their problems go back to the president facilitated by the failure of the government of Gok State.

If the Governor was allowed by the President to continue imposing death penalty on those who kill others and just advise him on how to apply it properly, the current deaths of which within two months over fifty (50) people were killed would have not happened.

It is sad and incomprehensible to the Government of South Sudan running the country like a mercenary Government or proxy Government borrowed to advance the imperialists agenda in South Sudan with the sole aim of controlling natural resources.

I have never seen the Government that failed to try to control the citizens because it does not know what to do. The wisest thing the government should do under such a situation is to resign and allow other citizens who are capable to try.

However, the SPLM Government both in the States and Juba try to monopolize the system but without any control. This monopoly without control is worse than sin.

The SPLM Government has closed its ears to all the possible suggestions while lying supinely on phantom hope that God will bring a solution which is not forthcoming.

God will never bring any solution unless we human beings take an action while praying to God. That is when God can help us because God helps those who help themselves.

If God has created us, given us brain and power to change things to our benefits and then we sit there just to watch at bad things happening yet we are capable of controlling them then there is a problem. We are even putting God to temptation.

In summary, unless the SPLM government learns how to think and how to deal with crime then South Sudan will be destroyed. I really feel sad for my beautiful people that the government of South Sudan allows to kill themselves in Gok State and other States.

The Government must take a tough approach on Gok State or allow other citizens chosen by citizens of Gok State to run the State and protect them.

NB//: The Author is a lawyer by profession; he graduated with honors in law from Makerere University Law School. He participated in various works and training in community mobilization in awareness of their constitutional rights in Uganda. He is the member of Public Interest Law Clinic(PILAC) and NETPIL (Network of Public Interest Lawyers) at Makerere University; he is currently doing research with NETPIL on private prosecution; he is trained in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); he participated in writing Street Law Handbook on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Uganda. He is practising with Onyango and Company Advocates Bunga—Ggaba, Road Kampala He is currently staying in Kampala Uganda where he is undertaking bar course training. He can be reached through: juoldaniel@yahoo.com or +256783579256.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wol Deng Akech holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from University of Juba,
Advocate and Legal consultant, currently pursues Master of Laws (LL.M),
University of Lucknow, India. Co-founder, Screen of Rights, a National
Non-governmental Human Rights Organization, Secretary General, Board
of Trustees, Integrated Development Organization(IDO)
Lives in Lucknow, India, Email: woldeng24261@gmail.com, woldenga@yahoo.com
Tel: +917376270849, +211912507858.
23rd July, 2017

Gen. Paul Malong Awan: A No Nonsense Man who’s Neutered?

By Kharubino Kur Bol, JUL/13/2017, SSN;

The fall of Gen. Paul Malong from the corridors of power to house arrest perfectly defied an apothegm that goes, “the bigger they are, they harder the fall.” Malong was not just a powerful military figure, but he was believed to be the de facto President of South Sudan.

His relationship with the President is dated back 30 years ago. Rumors have it that the once powerful Gen. had once swaggered about his close ties with the President, “I am in Kiir’s throat, he can’t swallow me nor vomit me out; we are intertwined,” brags Malong.

However, his untimely fall left a lot to be desired and we all look forward to seeing pathologists coming out to tell the country the postmortem results of the dead ‘intertwined relationship.’

Ho yes! Amb. Telar was the government’s chief pathologist sent to Malong in Yirol. Can you please tell us something?

Speculatively, the Malong’s superiority complex is among what caused the death of the intertwined relationship.

If there was a great paradox in Kiir’s government, do not think of Micheal Makuei, it is Gen. Malong. He embodied what government supporters need and what they do not need.

He palls the people with equal ease, he charms them to support the government. He influenced major presidential decrees; he fixed his people in every angle of the government, and commanded huge followers than Kiir within the Dinka tribe.

He walked out of Freedom Hall in protest when President Kiir signed Compromised Peace Agreement in 2015. He accepts the truth and rejects the false.

He talks black and white. He is a no nonsense man.

With that charisma, Malong did not know that he has broken law number one of the 48 commandments of power by Robert Greene. In his book called “48 laws of power,” law number one says, “Don’t outshine your master.”

Malong outshone the President and he is neutered.

In his recent portfolio as an army chief, an influential position that some Generals used to breach the constitution and ascend to the presidency by coup, Malong did not strictly stand on the side of law; but stood against anyone who sought to take political capital through the bullet; stood against anyone who sought to kill the citizens and abrogate the constitution.

However, he almost brought to an end the rebellion of Riek — and indeed lamed the rebellion. President Kiir un-deservingly humiliated him at wrong time on illogical accusations concocted by gossip mongers.

To be fair, Gen. Malong was not everyone’s cup of tea. He is a ruthless military leader who believes that the war can be fairly won in the battlefield rather on negotiation table. And this belief earns him thousands of supporters.

The gossip mongers accused him of overflowing ego, Presidential ambition and offensive management of power.

However, with that rank (LT GEN.) of his and his previous experiences in politics, he is already in politics and politics does not often go without ego and ambition. Less than that, you are ordinary.

They also accused him of overstretching his hands farther than they were meant to be, and biting off more than he can chew.

Leave it or take it, Malong has won the admiration of many South Sudanese especially when he heeded the calls of his friends and the hoi polloi to return to Juba. This is a rare demonstration of leadership.

Though he was ignominiously neutered by the President and intimidated by some junior officers, Malong accepted to come to Juba for the interest of South Sudanese irrespective of their tribes and political affiliations.

With his unabated leadership aplomb, Malong didn’t lambast the government for placing him under house arrest nor did he forcefully demand for his release to go for medication in abroad. He is just suffering in a silent mode.

Do not shoot the messenger — I am just telling you the truth. Malong Awan is not AWAN. Malong knows ‘LONG’, he stands and lives by ‘law’. He is not as sly as fox; he knows law as Justice Chan Reech Madut.

He is a good and honorable man. He is temperate and thoughtful. He is not a power hungry dude. His demeanor shows a man who understands the laws and cannot misuse the army to advance his political interest___, which I believed he has none.

He does not throw bombs, or speak haphazardly and his recent serenity not to respond to reckless and antagonizing statements uttered several times by the government against him bears the witness.

As a soldier, he is a follower of Sun Tzu, a famous Chinese military strategist who taught his followers to choose their fights carefully; Know whom they are fighting and why.

In addition, know their options in fight. Therefore, Malong did not choose to fight and that is why he returned to Juba in defiance of all odds.

His exit from Juba had shaken the whole nation to the core and put all people in panic.

However, the patriotic Malong was not scheming for rebellion but to let the country know that the President is being held hostage by the gossip mongers and is running the country under their influences.

It is clear now that the witch’s brew of gossiping in J-1 will sooner than later throw South Sudan into the abyss.

On 12th of May, President Kiir unwittingly accepted that he embraces the rumors more than realities. “I was receiving reports about Malong almost every hour of people telling me things which I knew Malong was not doing. This was becoming a routine talk and it was like I was not listening to them,” Kiir cacophonously added.

“I made the changes because I wanted to see what the people coming with reports about him will have to say again.”

This misbegotten practice by our politicians to gossip against their colleagues in order to register their allegiances and trust of the President is primeval politics of 21st century. Nevertheless, it is the perceived reality in the SPLM.

The President sacked Gen. Malong because of this kind of politicking. This gossipy political creed will set this nation on the precipice if the President does not discard it soon.

However, the President seems loath to learn from his astronomical blunders of embracing gossiping. He drops a clanger after a clanger, and learns nothing. The blunders of 2013 should have served as his lessons.

In conclusion, today Gen. Malong is two months old in Juba under house arrest since he returned from Yirol. It is now upon President Kiir to genuinely reconcile with Malong, forget the past and move on.

Or else, he keeps Malong under house arrest till he, Malong, sneaks out of Juba and uses his detention as an accuse for launching a rebellion.

It is true that in politics, there is no friend but an ally; President Kiir should bring Malong back into government and teach him the table manners.

The writer is reachable via kharubino83@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The final step in bad governance is corruption.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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