Category: More Views

The Death of the Rule of Law and Respect for Human Rights: The Case of Eastern Lakes State

By: Tong Kot Kuocnin, Lawyer, FEB/19/2017, SSN;

The rule of law is a cornerstone of contemporary constitutional democracy as underscored by its role in cementing good governance and respect for human rights. The rule of law requires that the state only subject the citizenry to publicly promulgated laws and that no one within the polity be above the law. The rule of law doctrine envisages that the power of the state and government be only exercised in consonance with applicable laws and set procedures.

The three essential characteristics of modern constitutionalism are limiting the powers of the government, adherence to the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.

However, in the absence of the rule of law and respect for human rights, contemporary constitutional democracy would be impossible. Beyond that however, it is not clear what characteristics the rule of law must possess to help sustain its folds and respect for human rights, what specific role it must ensure with regards to individual rights and liberties, and how it might ultimately contribute to help respect human rights of the people and protect their lives in Eastern Lakes State.

In this article, I shall labour to bring to forefront why upholding respect for human rights and the rule of law matters for the present and future Eastern Lakes State.

I know many people, who are aligned to the present government in the state will fail again to comprehend the essential dynamics of what it means to respect human rights of the people and thus misconstrue the essence of this article for their good conscience tells them not to tolerate any criticisms regarding all mistakes and shortcomings of the government.

Their good conscience do tell them not entertain any critical intellectual writing about failures of the government, instead of taking, for their beneficial use, such ideas which they misconstrued as dissenting, and hence disparaging the good image of the government forgetting other people’s rights to freedom of expression in matters that affects them.

This is author isn’t bothered by such empty rhetoric. However, as the title to this article suggested, it is to be pinpointed with dismay that the callous brutalizing way our state government has been dealing with human lives is in a blatant violation of international and regional human rights principles and standards to which South Sudan is a party as provided for under article 9(3) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 (as Amended in 2015).

There has been series of shocking events where many citizens lost their lives just in the hands of the government which is indeed tasked with an obligation to defend and protect their lives and properties. A sizeable number of innocent people (innocent until otherwise proven by the court of law) have lost their lives in the hands of government officials since the current government came into existence.

The words of Martin Luther King from Birmingham jail truly remind me that there is a distinction between law and justice. The law, even if it is uniformly applied does not in itself guarantee a just result. This is supplemented by article 39 of the most celebrated Magna Carta (1215), which states clearly that ‘No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land’.

I humbly concur with Dr. King who submits that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

This is true in the sense that the application of the uncodified, unjust and draconian law which the government of Eastern Lakes uses on the perceived criminals is different from how it should have been used to deter those perceived criminals, if at all they exists.

This is so because the rule of law is intended to promote stability, not impunity, but as a society that has subscribed to operates under the rule of law, we must remain vigilant to ensure that the rule of law serves the interest of justice because the continued strength of the rule law depends on individuals who are willing to risk punishment in pursuit of justice.

Under rule of law and respect for human rights, neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret, and the laws must not be arbitrary. From the very beginning, our national constitution and other laws have laid down great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law.

This noble ideal clearly laid down by our constitution cannot be realized if poor man in Eastern Lakes State charged with petty crimes has to be shot dead by the authorities without any due process of the law. This is a clear violation of the right to life and human dignity as provided under article 11 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 (Amended 2015).

Our jurisprudential understanding of the rule of law is the protection of certain basic rights because the rule of law is linked to efforts to promote protection of human rights worldwide. Respect for human rights and the rule of law is a platform for community’s opportunity and equity and is essential to addressing the most persistent harmful ills that existed and which are commonly meted onto the most innocent in our State.

Yirol was the most peaceful and stable area in greater lakes before the partition of Lakes State into three States. Our people are both law abiding citizens and peace loving communities. They have coexisted peacefully until they got their share of demand for the state. However, while under the leadership of their own sons and daughters, our people continue to face a myriad of repressive treatments.

People in Yirol are subjected to intimidation, subjugation, arbitrary detention, torture and killing. Government response to these myriad of rights violation has been disappointing, marked by lack of political will and accountability, blatant malevolence and a disregard for human life.

Yet, international human rights advocates remained tenacious, not inciting massive protests and public condemnation in an effort to demand for an end to the culture of impunity that has cropped up in Yirol.

Some of the most outrageous travesties of justice that captured our attention and had us up in locking horns with the state government remained unattended to and many atrocious violations and abuses are continuously being meted on the innocent people.

The law presumes everybody to be innocent until proved otherwise by the duly constituted open court of law. Nobody has the power to take away other people’s lives except and unless it falls within the ambits of the law. The law is very clear. There are standards and procedures laid down by the law in both criminal and civil matters.

It is a serious violation of the provisions of the constitution which is the grundnorm governing this country if someone sited somewhere decides to take away innocent people’s lives without any adherent to the due process of the law as laid down in our constitution and other legislations governing the conduct and proceedings regarding criminal and civil matters.

It is indeed a travesty of justice if people are extra-judicially executed by a body not designated by law to impose such penalties and sentences. There can be no free society without law administered through an independent judiciary.

If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, then every man can, and this first means chaos and then tyranny. When we talks about rule of law and respect for human rights, we assume that we’re talking about a law that promotes freedom, a law that promotes justice, and a law that promotes equality.

With current violations and abuses of human rights in Eastern Lakes State, the true meaning of the rule of law has been diverted from and its special meaning has been distorted and immersed into the mud of injustice.

As based on our historical constitutional jurisprudence of looking to the law to fulfill the promises of freedom, justice and equality set forth in our nation’s founding document, the true meaning of the rule of law and respect for human rights has been lost.

#Bring to Justice the Murderers of Pokic Madit Maker# Rest in Peace brother for your innocent life will hunt those who took it away for the rest of their lives.

The writer is a Master of Laws Candidate at the College of Law, University of Juba and a Practicing Barrister at Law before all courts in South Sudan. He can be reached via:

BREAKING NEWS: More than 52,000 South Sudan nationals enter Uganda in one month- UN


More than 52,000 South Sudanese fled to Uganda in January alone as continued fighting risks creating a situation of mass atrocities, the UN’s special adviser on genocide prevention said Tuesday.

The displaced, primarily from towns south of the capital Juba in Central Equatoria state, have given accounts of the killing of civilians, homes destroyed and sexual violence, said Adama Dieng.

“President Salva Kiir has made a commitment to end the violence and bring about peace, yet we still see ongoing clashes, and the risk that mass atrocities will be committed remains ever-present,” said the special adviser in a statement.

Dieng said he was particularly alarmed at the situation in Kajo-Keji where fleeing civilians have said they fear mass violence.
After several delays, a team from the UN peacekeeping mission arrived in Kajo-Keji on Sunday to report on the situation.

After gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan descended into war in December 2013, leaving tens of thousands dead and more than three million people displaced.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the rate of new arrivals into Uganda has increased, with a total of 24,277 South Sudanese refugees being received in Uganda between January 25 and January 31.

The influx peaked for the week on January 28, when more than 4,500 refugees were received. The average daily rate of new arrivals for the week was 3,468.

And as Uganda hit the one million refugee mark, UN Resident Coordinator and Resident Representative for the United Nations Development Programme, Rosa Malango, applauded communities for offering land to refugees to settle.

She said: “It is now critical to look at the quality of life of refugees and standards of living in the communities.”

There is growing alarm over the humanitarian crisis in the country where more than six million people — half of South Sudan’s population — are in need of urgent aid. Humanitarian organizations expect this number to rise by 20 to 30 percent in 2017.

Use of force & governance: Is the use of force necessary for good governance in South Sudan?

By: David Deng Chapath, Kampala, Uganda, FEB/08/2017, SSN;

The readers of this article may find it odd for combining force and governance as the co-existence of the two is not always seen clearly in a democratic society. According to the Constitution of South Sudan, South Sudan is a democratic country that must respect human rights and democratic principles.

When we talk of human rights as seen in the above paragraph, we are simply talking of the respect of personal liberties and freedoms, and that is the reason why the use of force is not frequently observed in democratic country.

However, where the country is in chaos as we see in the case of South Sudan, then there is a need for the use of force to reform the people in order to maintain law and order, which means that the use of force is necessary in South Sudan.

It is due to the above arguments that we can give the meaning to the recent statement of the president of South Sudan in which he declares that force must be used against those who rape women and girls.

In the recent press report that was shown live on the television, President Kiir while he was in Yei called for execution of Soldiers who rape civilians as a human rights abuses in South Sudan. The statement has earned him praise and criticism from different circles.

Therefore, in this article I intend to take the statement of the president on the execution of rapists as the entry point to tell the public that the use force and governance are related and necessary in South Sudan if South Sudan is to achieve law and order and the rule of law.

In doing that I will first define force, then the governance, the importance of force in the process of governance and then I will conclude by recommending to the president on how he can use force without being held accountable by the international community.

As pointed out in the above paragraph, I now begin by defining what is meant by the term “force”. It should be observed onset that there is no clear definition of force as used by the government.

In simple language, it’s any action that changes the direction of objects to the desired direction. In relation to our case, force in governance is a process of establishing a new state or government through the use of force, which is also sometimes referred to as conquest theory.

In general, force occurs when a person or a group of people take control of an area, such as a state, and make everyone in that area or state follow their rules and beliefs. For example, if the leader is to be successful, then he or she must come up with a policy and rules and then make everyone in the country abandon their old ways and adopt new rules and if they insist on old ways, then force must be used to ensure that they obey the new rules.

When the rules as discussed in the above paragraph are obeyed and applied consistently and without discrimination, then we talk of the rule of law. By the rule of law, I mean the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

It is important to note that lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it as seen in the case of South Sudan.

Importantly, the nature of law does not determine the rule of law but what determines it is the political will coupled with the observance of the laws of state. Hence, a law may be bad but if there is a political will to do what the law requires as guided by human rights then there will be no arbitrariness and people will even respect the law because of its certainty.

When there is a certainty of the law, the rule of law will prevail. Where there is a rule of law then democracy and human rights are respected. The respect of the two means that there good governance.

Good governance cannot be achieved unless there is an effective government, which is a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a given geopolitical system by establishing laws. Binding decisions are made when the government has enough power to implement the decision strictly. This can only be established when there is force.

In relation to the above, good governance is achieved through the legitimate use of force. Hence, good governance refers to the way the rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated in order to ensure accountability in the government.

In order to achieve rule of law and good governance that will result into the respect of human rights and democracy, there must be the use of force. For instance, state of emergency is declared in order to legitimize the use of force by the government.

As seen above, the importance of force is that without force there will be no rule of law and law and order. This is because the government is not able to control the citizens. In a country like South Sudan, there is a need for the use of force to maintain law and order.

The presence of law and order indicates the presence of the law of rule and good Governance. Good governance is ultimately concerned with creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action. In that respect, it must be observed that the outputs of governance are not therefore different from those of government but it is rather a matter of a difference in processes.

In fact, the political theorists define the government in term of force as the formal institutions of the state and their monopoly of legitimate coercive power. In this respect, coercive power is in other word a legitimate use of force. Therefore, the government like that of South Sudan is supposed to have the ability to make binding decisions and capacity to enforce them if its decisions are accompanied by force in case of the failure by those affected to implement such decisions.

However, the problems of South Sudan have been caused by the failure of the Government to use force, and instead, the president always resorts into pleading with citizens and politicians no matter how clearly they are wrong. Hence, people grow horns and put themselves above the law and consequently cause chaos as they wish.

What the government of South Sudan should understand from today onward is that to be a good government the leaders should not be good or soft but they must be ready to use force where necessary to instill fear in trouble makers and then with time introduce the rule of law and democracy when some reforms have taken place.

It is upon the above fact, the government is understood to refer to the formal and institutional processes which operate at the level of the nation state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action.

Nonetheless and as I have already pointed out above, the absence of law and order in most part of South Sudan is due to the fact that the president is not willing to use force against the citizens which corrupt the system thus taking advantage of his good heart.

When I talk of corrupting the system I mean any bad works perpetuated by some citizens that affect majority of South Sudanese negatively.

In reality, a country like South Sudan will never develop without the rule of law and to ensure the rule of the law, there must be force. Hence, force is necessary in South Sudan to control people and to reform them. The fact is that in the country where there is no rule of law, it is stronger group that rules the minority and with time the other stronger group rules the weaker and the cycle goes on and on indefinitely.

In summary, in South Sudan, the President is not respected because they see him not a threat since he does not use force. The overall consequences of the failure to use force by the president are the anarchy, corruption, power struggle, land grabbing and disappearance of judicial system and finally the demise of the rule of law and democracy.

It was good that president realized recently that there is a need for the use force to stabilize the country. A country where everybody is above or equal to the government does not develop or progress as people will not obey the orders. In that regard, there is a need for military rule in South Sudan to ensure that reform and transformation of the citizens are achieved.

However, my advice to the president is that he should look for proper legal advisers to advise him on what to say in the public that affects international law or human rights law. This is because many human rights organizations are out there to do business with what the leaders say in regard to human rights and use of force. Hence, they are likely to take the words out of context although the president well intends it.

NB//: the author is South Sudanese Students staying in Uganda and can be reached through:

The Action of King of Morocco constitutes Political Bribery: A Response to skeptics to the use of the term “bribery”

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala (Uganda), JAN/30/2017, SSN;

In the recent article by Beny Gideon Mabor Esq and published on Sudantribune, which is entitled: “South Sudan: Strategic choice between bribery and right to self-determination for Saharawi people,” one of the problems that many commentators could not comprehend was the reason why Beny Gideon Mabor chose and used the term bribery.

Briefly, in that article, Beny was writing to explain the rationale behind Morocco wanting to go into bilateral relationship with South Sudan. In that article he warned South Sudan to be careful in dealing with Morocco as the dealing may have implications on her duties under the human rights law.

South Sudan has a duty to enforce human rights including the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara which Morocco wanted to suppress.

For that reason, since Morocco’s intention to rejoin African Union after thirty four (34) years of absence from the Union is to use the African Union as a platform to defeat the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, Beny was warning South Sudan and advising its authorities to protect the interests of the people of Western Sahara who have the same history of South Sudanese.

The arguments put forward by Beny in that article read together with the letter of the King of Morocco that he wrote to the African Union in July 2016 in which he informed members of the intention of Morocco to rejoin the African Union as they point to the fact that Morocco is using its soft power (economic power) to ensure that the African Union reverses its previous decision and instead declares the Western Sahara as part of Morocco.

The two sources cited in the above paragraph, show the plan of Morocco that after having gone into bilateral relationships with other African countries including South Sudan and readmitted into the African Union, it will present a resolution of declaring the independent status of Western Sahara as illegal.

Consequently, majority of the countries in bilateral relationships with it will vote in its favour to avoid falling out with Morocco that may bring the bilateral relationships to an end.

To avoid such negative implication, those countries will vote in favour of Morocco and by implication declare Western Sahara as part of Morocco. At that point, Western Sahara will have lost its status as independent entity and the people of Western Sahara will also in the process lose their rights to self-determination.

Beny, therefore, strongly advised the Government of South Sudan that it is free to go into other bilateral cooperation with Kingdom of Morocco for common good of the two countries however, not anything connected with Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR).

Beny further preempted by warning South Sudan of the consequences of ignoring his advice by saying that “Any attempt by the government to support the position of Morocco over status of SADR is a contradiction of the very principle of right to self-determination where the people of South Sudan fought for decades and finally got their independence”.

He then finally advised the government not take the “blood money” in return of what would be blind support to the kingdom of morocco and by extension support continued occupation of indigenous land belonging to the Saharawi people who have suffered in the hands of Moroccans just like the way South Sudanese suffered in the hand of Arabs.

In using the phrase “blood money”, Beny is alluding to the story of Judas Iscariot in the Bible that betrays Jesus by accepting money that was used to bribe him to show them where Jesus was.

In summary, the arguments of Beny Gideon Mabor as clearly outlined in his article and the communication in the letter of the Moroccan King to the African Union clearly support the view that Morocco is trying to bribe South Sudan and other countries that have already gone into bilateral relationships with it over the issue of Western Sahara.

Thus, this article is in response to unwarranted criticisms from those who have failed to understand the meaning of bribery in the context Beny has used it or subscribe to the wrong concept of the word “bribery “that led them to unjustly criticize him.

What is even disappointing is the fact that those individuals who criticized Beny did support their arguments with any authorities they are relying on to show as to why he is wrong but they only argued based on what they think in their own opinion as to the meaning of the word “bribery”.

For instance, one of the people commented that and I quote, “In diplomatic practice, especially treatment of any sensitive issues between Independent States, the weapons used (soft and hard power) are known as tools of influence but, not bribery, buying or selling” but did not tell us the authority he got it from.

Apart from the lack of authority to back the statement I have just quoted above, it is also backed up by wrong reasons. This is because what he did not understand is that there is a difference between diplomacy and the law.

Diplomatically, his statement might be correct though he might not have any authority due to the fact that countries respect each other and it is in rare circumstances that they may use harsh language against each other.

However, that does not extent to the law and it must be made clear to him that diplomacy is different from law and what may be called in different names in diplomacy due to the respect countries accord to each other may be called by its exact English name as in law a spade is called a spade but not a big spoon as it may be the case in diplomacy.

Having pointed out and explained in the above the weaknesses of the critics of Beny’s article, it is important now to explain to them the reasons why the action of Moroccan King in going into bilateral relationship and giving a lot of money and at the same time challenging the legality of the admission of Western Sahara to African Union constitutes bribery by explaining with the help of the authorities the meaning of bribery, what constitutes it and its different forms and why action of Morocco is bribery.

Then after that, I will conclude by stating that bribery simply means giving something to a person who one expects to do him or her favour now or in future directly or indirectly as a result of the gift given; hence the action of Moroccan King can be described properly as bribery.

Definition of bribery
To begin with and accordance with Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior which is to the benefit or interest of the giver. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines bribery almost in the same language that bribery is the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

In other words, the bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be money, goods, rights in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, objects of value, advantage, or merely a promise to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity (T. Markus Funk, “Don’t Pay for the Misdeeds of Others: Intro to Avoiding Third-Party FCPA Liability,” 6 BNA White Collar Crime Report 33 (January 14, 2011) (discussing bribery in the context of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

In economics, the bribe has been described as a rent. Bribery in bureaucracy has been viewed as a reason for the higher cost of production of goods and services as it manifests itself in various ways and appears in various forms.

Nonetheless, what is clear is that corruption, and bribery in particular, is widespread in most of the countries. According Carl Jan Willem Schudel, Department of Government University of Essex, United Kingdom corruption is a widespread problem in many countries throughout the world, as it slows down economic growth and development and corrupt practices, such as bribery, favors for favors, and nepotism, are costly to companies and thereby reduce chances for corrupt states to attract necessary amounts of foreign capital.

As I have labored above to give the definition of bribery, its forms, forms it takes and its relationship with corruption, it has to be stated that in relation to the prospect relationship between South Sudan and Morocco, the action of Morocco amounts to bribery.

As Carl Jan observes above, corruption and bribery exist everywhere and they may arise in any situation especially where a country depends on financial support from a richer country that has interests which may conflict with the primary purpose of the country it is supporting or that seeks aid from it.

For instance, corrupt governments like that of Moroccan Government (Morocco is one of the corrupt countries in Africa and for more information see; are interested in private gains rather than in public benefits of the recipient country like South Sudan.

Therefore, Morocco being private-gains oriented Country it does not care about its conduct as long as its achieve what it has set its mind to and the developmental and moral damages its behavior may cause to a recipient country is not a source of direct concern to it.

As Beny clear explains in his article cited above, if South Sudan goes into bilateral relationship with Morocco that may be accompanied by massive financial support as Morocco has indicated in its readiness to build the Palace and other projects in South Sudan, then, South Sudan must support Morocco in all areas as Morocco is a friend in need which is a friend indeed except if South Sudan has put a condition on their bilateral relationship.

In conclusion, as I have exhaustively explained the meaning and the forms of bribery in the foregoing discussion, it can be concluded that bribery means giving something to a person who the person giving expects to do him or her favour now or in future directly or indirectly as a result of the gift given to the recipient.

In addition, corruption may appear in any form depending on the interests of the briber if his or her interest is just to see the country he or she is supporting develop then there will be no bribery but if the interest of the one giving is to influence the conduct of the receiving country to do something for him or her then there is bribery and corruption.

On that note, it must be concluded that the action of the King of Morocco in going into bilateral relationships with different countries in African and that may include South Sudan and massive financial supports that follow such relationships amount to bribery thus political corruption.

Hence, in this case the argument of Beny that Morocco is bribing countries to destroy the right to self-determine of the people of Western Sahara is correct.

NB//: the author is South Sudanese lawyer residing in Uganda and can be reached through:

Why TROIKA Can’t Assassinate Gen. Malong: A Case Study of Late Gen. Rene

By Simon Yel Yel, South Sudanese, JAN/21/2017, SSN;

Today the subject of my pen which Western sympathizers may call it vitriolic is the inscrutable TROIKA. I have written before about it and I am still continuing until TRIOKA stops all its ill plans against South Sudan.

The self-anointed role that the United States, Norway and the United Kingdom have given themselves as “Masters of our destiny” and the way they had drafted the Compromised Peace Agreement, CPA, are two reasons among several others that I have trouble with in recognizing the TROIKA as a force for the good in this ongoing crisis in South Sudan.

In my book, TROIKA is an Unholy Trinity working every second of a minute to topple Salva Kiir’s regime under the pretext of bringing peace. There is no other hard evidence to prove it rather than the current audio clip (in the custody of South Sudan’s Military intelligence and others security organs) of TROIKA’s recent meeting in Nairobi on 3rd January allegedly plotting the assassination strategy on how to kill Gen. Paul Malong.

As usual, the U.S. with its ungoverned mouth has chutzpah to impudently dismiss the existence of the assassination scheme and brand the gathered intelligence evidences as “reckless allegation.”

Indeed it is not a surprise to see United States denying this assassination plot because the fact is that the United States never ever accepted its involvement in all its sponsored assassination plots and coups though it was caught red-handed like in Cuba and Venezuela. The U.SA always has chutzpah to hypocritically dismiss everything and brand concrete evidences as “reckless allegations.”

What is surprising so much is how they always crudely try to make everything suit their interest, calling the same thing black today and white tomorrow. They act as they want; here and there, plotting assassinations and overthrowing democratically elected governments and remaining unchallenged. It is primitive and misanthropic.

The last time I checked in December 2016, Washington has expelled thirty five (35) Russian diplomats based on reports of the CIA and other security organs which charged the diplomats of having influenced the election of Donald Trump; this month I checked, the Washington is branding the intelligence evidences gathered by South Sudan security organs on TROIKA’s assassination plot to kill Gen. Malong as “reckless allegation.”

However, history is always the best guider of the future and there is no doubt that the U.S is in a stern plot to assassinate Gen. Paul Malong and topple Kiir’s government given the current auguries.

Understandably, the recent examination result in CIA’s laboratory for foreign regimes change on how to topple Kiir has indicated that Gen. Malong is a great stumbling block for Kiir’s downfall, and therefore his death is preconditional to kiir’s downfall.

This result indubitably corresponds with the results that the CIA had once obtained when plotting to topple Allende in Chile in 1970.

In Chile, the Chilean Army Chief of General Staff Gen. Rene Schneider was seen as a greater barrier for military officers willing to accept the Washington’s plan to overthrow Allende. In their quest to topple Allende’s regime, Washington organized his successful assassination and Allende’s regime was easily overthrown three years later.

Like Gen. Paul Malong, late Gen. Rene was a staunch constitutionalist. He was known of his doctrine called “Schneider Doctrine.”

In his doctrine, he enunciated that “the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power; they exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any purpose than the country’s defense constitute high treason.”

You can make plenty cheap connections between Gen. Paul Malong and late Gen. Rene Schneider. Both Generals can be defined by their firm constitutionalism stance whose beliefs of power belong to the people and the primary responsibility of the army is to protect the constitution, country and the citizens, suitably fit the demands of their people.

Before the election of Allende, the U.S. President Richard Nixon was worried that he may win the upcoming Presidential election given the position taken by the army to distance itself from politics. Imperially, Secretary Henry Kissinger had audacity to interfere in Chileans’ affairs and brazenly say “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

To Washington’s dismay, Chilean voters ignored Washington demonization of Allende and consequences of his election and overwhelmingly voted to elect him on September 4th 1970.

The innocent Rene didn’t know that his refusal to stage a military coup against Allende is an affront to the Washington and the price for it would be his own dear life. Exactly, in less than six months later, CIA and other two Chilean Army Commanders ganged up to plot his assassination and they succeeded in killing him.

As it was expected by the Washington, his successor Gen. Augusto Jose became a cheap simpleton and the Washington easily got ride on him and staged a coup against President Allende three years later.

To relate this case to the alleged assassination plot by TROIKA to kill Gen. Malong, it is incontrovertible truth that Gen. Malong doesn’t have a lust for power to be the President through a military coup nor election and that is why the TRIOKA is planning to kill him with expectation that his successor will be like Augusto Jose to oust Kiir because the SPLA-IO (Riek faction) has spectacularly failed to do it.

Comparatively, Gen. Paul Malong shares the same constitutionalism stance with late Gen. Rene as he assured the public several times that he will never misuse SPLA to further his own interest, Washington, or whoever it is.

He is on record uttering that “The responsibility and duty of SPLA is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of South Sudan from external and internal aggression; protect the constitution and more importantly protect the lives and properties of all South Sudanese from harmful groups; Power is in the hands of the people and SPLA is determined to protect the Constitution from any danger and will never allow the transfer of power by bullet but only by ballot.”

In conclusion, the truth is that to anyone willing to think with noggin, this assassination plot by TROIKA is true and it is a last fraught plan to achieve their desired goal of regime change after the salient failure of an imperialized Compromised Peace Agreement to achieve it.

This plan is prompted by unexpected exit of Riek coupled with SPLA-IO maladroitness to overthrow Kiir and miraculous ascendance of Taban Deng uniting all the files and ranks of SPLA-IO under him.

Because of these unfolded events, the TRIOKA has realized that their trap is almost missing the targeted catch and hence to salvage the desired goal of regime change from dying, they came up with this plan B of assassinating Gen. Malong with a hope that his successor will be of Gen. Augusto type to cooperate with them and overthrow Salva Kiir’s government. Therefore, dismiss it at your own ignorance!

However, with the help of God, Gen. Malong will defy all their ill plans against him like the late Fidel Castro of Cuba and it will be wiser enough if TROIKA can go to Somalia, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen and wait there till Gen. Malong and Kiir die of Typhoid or Malaria.

Simon Yel Yel can be reached via

Unity of South Sudan doesn’t depend on number of States it has but on the Good Administration

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Lawyer, Uganda, JAN/15/2017, SSN;

When the CPA was signed, ten states were created but what did we have? Corruption and citizens killing each other were common yet there was no war. Many people complain today that creating more states is not good for development but what do they understand by the term development?

What is important, is it to have few states or is it to have more states to protect citizens so that they live free of fear and develop their own self-reliance mechanisms?

In my understanding, what is important for the development of any country and people are not few states but protection of citizens externally and internally so that they are free from fear and be able to engage in economic activities.

There is a difference between development of a country and the number of states that the country may have. The country may have fewer states but will not develop but some countries may have many states but can develop.

What complicates the matter in South Sudan is the fact that people associate states with money and employment which is a misunderstanding of what South Sudan as a country is. Whereas the purpose of the country is to create employment for every citizen, it is not worthwhile for a country like South Sudan to encourage dependency syndrome.

When we were under few states, we used to get a lot of money and could not think of any problems so everybody just sat under a tree like we still do today, hoping to get free money. Therefore, politics became as it is now, the easiest way of getting into power in order to get money and because of that, politics was extended up to the family levels and families were divided.

In addition, people learned how to lie and honesty was thrown to the dogs because individuals did not want to tell the truth lest they will be quoted.

Corruption as it is now became the order of the day. People even those who were living under the worst roofs instead of building good houses,instead bought cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because they just get the money for free.

Today, there is a vacuum as many are sleeping with empty stomachs because money is no longer there. Instead of reflecting over their contributions to the problems of South Sudan, they are now looking at more states creation as the source of their solution and an end to their predicaments.

Moreover, they contradict themselves that more states lead to corruption and at the same time they are saying that no money under more states but if no money under more states, then where do these people they accuse of stealing money get it from? That is a fallacy of their argument!

What I wanted to say about corruption is that all human beings are inherently corrupt because corruption is putting personal interests above other peoples’ interests. Hence, what controls individuals from corrupting the system is the strong system itself. So, corruption is independent of the number of States therefore, I do not accept the argument that more states increase corruption.

It is sad to say some people even go to the extent of saying that under more states money goes into few people pockets but if that is the case, is it any different from what used to happen when we were under few states?

As far as I know fewer than ten states money used to be pocketed by few who were in politics and at the same time could not even protect citizens. Thus, citizens were the losers in term of development and security.

My position is that it is even important to create hundred states so that no free money should come to everyone. This is because it will make us learn how to work hard to get our own money and spend it wisely instead of getting money for free that may throw the country into dependent syndromes.

Furthermore, I must add that t is even better for the country to go bankrupt if the people are able to be protected rather than individuals becoming rich at the expenses of the majority.

For all these reasons, I pity those who say that more states are not needed in South Sudan as they may lead into disunity. This is based on the belief that they create disunity as the proponents of this argument believe that unity comes through putting people together even those who are incompatibly related.

What they need to know is that unity of the people does not come through putting people together like goats or cows but it is an organic process which is achieved through slow natural coming together by the people.

People come naturally together to form one unit not because they are forced to do so but because they benefit from coming together. The unity of the people, therefore, does not depend on a number of states a country may have but on good administration.

The clear example to the effect that the unity of the country does not depend on the number of states is that of Sudan before the breaking away of South Sudan. Sudan before the independence of South Sudan was stated to be the largest country in Africa followed by Democratic Republic of Congo but these two countries had never been at peace within themselves though Sudan had few states as well as DR. Congo, which still has few states today.

In general, the confusion we have today about more states does not come from rural people but from some few individuals who claim that they are educated yet they do not even know what is good for themselves leave alone the people of South Sudan.

If I ask them to explain the difference between the lives of South Sudanese under few states from the period of 2005-2015, they will not tell me any difference except that there used to be a lot of money under few states but went into few pockets of individuals. Hence, the whole thing becomes a fused argument and baseless.

NB//: the author is South Sudanese Lawyer residing in Uganda and can be reached through:

The Warning of a Looming Genocide in South Sudan is a mere Scam

QUOTE: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Joseph Goebbels, a Nazi politician and Hitler’s Propaganda Minister.

Taban Abel Aguek, MP, South Sudan, DEC/26/2016, SSN;

In the last few weeks, there have been sustained warning of looming genocide in South Sudan. As reported by Sudan tribune, UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki Moon, was the latest to add his voice to the matter saying before UNSC Monday last week, “If we fail to act, South Sudan will be on a trajectory towards mass atrocities.”

UN Special Advisor on Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, had earlier also expressed fear of genocide occurring in South Sudan just after a brief visit to the country. The statements by both Mr. Ban Ki Moon and Mr. Dieng were not any different from those of US Permanent Secretary to the UN, Ambassador Samantha Power, who without a bit of shame compared the situation in South Sudan to the one of Rwanda of 1994.

Without fair evaluation, these UN elite personalities bought into false reports coined by Yasmin Sooka, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, some bogus ‘paid’ civil society organizations and some wicked elements of the Enough Project. All connived on how to influence and usher quick move for sanctions and arms embargo on South Sudan.

For genocide warnings to be issued, there must be strong indicators, carefully examined and clearly justifiable, to unleash such warnings. According to media reports, Mr. Ban Ki Moon cites only two indictors: first, that President Kiir and his loyalists are “contemplating a new military offensive in the coming days against the armed opposition led by Machar”.

Secondly, that there are clear indications that Riek Machar and their opposition groups are pursuing a military escalation.

The question now is, are these indicators tangible enough to warrant the alarm of genocide? First of all, one has to carefully assess the size of the army accumulated at one point targeting what community to come to a conclusion that genocide is planned on that community.

Secondly, military offensives by both parties to the conflict have taken place from the onslaught of the conflict and no one has ever raised an alarm. Riek Machar on his part has declared war from day one, what is being hyped as of late about his war?

Neither are the indicators enough to point at a genocide nor the language befits the proper description of genocide itself. If Riek Machar is still in the bush and is still pursuing war, then he has to be fought. Fighting negative forces does not amount to genocide. UN telling South Sudan government not to fight opposition forces is like anyone telling the US to stop war against terrorism.

The people campaigning on genocide in South Sudan are very unlucky. Whatever their intention, I must say, they have mistimed their campaign. South Sudan’s days for fearing genocide are long gone.

Between 2013-2014 there was very much likelihood of genocide taking place. This was the time when major cities like Bentiu, Malakal, Bor and Nasir changed hands between rebels and government forces several times in very brutal mass attacks.

The best time to have warned of genocide in South Sudan should have been at a time 25,000 Nuer armed youths locally known as ‘White Army’ attacked and captured Bor before they were defeated while attempting to march to Juba.

At that time, when the war was at its climax the same people who are shamelessly warning of genocide rejected arms embargo and sanctions on South Sudan. It is strange and ironical that the same people who rejected sanction and arms embargo on South Sudan at the height of the conflict are now dirtily campaigning for the same at the time things have significantly normalized.

There is now a suspicious feeling across South Sudan that some well paced individuals did not pursue arms embargo at first because they either had expected the rebels to win the war or were part of the groups supplying arms to rebels.

Otherwise, talking about genocide in South Sudan now is a laughable scam. It does not only challenge the honesty of its campaigners, it actually makes them appear very stupid. War has greatly scaled down in Upper Niles. There are no large military offensives akin to those of 2013 – 2014.

There is no valid justified indication any tribe planning to launch a major attack on another. And again, there is in place a peace agreement and the Transitional Government of National Unity is existing and very active.

Well, Dr. Riek and a few others jumped off the peace wagon. And of course, there are pockets of insurgencies in some parts of Equatoria largely operating like terrorists and targeting members of certain ethnicities.

But that has been going on since the conflict started and the Dinka have never planned any revenge. The number of the Dinkas killed by Nuer is many times bigger than the number lynched on roads by the elements of rebels in Equatoria.

So, if the Dinka have never mobilized against Nuer, how can they do that against attacks of the Dinka on roads.

Lies as seen in the quote above have come a long way with the human race. The Dinka people say a false news of death of a dear one becomes a good news when it turned out in the end to be a lie. Similarly, if these warnings and nothing else, then we shall have to be happy with these lies because ‘genocide is worse than the lies about it’.

I actually thought Mr. Ban Ki Moon was going to be a bit cautious after it emerged in a recent report published by many media outlets that the institution he leads, UNMISS, gave a lot of arms to rebels in Bentiu, the same arms they used a few weeks later to massacre civilians in large, shocking numbers including those in mosques, churches and hospitals.

With the lid blown off the corrupted system he leads, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, chooses not to restore its values and cleanse itself but instead delve into loose stories created by the godfathers of regime change and stories damaging and full of vulgarity.

It is hard to see people that should advocate for peace working to jeopardize it. That is being irresponsible.

All in all, South Sudanese are not worried about the hyping or sending out of alarm of genocide in the country. However much it is repeated and no matter the weight of those who hype it, South Sudanese should not be moved about what is called ‘impending genocide’. The real problem, rather, is the implication of the song sung in its name.

Stories like these stoke fear in people, increase suspicion and kill trust among people. There are chances that hyping genocide may triggers genocide to happen. Sometimes, those who warn of what is basically a lie have the intention to have what they lied about take place.

In this case those who unleash warning on genocide in South Sudan are actually campaigning for genocide to take place because they will badly be left ashamed if the said story did not happen.

There is this famous saying in South Sudan that “If you warn a mad man against setting a house on fire, then you could have reminded him to do so”. So, these people should not tell people of South Sudan what they have not thought of.

When UNMISS separated IDPs in its Malakal POC into Dinkas and Nuer, they eventually fought inside the POC because they were made to see and feel it that they are not one people.

We know the story has remained around regime change. Sometimes it goes from Trusteeship to international administration and from sanctions to arms embargo but it all revolves around one thing: regime change.

Many other things around these are just lies and propaganda coming from people within the circle with that notion and supported by the media that they control. It is a pity this is still not known to some Africa’s big names like Prof. Mahmood Mamdani and Prof. Anyang Nyong’o.

Good enough, truth has already triumphed over the devil as the issue of sanctions and arms embargo on South Sudan were defeated yesterday at the UNSC. I applaud the nations that chose to stand with the truth now rather later after the damage is done.

Many years after the invasion of Iraq, many prominent leaders who hyped the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq admitted that they were wrong and badly regretted their role in the war created out of a baseless lie. I wonder why would some people want to repeat the same mistake in South Sudan?

It is our hope that South Sudan is going to survive the devil scheme, and by the grace of God, surmount all it challenges prove its prophets of doom wrong.

Taban Abel Aguek is the Government Chief Whip in Eastern Lakes State, Yirol. The opinions raised here are solely his own. He can be reached at

Season’s Revolutionary Greetings to All Freedoms Fighters!

By: Justin Ambago Ramba, DEC/24/2016, SSN;

Those privileged to access the mainstream world media outlets will have long noticed the huge disparity this industry has shown over the years in the way it reports on the ongoing crisis in South Sudan as compared say to other hot spots like Syria, Iraq or Yemen.

Furthermore, if you live in the western world, you are likely to get more news about the relatively peaceful Egypt of Abdelfatah Al-Sisi than any of the massacres taking place on a daily basis in the Greater Equatoria region of South Sudan. The pro-government ‘Mathiang Anyoor’ Dinka tribal militiamen have for the better part of the last five months carried out a state-sponsored ethnic cleansing coupled with a Scorch Earth campaign in and around the Yei River County. None of the news about these heinous events ever made it to the CNN, MBC, Sky News or even the Aljazeera TV.

So, some would say, then what is the point of dedicating a season’s revolutionary greetings to all the freedom fighter operating deep in the jungles and swamps of South Sudan given the circumstances? Is it not possible that they may never get to read it or will only do so around Easter time, three months or so from now?

The answer to the above question is that not all media houses are hostile to the cause of the people of South Sudan. And when it comes to this, the website has been on the forefront of South Sudan’s political cause since its first inception in 2003. It has been in the center of the struggle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light in this new country’s long political journey, and it still is. is a dedicated website has often promoted South Sudan peoples’ struggle for human rights, justice & equality and good governance. It has always been the voice, the space, and the forum. As such whenever we talk about any South Sudanese people’s struggle in the past decade or so, that talk will never be complete if we fail to appreciate and openly acknowledge the huge role often played by the websites in disseminating the word.

Today the core message of this article is to convey a season’s revolutionary greetings to all our freedom fighters in their trenches at the front lines. As they battle the genocidaire regime of Salva Kiir Mayardit, Kuol Manang Juuk, Michael Makuei Lueth, Paul Malong Awan and its tribally based support of the so-called Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), they must know that they are not alone in that noble struggle.

To all the faithful sons and daughters of South Sudan who have put their lives on the line in a genuine effort to liberate our masses from the fascist and dictatorial regime in Juba, we wish you ‘Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.’ As the people’s revolution moves slowly but surely, may the Lord be kind enough on ‘His Birthday’ and grant us a ‘Christmas Gift’ in the form of smashing victories over the enemy! For this can then start to move the wheel of a good peaceful settlement that the arrogant regime in Juba is often inclined to ignore in search of an elusive military victory!

Fellow compatriots and comrades in arms, I would like to assure you that your struggle for a better South Sudan like those of your fathers’ and grandfathers’ before you will never be in vain. For the entire world understands how the rogue and notorious regime of Salva Kiir Mayardit and the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) have imposed this destructive war on you.

It is also now well documented that the regime hasn’t stopped there, but it has of late sought the path of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the other ethnicities as it aims to implement its expansionist policies and sustain its grips on political, social and economic powers in the new country.

While you the freedom fighters deserve every single bit of our season’s revolutionary greetings and best wishes, we too appreciate the great sacrifices from your end as we are also aware of the immense human sufferings of our displaced populations forced into exile, refugee camps in the neighboring countries and the PoC sites under the UNIMISS. None of these sacrifices of our people and the sufferings imposed on them will be allowed to go in vain. For one day and very soon we shall reclaim our country and lay authority over our ancestral lands and territories.

We all know that there is no easy walk to freedom and the price of reversing the expansionist invaders’ scorch earth policy will be measured in human lives, but that too is doable. The dawn of total freedom is just around the corner. And not too long from today that our freedom fighters will embrace full victory, flying our ancestor’s national flag all across the liberated territories and mark an end to this current ’One Tribe Oppression.’

The Christmas season has traditionally been a time for reflections, and this 2016’s is no exception. Some 2000 years ago a savior for humanity was born in Bethlehem in Palestine and in the December of 2013, the seed of the South Sudan people’s revolution was sown in Juba. It was the rebirth of the same quest for freedom, equality, and justices when those who claimed to have liberated us from the tyranny of the northern Sudanese Arab ‘Jallaba’ suddenly chose to become the new oppressors. But it was also the culmination of many years of disappointments which those at the helm of the SPLM/SPLA injustices and corruption empire when they sought to get away with it.

They, by design set the rules of the new engagement when they first unleashed the ruthless illegally recruited one-tribe militiamen on an indiscriminate killing spree all across the Cty of Juba, throughout that fateful week of December 2013. That was a massacre of an immense proportion which could have received an entirely different reaction from the international community had it happened somewhere else other than South Sudan!

But then, not too long, an instant karma happened, and it was indeed sooner that ever expected that if not for the Ugandan Peoples Defence Force’s (UPDF) intervention, Kiir forces were on the verge of being defeated. The very people who set what was later identified as the ‘Fire of Revenge’, were suddenly at the receiving end, for at least that was what the President Salva Kiir Mayardit’s speech at the time while dressed up in a full military fatigue made it appear.

Today in December 2016, South Sudan is at a very advanced stage of that popular revolution, that only a political hypocrite of the first order may dare to deny. Of course, there are a few out there who have made a habit of having their heads always buried in the sand. Remember that their ignorance about something doesn’t say that the thing doesn’t exist. But as they consciously made the choice of playing ignorance, it only helps the revolution to flourish and grow and no matter whether the D-day will find them sober, intoxicated or in a coma! An apologist is always apologist.

As far as we have come, every revolutionary South Sudanese, man or woman, young or old, a refugee in a camp or freedom fighter in the frontline, without exception we all have a national obligation and a human duty towards this popular revolution as it sweeps all across the new country. Little did anyone know where the arms, ammunitions, supplies and logistics needed to resist this evil and the dictatorial regime will come from once the resistance starts.

Today that question has been put to rest, as it is now an open secret that the revolution is continuously benefiting from the enemy both militarily and organizationally. Thanks to the military hardware and ammunitions that the freedom fighters find easy to capture from those ill-trained ‘Mathiang Anyoor’ pro-government tribal militiamen of Salva Kiir, Kuol Manyang, Michael Makuei and Paul Malong indeed making the regime the freedom fighters sole arms supplier for the time being.

In this Christmas season, we are already seeing that the same God who allowed the regime to instigate the very revolution that will uproot it from power – is again rendering it without a choice but to supply the freedom fighters with the necessary military hardware and ammunitions whenever the enemy troops fall in an ambush.

Those who know the difficulties associated with first negotiating and paying for arms destined for a non-state actor and delivering them clandestinely across secure national borders will appreciate what General Paul Malong Awan and his ‘Mathiang Anyoor’ tribal militiamen are doing. They will never disappoint our freedom fighters as long as they continue delivering this military hardware, ammunitions, and supplies on time, and exactly where they are needed.

Viva Christmas – Viva Peoples’ Revolution – and long live the struggle of the South Sudanese masses for freedom, justice & equality.

Author: J.A.C Ramba. A concerned South Sudanese citizen. A voice for the people’s revolution

I hope Trump will take fresh look on South Sudan conflict – Machar’s wife, Angelina, says

By KEVIN J. KELLEY, TheEastAfrican, DEC/19/2016, SSN;

In Summary:
***Mrs Angelina Teny said civilians in parts of South Sudan are already being slaughtered on the basis of their tribal affiliations.
***She estimated that the overall death toll since the outbreak of violence three years ago may be nearing 100,000.

Government forces are currently engaged in genocide in South Sudan, Angelina Teny, the wife of opposition leader Riek Machar, charged.

Commenting on recent warnings by United Nations officials of looming genocide, Ms Teny said civilians in parts of South Sudan are already being slaughtered on the basis of their tribal affiliations.

“Genocide has been happening,” she said in an interview with the Nation on Saturday.

“It hasn’t reached the scale of Rwanda. It’s happening slowly, but it is happening.”

The killings are targeting members not only of her own Nuer tribe but “all ethnicities in a very big way”, Ms Teny declared.

It is not members of the Dinka tribe per se who are carrying out the killings, she said, but rather “the government in Juba led by Salva Kiir”, who is a Dinka.

Ms Teny blamed the South Sudan president for moving to “tribalise the conflict”.

She estimated that the overall death toll since the outbreak of violence three years ago may be nearing 100,000.

Asked about reports that rebel forces affiliated with her husband have also killed civilians, the senior opposition official said her side has “no policy of targeting civilians”.

She added that the armed opposition does have a policy of bringing to justice those in its ranks who kill civilians.

“People are not running away from the IO,” she said, using the “In Opposition” acronym. “They are running to the IO.”

Ms Teny said the IO supported the United States’ so-far-unsuccessful effort to persuade the UN Security Council to impose an arms embargo on all parties to the conflict in South Sudan.

“We don’t buy arms,” she said. “We get captured arms from the government. We would welcome an arms embargo.”


But Ms Teny simultaneously rejected another aspect of the US initiative at the UN.

She said the Obama administration should not be seeking to impose sanctions on additional leaders on both the government and rebel sides, including Riek Machar.

“When you lump people together,” she said, “you’re shifting the focus from the situation that needs to be addressed: genocide in South Sudan.”

Dr Machar remains in South Africa under unclear circumstances.

Ms Teny said her husband does not feel he is under house arrest there, but she added, “I would love to know whether they have arrested him”.

She declined to discuss his situation in detail.

Negotiations are urgently needed to end the war in South Sudan and to reach a political settlement, Ms Teny said.

By continuing to recognise the Kiir government, the Obama administration is not facilitating this process, she added.

Further, Ms Teny said US officials “have failed the people of South Sudan” by maintaining recognition of a government that is no longer a government of national unity.

She expressed hope that the Trump administration will take “a fresh look” at South Sudan and make needed changes in US policy.

“But it is not too late for Obama to act,” she emphasised. “He can still create a new political process.”

Ms Teny has been in the US for the past week, most recently meeting with UN officials in New York.

She said she will soon travel to the UK and then return to the US prior to going back to South Sudan.

She said it is not safe for her to go to Juba, South Sudan’s capital.

Instead, Ms Teny added, she can be secure in a part of the country controlled by the opposition. END

Genocide looms in South Sudan, does anyone care?

By Muthoni Wanyeki, THE EASTAFRICAN, DEC/06/2016, SSN;

IN SUMMARY: Academics and civil society are calling for renewed negotiation of what they term a “legitimate, just” peace — based on inclusion of all South Sudanese except the belligerents.

What does it say about us that a warning of genocide has been given and yet we have no response?

Adama Dieng, the Senegalese United Nations Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, has spoken with urgency of the degenerating situation in South Sudan. His findings were reiterated this past week by Christine Chanet, the South African chair of the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding committee. She warned of intensified violence with the advent of the dry season.

Their calls — largely unheeded — have been for individualised and targeted sanctions, an arms embargo and the hybrid court. Sanctions and the arms embargo are blocked by differing interests at both the UN Security Council and the African Union levels.

The AU is moving on technical preparations for the hybrid court — but how it can possibly function, let alone achieve compliance, in the prevailing situation is hard to understand.

Their calls have also been for urgent reinforcement of the UN Mission in South Sudan by at least 4,000 new troops. Here too there is no seriousness.

The AU’s authorisation of an intervention force mid-this year only recently achieved the consent of the belligerents, notably in the transitional government. The removal of the (then new) Kenyan commander for failure to protect civilians, including relief workers in a Protection of Civilians site, sparked the retaliatory withdrawal of Kenyan troops.

In the ensuing furore, what was left unaddressed was the culpability of commanders and troops of the transitional government who attacked civilians and the PoC site in the first place.

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir has been allowed to undermine the peace agreement with impunity. First, by his creation of multiple regional governments under his control to minimise the control of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition. And second, by getting away with ousting the head of the IO from the transitional government.

The transitional government is bankrupt — with oil production down as a result of the conflict and global oil prices down as well. The numbers of internally displaced are steadily rising, as are the numbers of asylum-seekers crossing the border into Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda.

Yet there are no new ideas on the table. The latest from the Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s monitoring group is a feeble call for “traditional” leaders to work for peace at their level.

It is nothing short of tragic. Showing up the failures of both the UN and the African Peace and Security Architecture. And of the model of conflict-resolution still so doggedly relied on to date — the negotiated peace settlement between the belligerents.

What is the alternative? South Sudanese academics and civil society have reacted as strongly to the mainly American calls for a “trusteeship” over South Sudan as they did when the call was first made by the AU’s Commission of Inquiry into South Sudan.

They call instead for renewed negotiation of what they have termed a “legitimate, just” peace — based on inclusion of all South Sudanese except the belligerents. With a transitional and purely technocratic government. Militarily guaranteed by some combination of an UN/AU force.

The answers are not clear. What is clear is that this cannot go on. We said “never again” when we introduced what is the right of humanitarian intervention into the AU’s Constitutive Act. We seem to have forgotten that.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes