Category: National

Justice under Fire: The Dismissal of 13 Justices & Judges from the Judiciary of South Sudan

By Tong Kot Kuocnin, LLB (Juba), LLM(Nairobi), Specialist in Law, Governance & Democracy, University of Nairobi.
JUL/15/2017, SSN;

One is not surprised at all to hear and see the dismissal of the honorable justices and judges from the judiciary of South Sudan by the president.

As the justices and judges went on an open strike two months ago protesting against the leadership of the honorable Chief Justice and requesting the head of state to remove him from office for his failure to manage the judiciary effectively, and efficiently, the men and women of honor faced the wrath of the misdeeds of the president and his in-law, justice Chan Reec Madut.

It is not unknown to all South Sudanese what the intentions of both men is regarding this great institution of ours.

It is not a new thing either to be surprised that innocent justices and judges can be dismissed from the Judiciary especially those who are opposed to the chief justice’s corrupt and dictatorial tendencies.

The first victim, a man of honor was justice Ruben Madol Arol, the former deputy chief justice who’s unlawfully removed from office simply because he asked the chief justice to excuse himself from the bench since the litigants were no longer enjoying any trust and confidence in him in presiding over the case brought before the constitutional panel in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the president which created the 28 states at the time.

Hitherto, the repeat of unlawful removable of the senior justices and judges occurred again simply because they have demanded what rightfully belongs to them.

In this article therefore, I shall not waste time narrating the ordeal these justices and judges went through under the embattled chief justice who took over from his predecessor, Late Justice Prof. John Wuol Makec but I shall labor to bring to the forefront, whether or not, the dismissal of the honorable justices and judges has met the constitutional and statutory requirements and procedures laid down under the Transitional constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 (Amended 2015) and other subsidiary legislations governing the conduct, appointment and removable of the justices and judges of the judiciary of South Sudan.

There are quite a number of statute laws in this country dealing with how the judiciary of South Sudan should be governed, giving effect to the constitution which is the fundamental law of the land.

First and foremost, the transitional constitution provides under Article 123(1) that judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by courts in accordance with customs, values, norms and aspirations of the people and in conformity with the constitution and the law.

This succinctly means that the power lies not in the chief justice and not the president either to do whatever they like with regards to this great institution.

The chief justice is a mere administrator who should run and supervise the officers of the judiciary in accordance with procedures which have clearly been stipulated in legislations governing the judiciary itself.

However, Article 123(2) stipulate further that judicial power shall be vested in an independent institution to be known as the judiciary, but nothing is said about chief justice having a power to tell the president to dismiss any justice or a judge as an officer of the judiciary.

The president as a head of state exercises the power given to him by law not Chan Reec to remove the justices and judges only on grounds of gross misconduct, incompetence and incapacity and upon the recommendation of the National Judicial Commission as provided for under Article 135(2) of the Transitional Constitution, 2011(Amended 2015), which in this case, the national judicial service commission hasn’t sat and made any recommendation for the dismissal and removable of any of the justices and judges of the judiciary of South Sudan.

This clearly puts justice under fire as the chief justice who is also an uncle to the president’s wife, an in-law for that matter, scooped for himself powers which aren’t defined in the constitution and any other legislation governing the management of the judiciary.

Hence, by relegating and compromising the independence of the judiciary, it has been made a private family business enterprise.

On the same token, the Judicial Service Council’s Act, 2008 provides under section 7(e) that the Council has the power to recommend appointments, promotions and removable of justices and judges in accordance with the provisions of Judiciary Act, 2008.

But more interestingly, section 8(2) provides that council may delegate to the president of the Supreme Court any of its powers and functions; provided that, the council shall NOT delegate its functions over appointments, promotions and removable of justices and judges.

Where on earth the chief justice and the president did get their undefined and unscrupulous powers to unjustly remove these honorable justices and judges from?

The laws are very clear and straight forward. Let us not read our laws, more especially our constitution upside down.

Yes, the president of the Supreme Court can make recommendations to the judicial service council on the removable of justices but such recommendations will be effected only when the council is convened to deliberate, examine and decide on the recommendations in accordance with the provisions of the Judiciary Act, 2008.

Again very clear that the only institution having power to remove justices and judges, is the judicial service council and not the chief justice and the president.

Justice is truly under fire because instead the demands of these justices and judges are addressed, they felt prey in the hands of their colleague who should have stood by their side, conniving with his in-law and a family best friend to dismiss them without following any proper procedure as provided for under the constitution and other laws currently in force in the country.

Justice is under fire as the judiciary remained closed for the last three months with all accused persons in various detention facilities continue experiencing the most inhumane, agonized and brutal ways and manners in which the wardens of those detention facilities treats them.

Justice is under fire as the rule of law is deeply buried and the rule of man reigns high.

These honorable justices and judges became victims not of their own interests but that of all of their colleagues and for the benefit and proper functioning of the entire judiciary of South Sudan, for those sitting in offices now and for the future generations.

His obdurate conduct of the judicial affairs has obfuscated and completely obliterated the prospects of a judiciary in a democratic society.

The judiciary cannot sustain its credibility on its own and win the confidence and trust of the people if the credibility gap grows steadily wider day and night between the institution and the general public and more notably the people whose rights have been violated.

The judiciary which is the last hope to retrieve back those rights is the one that reneged on peoples’ rights, then hostility will eventually ensued and the private citizens will take the law into their own hands.

In conclusion however, it is imperative to conclude that you’re heroes who have been working under president Kiir’s government for the last thirteen years and Chief Chan Reec for the last seven years.

You have undergone all hardships and other turbulent agonies in an attempt to serve your people. I called you heroes because you stood tall and lowered yourselves to deliver justice to those who need it most.

I saluted and commended you for all the tireless efforts you made to deliver justice to those who have been victimized by powerful and wealthy people in this country.

I called you patriots because you haven’t taken up guns to kill innocent lives just to get what you deserved but chose to use democratic means to demand for what is rightfully yours.

Your records speak louder to us who have been on this journey of delivering justice to the paupers with you than what Chan Reec and his in-law have shamelessly done to you.

Dr. Riek Machar’s Detention: Why South Africa returns to its dark moment?

By Dr. Gatluak Ter Thach*, USA, JUL/01/2017, SSN;

In June 1961, African National Congress (ANC), the current Republic of South Africa’s governing social democratic political party’s executive, considered Nelson Mandela’s suggestion on the use of violent tactics and agreed that those members who wished to involve themselves in Mandela’s campaign would not be stopped from doing so, and this led to the formation of “Umkhonto we Sizwe,” a violent force—and because of that group, Nelson Mandela was arrested in 1962 and sentenced to five years of imprisonment with hard labor.

From 1964 to 1982, Nelson Mandela was incarcerated at Robin Island Prison near Cape Town, and while in prison, his reputation grew for positive change in South Africa whilst he communicated with his supporters.

Like South African’s Apartheid Movement had done to Nelson Mandela, the current South Africa governing political party (ANC) is doing the same thing now to an innocent South Sudanese political leader, Dr. Riek Machar in South Africa.

There is a speculation that South Africa’s Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa, has a deal with the South Sudanese regime to retain South Sudanese’s opposition leader on an assumption that keeping him away from returning to his country will empower his political opponent to bring to an end the crisis in the country. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-southsudan-exclusive-idUSKBN1421YZ).

It is a human rights violation to impede individual’s political and civil rights. In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December, 1966, in accordance with Article 49 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms, ” (ICCPR, 1966).

It is an insult as well to deny someone his rights of travels, because of a monetary compensation. (https://africanspress.org/2017/05/24/breaking-news-2-millions-dollars-receives-by-south-africans-embassy-in-washington-to-keep-dr-riek-machar-in-south-africa/)

Dr. Riek Machar is an opposition leader with an overwhelming support in the country. It is a mistake for the South African governing party and the international community to think isolation as such would bring a lasting peace in the country.

Like Nelson Mandela, who believed all South Africans can live together regardless of their political, economic and ethnic differences, Dr. Riek Machar believes peace can be achieved in South Sudan if everyone does his or her part.

Dr. Riek Machar went to Juba, South Sudan Capitol in 2016 while his supporters and sympathizers did not trust his political opponent and believed he was risking his life for an unimplemented peace.

In spite of official denial by South Africa’s deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesperson of the claims of South African government’s taking bribes from President Kiir’s government, some revealing evidences suggested that South Sudanese’s opposition leader is being blocked from going back to his country on a ransom deal. (http://theinsider.ug/index.php/2017/04/29/south-sudan-pays-south-africa-450000-a-month-to-keep-dr-machar-silent-and-in-a-guarded-premise-in-pretoria/.)

Nelson Mandela would not be pleased if he has to rise up and see what have become of the new South African’s ANC. Mandela changed an organizational system of ANC when it divided people along racial lines and/or involved on different activities.

Mandela joined ANC in 1944 and engaged in resistance against the ruling National Party’s apartheid policies, and his actions got him in trouble, but he finally was able to manage the change he wanted.

When comparing and contrasting leadership competencies, Mandela was a unique human being. Like President George Washington, Mandela held office to practice good leadership, not to hold on to power or involve in bribery business.

Like Washington, Mandela chose to stay on the presidency for just two terms. Had Washington claimed to be a king, or refused democracy, US would be a different nation today.

After Mandela was released from the prison due to international pressure, including pressure from the United States, he plunged himself wholeheartedly into his life’s work.

He strove to attain the goals he and other leaders had set out almost four decades earlier. In 1991, the first national conference of the ANC, since the organization was banned in 1960, was held in South Africa and in 1994, and Mandela was elected the first black president of South Africa.

What makes his example more important to me was his ability to encourage and motivate his followers throughout the world to work for freedom regardless of the situation he had found himself in.

For someone who almost died in jail to gain power and then freely give it back to his people is an extraordinary example for others to follow, and ANC governing party should not do away with Mandela’s core legacy by denying an important political icon in South Sudan his political freedom.

Whether it is true or not, blocking Dr. Riek Machar from traveling and participating in the political process in South Sudan due to the monetary means or whatever will delay the peace process and continue the suffering of the people of South Sudan. (http://theinsider.ug/index.php/2017/04/29/south-sudan-pays-south-africa-450000-a-month-to-keep-dr-machar-silent-and-in-a-guarded-premise-in-pretoria/)

Dr. Riek is the Mandela of South Sudan. He is the remaining hope people of South Sudan still have and believe through him South Sudan will come out of this man-made crisis and become the peaceful and developing nation in the region.

South Africa’s ANC governing party must free Dr. Riek Machar to join the peace process in South Sudan.

I believe South Africa will not solely live up into the lasting legacy of Pres. Nelson Mandela, but it will also continue to demonstrate the great leadership in the African continent for a possible replication.

Author lives and works in Nashville, TN (USA); email: pelkuoth@gmail.com

UN: Splintering of South Sudan war makes peace more elusive: LATEST

By REUTERS, THE EAST AFRICAN, JUN/20/2017, SSN;

South Sudan’s civil war has mutated from a two-way fight between the president Salva Kiir and his ousted former deputy Vice President Riek Machar to a fragmented conflict, making it harder to put it back together and peace more elusive, the top U.N. peacekeeper in the country said.

David Shearer, head of the 13,000-strong United Nations mission, welcomed signs that regional leaders were reviving the peace process. Adding that any initiative must include all factions, including that of former Vice President Riek Machar, and discourage the multiplication of armed groups.

In Summary
David Shearer, the head of United Nations mission says while regional leaders were reluctant to return to the “old formula” of insisting on a potentially explosive face-to-face between Kiir and Machar, there was recognition that Machar’s camp needed to be represented in talks and he could too, further down the line.

South Sudan slipped into civil war in 2013, in a conflict ignited by a feud between President Salva Kiir and Machar, resulting in around one third of the population –fleeing to neighbouring countries for safety.

However, an escalation of fighting since last July that forced Machar to flee the country a month later has seen clashes spread to previously unaffected areas.

“The situation now is somewhat different to what it was a year ago, when it was largely bipolar,” Shearer told Reuters in an interview late on Monday.

“We are seeing a lot more of the conflict being played out at a very local level and that is worrying because as it fractures it becomes more difficult to try to put the pieces back together again.”

The spike in fighting resulted in South Sudan having the fastest growing refugee population in the world as civilians poured into Uganda. Tens of thousands of civilians have fled to camps within South Sudan that are ringed by U.N. troops.

Peacekeepers have frequently been criticised for failing to do enough to protect civilians but the U.N. leadership says troops are obstructed and restricted by the army.

Places at the table

Analysts and diplomats say regional peace efforts have stumbled for much of the last year as neighbouring Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya adopted a more bilateral approach to the conflict.

But Shearer was optimistic that a recent meeting of regional leaders in Ethiopia would result in a more collective approach to the crisis.

“There was a sense that they want to rejuvenate the peace agreement and start moving that forward. That collective effort hasn’t been apparent for the last year,” he said.

Machar remains in exile in South Africa, excluded from the process.

Shearer said while regional leaders were reluctant to return to the “old formula” of insisting on a potentially explosive face-to-face between Kiir and Machar, there was recognition that Machar’s camp needed to be represented in talks and he could too, further down the line.

“What we don’t want to do is to encourage a greater degree of conflict or arming of groups in order to be relevant and have a place at the table,” he warned. END

National Dialogue of the deaf and blind is a waste of time

BY: Alhag Paul, South Sudan, JUN/07/2017, SSN;

The dynamics of the National Dialogue have thrown up interesting social realities. One of these realities is the newly emerging willingness of some intellectual members of the Jieng community to speak out openly.

This is a good development because the blanket silence of the Jieng over the horrendous behaviour of their leaders and the regime in Juba is fueling hatred toward them.

The debate on the National Dialogue is offering opportunity for expression of such change. During a meeting on the subject at Westminster University on 28th March 2017, Peter Biar Ajak surprised some by coming clean.

Peter and the other speakers unanimously agreed that if the National Dialogue is to work, President Salva Kiir must not be the patron as he is part of the problem to avoid the issue of partiality of the process.

They also stressed that the National Dialogue must be inclusive and it should be held in a neutral place to ensure security of the participants.

These concerns have been raised internally by the various South Sudanese political groups and externally by international community.

For example, the People Democrat Movement (PDM) produced a detailed comprehensive document on the topic and the Chairperson of the African Union Commission emphasised the need for impartiality and inclusivity during his visit to Yei, South Sudan.

Peter crucially went further to touch the nexus of Dinkocracy to the National Dialogue. Important as it was, it nearly went unnoticed had Peter not brought it to light.

It appeared as if Peter was clear that the stain of Jieng tribalism would make the National Dialogue exercise lose its credibility.

This is not because over 40 percent of the steering committee of the National Dialogue including its leadership is Jieng, but rather because of the emerging picture about the Jieng government following the resignation of Lt. General Thomas Cirillo Swaka and others from the army.

The resignation letters of these patriotic servants of the people laid bare the tribal nature of the army.

Peter highlighted this point powerfully as an academic distancing himself from the tribal regime and appearing to be patriotic. He stated to the audience that, “since the creation of the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), the structure of the government (of South Sudan) turned into Dinka government. With defection of General Thomas Cirillo now the remaining five Chiefs of the army are Dinka and this is now Dinka militia.”

He went on to say, “Dinka nationalism is becoming a threat to South Sudan”. With this truth, Peter in effect joined a new group of Jieng converts who are now seeing the light and want to act patriotically.

In contrast to Peter’s view, The Sudd Institute in their paper titled, The Dialogue Brief, South Sudan’s National Dialogue: what it should be and why it should be supported dated 31st March 2017 attempts to manipulate its readers.

It deceptively paints the national dialogue of President Kiir as a process that has a huge support throughout the country.

This sort of misinformation and manipulation should not surprise anyone as the Sudd Institute is one of the three Jieng think tanks funded clandestinely by the government of President Kiir.

The others are: Ebony managed by Deng Lual Aciek and Centre for Strategic Analysis and Research managed by Peter Biar Ajak himself.
Peter has spoken the truth.

Dinkocracy reigns supreme in South Sudan. Whether Peter’s expressed truism is honest or not, it does not matter. He has at last demonstrated that as a Jieng he has the capacity to be objective.

It would be wrong to say that Peter of all the Jieng is the first person to state the truth about the regime in Juba. Nearly a decade ago, a Jieng lady called Ayeng Jacqueline and few others complaint against Jieng imperialistic behaviour.

In my article, ‘Tear down the SPLM’: will South Sudanese now respond? I wrote about their novel efforts.

“True South Sudanese like Ayuen Panchol and Ayeng Jacqueline Ajak who expressed her view in “Let’s try to reform our people. A Dinka woman’s point of view on Madi land issue” published in February 2009 by South Sudan Nation are leading the way in the Jieng community to do the right thing for the country.

South Sudanese should stand up with them. They are caring of the country and its people. These are individuals who have demonstrated their human values. They say things as they are.

If South Sudan had the majority of its population with the likes of Ayeng and Ayuen, the country today would be a different place to live in and Oyee would have been history.” (http://www.southsudannewsagency.com/index.php/2012/09/02/tear-down-the-splm-will-south-sudanese-now-respond/)

The disappearance of these patriotic Jieng from the political scene of South Sudan must be a result of Jieng group pressure. As such we the non-Jieng need to support the good Jieng and where possible protect them to counter the tribal pressure exerted on them to conform.

These complaints must not be forgotten because this is the evidence that women are part of the struggle and they should not be made invisible by male dominance as experienced by women worldwide.

Of recent, converts such as Kuir Garang Kuir have been very vocal against the regime and credits should be given where it is due.

This will help in making the Jieng understand that they are not hated but rather it is their imperialistic behaviour that the people do not like.

Therefore, Peter Biar Ajak being a Jieng from Bor will go a long way if he starts to talk the truth about the Jieng occupation of Madi land, Bari land, Chollo land etc.

I have no doubt that people like him can persuade the Jieng to shun their colonial mentality if they so choose to be on the right side of history.

The impact of Jieng imperialistic adventures on the image of the Jieng and above all Jieng relationship with others is so unhealthy to the extent that it risks serious repercussions for the Jieng as a people.

Presently, Jieng unity that enabled them to abuse South Sudanese is in crisis. The Jieng delusionally committed horrendous crimes in believe that they will remain invincible.

Well, in life there is nothing like that. Human beings act in groups primarily as individuals and individuals have personal ambitions which if suppressed may lead to group fissures and ultimately to disunity and conflict.

This process now seems to be taking place among the Jieng. The squabbles in the heart of Jieng power triggered by the removal of Paul Malong from his military position have opened up cracks rippling through their supposed iron cast unity.

Paul Malong now most likely feels bitterly deceived, used and abused by President Kiir. He may virtually be going through emotional and mental turmoil.

To a large extent, he is possibly a person in crisis with the probability of posing danger to himself and the society.

What makes this situation worse is President Kiir’s Machiavellian restrictions on his movements which suggests he is under house arrest.

Worst still, His supporters are being weeded out of the system and disarmed at lightening speed while his opponents such as General Dau Aturjong are being rehabilitated and fast tracked into position of power.

In a nutshell, Paul Malong to President Kiir is now an enemy exactly like Riek Machar. What an irony? The conflict between this two is similarly replicated throughout the entire Jieng tribe mirroring the bigger conflict of the Jieng against the other 63 tribes.

To illustrate the cracks in the Jieng community, look at the following picture.

The Agouk Jieng of Chief Justice Chan Reec are accusing the Apuk Jieng of President Kiir of Apukanising Warrap like they Dinkocratised the country.

The Malual Jieng of Paul Malong are accusing the Apuk and the Agouk of using them as cannon fodder in their war of imperialism in the country.

The Tonj Jieng of Nhial Deng Nhial and Akol Kur are working hard to replace President Kiir.

The Bor Jieng of Michael Makuie are busy strengthening their militia after being armed by the state to start military incursions into Murle, Mundari and Bari lands.

In addition to this the Bor Jieng have started to challenge the Bahr El Ghazal Jieng groups re-igniting their centuries old rivalries.

The question to ask is: where is the supposed unity of the Jieng? Clearly the so called unity of the Jieng is something that is held by the feeling that they own the state of South Sudan which is sheer fantasy.

In 2015 Ambassador Telar Deng emphasised the importance of Jieng unity to hold on to state power in South Sudan.

Holding on to state power without smooth unity is unworkable. The fissures in the Jieng community are unlikely to heal in the short or medium term because it involves deceit and spelled blood (sacrificed Mathiang Anyoor for Jieng glory).

Again, take the classic example of Paul Malong whose character is highly questionable, please see, The coin of power: Gen. Paul Malong aspires for president!! (http://www.southsudannation.com/the-coin-of-power-gen-paul-malong-aspires-for-president/).

He mobilised the Jieng youth in their thousands who they (JCE) then sacrificed on pursuit of the illusion of Jieng supremacy. Now he Malong himself has fallen foul of the very Jieng system he wholeheartedly supported.

Was it really worth it? Is he any better than Riek Machar whom he tried to kill for President Kiir? Should this not serve as a lesson to every Jieng that Dinkocracy does not pay?

If Paul Malong of all Jieng can be trashed like he has, who is the average Jieng? Thus, the Jieng should emancipate themselves from Dinkocracy and adopt democracy.

Paul Malong’s predicament should be a lesson to every one – personal safety and happiness can only be achieved in an authentically democratic state of law and order with a government that protects everyone regardless of tribe, gender, age etc.

Anything other than that is a fantasy and bound to fail.

From the above, unless the Jieng are saved from themselves by honesty of their own tribes mate, they are likely to take all of us down with them. I said this elsewhere and I reiterate it now.

So the good Jieng need to follow the example set by Ayeng Jacqueline, Ayuen Panchol, Kuir Garang ,Peter Biar etc but also go further to join their fellow countrymen in the real struggle against Dinkocracy in other national political movements.

How can South Sudan get a democratic government so that finally the people can begin to experience the benefit of independence?

The panellists at the Westminster University meeting expressed hope that the National Dialogue could be the process.

Also according to Sudan Tribune, Mr David Shearer, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General in South Sudan, believes that the National Dialogue will help in resolving the conflict in the country.

“The national dialogue, initiated by Kiir, is both a forum and process through which the people of South Sudan shall gather to redefine the basis of their unity as it relates to nationhood, redefine citizenship and belonging, as well as restructure the state for national inclusion.” (UN official urges “common strategy” on South Sudan’s political process. http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article62544)

I would like to argue that the optimism expressed by the panelists and Mr Shearer may be unrealistic. It is possible that Mr Shearer may not have seen the letter written by Cannon Clement Janda dated 3rd May 2017 in which he declined President Kiir’s appointment to the Steering Committee of the National Dialogue.

Cannon Janda listed the following crucial points as reasons why the National Dialogue would not bring peace:
Quote
1. The decree is very vague on the issue of governance of our country. By issuing the decree President Kiir believes that the process of National Dialogue will end up on his desk for his final consideration and or decision. This is totally unacceptably on the issue of how South Sudan is governed and how the present rulers have drained all national blood and wealth can not be considered a serious process.

2. A credible National Dialogue could only be conducted in an atmosphere of complete freedom. That freedom includes freedom of press to all views of the participants without fear and favour. That atmosphere does not exist in present South Sudan.

3. A genuine dialogue must be done after political process and by limited elected persons with authority to air the views of their communities. Being picked makes every individual only loyal to President Salva Kiir and not to their communities. Such a process is worthless.

4. The country is bleeding. Half of its population is either in refuge in foreign countries or rounded up in internally displaced camps. The other half is threatened with man-made famine. Who is there to dialogue?

5. Finally I noticed the majority of the membership of the National Dialogue Steering Committee are people who helped President Kiir to destroy our beloved country. What credibility is there for such persons who should be arraigned in front of an international criminal court to account for their deeds. Is the inclusion into the National Dialogue Steering Committee an attempt to massage their images. Unquote

Cannon Janda’s views are shared by majority of South Sudanese and arguably he could be seen as the voice of the people. He actually has been vindicated after the swearing in of the National Dialogue Steering Committee on 22nd May 2017.

Mr Abel Alier, one of the co-chair has a murky history in South Sudan.

He is not only a tribalist to the bone and the architect of Dinkocracy, but he is the man responsible for dividing South Sudanese by practising tribal discrimination in 1970s as the President of High Executive Council of Regional Government of Southern Sudan.

At the time he Jienganised the police and unleashed it on the other tribes which resulted into the redivision of Southern Sudan into three regions namely: Equatoria, Bahr El Ghazal and Upper Nile.

The Equatorians fought Jieng abuse of power under the slogan – Kokora. Alier singlehandedly is the person responsible for training, mentoring and nurturing the current crop of hardcore tribalists known as JCE.

It is his ideas that waters the tree called JCE. How can such a person as Cannon Janda asked be credible leader of the National Dialogue?

Deducing from the above, Jieng unity is clearly unsustainable and there is a slow realisation among them that their regime is atrophying. Hence, the reasonable ones are now marching into the camp of patriotism.

President Kiir’s launching of the National Dialogue as a vehicle of deception to rescue the regime is experiencing serious resistance and the signs are that it will flop.

This leaves us with only one viable option for solving the problem of South Sudan which is: a National Conference for peace in South Sudan. Such a conference must not be led by IGAD or AU for obvious reasons.

From December 2013, these regional and continental organisations woefully demonstrated beyond doubt immaturity in handling the problem of South Sudan due to their members own interests.

Countries such as Uganda and Kenya could not resist being partial and evidence indicate that their lack of impartiality has actually pushed the country to where it is now.

In South Sudan needs intensive care (https://pachodo.org/latest-news-articles/pachodo-english-articles/7643-south-sudan-needs-intensive-care), IGAD and AU were warned of President Kiir’s introduction of tribal militia and they did nothing and what we have now is a total mess.

Therefore, the proposed conference should be:
a) held outside South Sudan preferably in Tanzania;
b) inclusive of all the stakeholders and,
c) led by one of the renowned elders of the world such as Mr Koffi Annan or Archbishop Desmond Tutu or Ms Mary Robinson with full backing of the Security Council.

I have elsewhere made the last point in few articles couple of years back. I still believe it is the only viable option left.

Finally, the addiction of the Juba regime to violence at any cost to maintain Jieng hegemony and its failure to listen and seriously take advice from the stakeholders and the international community means that the National Dialogue amounts to a partial self dialogue of the deaf and the blind.

Essentially this is an interaction that will be characterised by ‘unresponsiveness’ to the real national crisis and as will be expected, it will not lead into any peace.

So it is utter waste of time and resource though it will help President Kiir in distracting attention of the world from horrors in South Sudan.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]
Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com

South Sudan makes us all look bad: Africa must advice or oust Kiir from power now

By Charles Onyango-Obbo, THE EASTAFRICAN, MAY/17/2017, SSN;

IN SUMMARY:
Africa needs to read the riot act to Kiir to piece the country back together, or marshal an invasion force and oust him if he won’t. South Sudan makes us all look bad.

The sacking of an army chief anywhere in the world, particularly Africa, is usually big news.

But the panicked reaction to the news that South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir fired army head General Paul Malong on Tuesday was extraordinary.

Many feared that the situation could get worse in the world’s newest nation, which has been ravaged by war since Kiir fell out with his deputy Riek Machar, resulting in savage fighting that made many ashamed of knowing the South Sudanese.

They had reason to be afraid. Malong was no longer an ordinary army chief. A polygamist with 40 wives and enough children to fill two villages, he was seen as the puppet master in South Sudan, and Kiir the puppet. He was the hardline Nuer iron fist behind the throne.

On Wednesday, Kiir trotted out the SPLA spokesman to say that Malong had withdrawn with his security guards to outside of the capital, Juba, but was not planning a rebellion.

Maybe he won’t, because the new army chief James Ajongo is alleged to been picked by Malong. He is a kind of Malong lite.

Hopefully, Kiir will now strike a more moderate posture, because he may still have a country, but will soon run out people.

More than 1.8 million South Sudanese have fled the country as refugees, according to the latest UN figures. Most have ended up in Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

Uganda hosts most of the refugees, nearly 800,000. In Kampala on Tuesday, Prime Minister Ruhakana Rugunda said the country would next month seek $2 billion at a UN refugee summit in Kampala to help fund relief operations for the South Sudanese refugees.

With a population of 12.4 million, South Sudan has made nearly 15 per cent of its population refugees in fewer than four years.

In addition, more than 3.5 million people have been internally displaced since the fighting erupted in mid-December 2013.

If the war doesn’t end, and intensifies, in another three or so years more than 25 per cent of South Sudanese could be refugees. And if the number of IDPs were also to double over the same period, accounting for those who will have been slaughtered in war, fallen to disease, or starved to death in the famine, virtually the whole population of South Sudan would be living outside their homes and off their land.

For a country like Uganda, the prospect of say two million South Sudanese pouring into the country by 2020 is scary, its much-praised refugee policy notwithstanding.
The only place where the South Sudanese are living properly at home could be the street on which Kiir lives in Juba.

That is overdramatised, yes, but it is to make the point that Africa must finally do something bold to stop the madness in South Sudan.

Among other things, it should ensure that Malong leaves South Sudan, either by force, or by being paid off Yahya Jammeh-style. He has a lot of prime real estate in Nairobi and Kampala, and a small country of a family to feed, so he may be susceptible to generous inducements.

And Africa needs to read the riot act to Kiir to piece the country back together, or marshal an invasion force and oust him if he won’t. South Sudan makes us all look bad.

Charles Onyango-Obbo is publisher of data visualiser Africapaedia and Rogue Chiefs. Twitter@cobbo3

INSIDE STORY: Why Kiir Sacked Malong & the Failed Assassination of Taban Deng

By: Dickens H Okello, CHIMPREPORTS, May/14/2017, SSN;

The attack on the convoy of First Vice President Taban Deng on Tuesday on its way to Bor was a planned assassination to frame army Chief Gen. Paul Malong, arrest and kill him in a staged rescue.

Trouble between President Kiir, Malong and Intelligence Chief, Akol Koor stemmed from plans to deploy SPLA in Bor.

The sacking of SPLA Chief of General Staff, Gen. Paul Malong on Tuesday evening was expected but also an audacious move by President Salva Kiir.

Since his appointment during the height of internal war in South Sudan in early 2014, Malong became so powerful in the army, trimming the influence of then Defense Minister Kuol Manyang Juk.

It is widely believed that Malong was positioning himself to succeed Kiir due to his vast influence in the army.

Malong’s influence has undoubtedly been a challenge to those near the president and definitely Kiir himself.

This investigative website received and has been corroborating reports from intelligence sources in South Sudan and the region since Tuesday night.

Genesis of the trouble

According to a source at the National Intelligence and Security Service, the insecurity in Bor over tribal struggle between Murle community and Jonglei youths, caused disharmony between Kiir and Malong.

President Kiir reportedly issued a memo ordering the deployment of SPLA in Bor since Jonglei youths had refused to withdraw from Murle tribe territory.

Malong ignored the order and instead asked Kiir and the Director of National Intelligence Security Service in charge of Internal Security Bureau, Lt. Gen. Akol Koor Kuch to leave the matter to him.

A crisis meeting was immediately called by the president at the presidential palace commonly known as J1.

The meeting became so hot, generating serious verbal exchanges between Malong and Akol as Kiir watched them in disbelief.

Malong reportedly picked his small stick from the table and hit Akol on the shoulder though the aim was his head.

The meeting then ended without a resolution.

Assassination plot

After the open show of arrogance and power by Malong, a general in the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) was reportedly given orders from “above” to “handle” the belligerent army chief.

We have withheld the name of the NISS general for security reasons.

The visit of the First Vice President, Gen. Taban Deng to the same area (Bor) was due and hence the great opportunity to also get Malong.

The NISS strategists and operatives quickly arranged a plot to take out Taban Deng in a planned shootout and immediately release a report blaming Malong for the incident.

Malong would later be arrested and detained for killing the First Vice President.

A choreographed rescue attempt by the pro government militia, Mathiang Anyor who were largely recruited and trained by Malong, would happen, spark a deadly shootout and the latter shot in the struggle.

Malong reportedly got the intelligence and tried his best to foil the assassination.

“He was lucky to get the intel before its execution. I think it’s beyond luck,” a source in NISS told ChimpReports.

On Tuesday morning at exactly 10:00am, the convoy of Taban Deng moving to Bor was attacked between Tameza and Sudan Safari area.

The official report from government said 3 bodyguards were wounded but according to sources about 2 dozen soldiers lost their lives.

“Bodies were littered everywhere. There was serious blood bath in about a football field (area),” the source who reached the scene some minutes after the attack said.

“It was a short lethal combat exchange. The attackers disappeared without a trace and no one was picked.”

Taban Deng on Tuesday didn’t use his convoy but instead took a plane to Bor. The change in the plan was reportedly made Tuesday early morning.

Meanwhile, Malong had started ferrying arms from the army headquarters in Bilpam, Juba to his home area in Aweil, immediately he got the intelligence to terminate his life.

The armory in Bilpam is now said to be “almost empty”.

“Guns have moved from Bilpam to Aweil. It’s a difficult situation for Kiir now,” a source at army headquarters said.

Malong left Juba on Wednesday early morning without handing over to his successor or communicating to Kiir.

Kiir confirmed in a press conference at J1 on Thursday that he had to initiate communication with Malong and ask him to return to Juba.

“Personally, I am communicating with the former Chief of Staff, General Malong,” Kiir said.

Succession

The original 3 allies of Kiir who were believed to succeed him after his departure are former Foreign Affairs Minister, Nhial Deng, Malong and Akol Koor.

Since December when Malong’s influence became a source of tension in the Juba regime, the succession talks zeroed on Nhial Deng and Akol.

It is now largely believed that Kiir wants the intelligence chief, Akol Koor to succeed him and he has been the first general to openly talk bad about Malong after latter’s sacking.

Pres. Salva Kiir sacks murderer and tribal ally, SPLA chief Paul Malong but appoints Malong’s Dinka relative as next chief

From Various sources, MAY/06/2017, SSN;

South Sudan President Salva Kiir sacked his powerful, hardline army chief Paul Malong on Tuesday, a government spokesman said.

General Paul Malong, long regarded as an ethnic supporter of Kiir’s majority Dinka tribe, was replaced by General James Ajongo Mawut, a close relative of the fired ex-chief. Not surprisingly, Malong has quickly made an about turn and is on his way back to Juba and possible reconciliation with president Kiir.

Not surprisingly to most South Sudanese, President Kiir chose to appoint another Dinka as Chief of Staff to replace the dismissed Dinka chief, a move seen by most other South Sudanese as a perpetuation of the tribal tyranny and domination as well as to continue with the tribal way currently being perpetuated by Kiir’s tribe against the majority.

Meanwhile, Ater Achuil Chol, representative of the Aweil leaders, thanked President Kiir for appointing James Ajongo as the new army chief.

“I am talking on behave of the leaders of Aweil. We thank the president for appointing our son James Ajongo as SPLA chief of staff, so we are very grateful, we stand behind our son to unite the forces to work for the unity of this country,” he said.

“The decrees are two: one for the relief of Chief of General Staff, General Paul Malong Awan, and another decree is for the appointment of former Deputy Chief of General Staff for Administration and Finance General James Ajongo Mawut as the Chief of General Staff,” Kiir’s spokesmen Ateny Wek Ateny told AFP.

Ateny said the move was a routine changing of personnel. “This is a position that can be held between two years and four years and Malong has spent three years so this is the prerogative of the president” he said.

In February several senior army officers resigned, accusing Malong of conducting an ethnic war against non-Dinkas and ruling with an “unqualified clique of friends and relatives”.

Among those who quit was Lieutenant-General Thomas Cirillo who has since announced plans to launch his own rebellion.

Malong is widely regarded as being the mastermind of fighting that erupted in the capital, Juba, last July killing hundreds and dashing hopes of a power-sharing government between Kiir and his former deputy turned rebel leader Riek Machar, a member of the Nuer tribe.

ECONOMY COLLAPSES: While critics say the economy of South Sudan has now “technically collapsed” and that no measures can rescue it, traders are calling for government intervention.

“The economy is now biting, people are suffering, prices of commodities have tripled. It’s only those in authority who can survive the current economic situation. Everyone in villages is crying out for help,” said Lojur Molu, a concerned South Sudanese.

Government officials in Juba, who earn about 1,500 SSP, cannot afford to feed their families and have opted to take their children and wives to refugee camps in Uganda, according to a senior Uganda police officer.

“In 2013, if a government worker was earning an equivalent of Shs700,000 as a salary per month, he would now earn only Shs2,000 if he continues to earn at the same rate,” the source told this newspaper last week, suggesting the crisis is compounded by the shortage of dollar.

“The government in Juba spent all its US dollars in the conflict,” the police officer said.

The Dinka and the Nuer are the two largest ethnic groups in South Sudan and have a history of bloody rivalry.

UN investigators were among those who blamed Malong for the bloody attacks in July in which civilians were killed and foreign aid workers raped.

The US subsequently failed to get Malong sanctioned and put on a UN blacklist, subject to an assets freeze and travel ban, for his role in the ongoing conflict.

South Sudan has been at war since December 2013 when Kiir fell out with Machar, accusing him of plotting a coup.

The conflict — characterised by brutality and human rights violations — has triggered famine in parts of the country, forced millions from their homes and killed tens of thousands so far.

Letter to Pres. Kiir: People are suffering and the future is bleak

Open Letter To the President of the Republic of South Sudan, General Salva Kiir Mayardit, President, Chairman of SPLM and the Commander in Chief of the SPLA
State House J1 Juba, South Sudan.

APR/30/2017, SSN;

Mr. President,
First, let me register that some of us who have never met you before and perhaps, will never meet you until you leave the presidency and we badly need to meet you in order to tell you what we think are wrong in and with the government so that you are able to change the method of governance for the better and to serve citizens of South Sudan better.

I need not to remind you by telling you that it is now going to four years while the war is still on. The last three years have never been easier for us citizens and I do not know whether you know that we are suffering.

It was good when the war started but as we progress from one year to the other in the war, things are becoming tougher and tougher day and night as US dollars have staged a second front against the country and citizens.

In actual sense, things are tough, which deeply worries us and further puts the country’s future in bleak.

Moreover, the population is in danger of being wiped out as it is trapped by your forces, the forces of the SPLM/A-IO, the forces of the National Salvation Front and criminals who are benefiting out of chaos or crises.

One thing you should be worried is about the scarcity of dollars, which has put prices beyond the reach of the ordinary citizens. Because of that there is extreme shortage of food and other necessity for life for all citizens.

Hence, citizens are dying of hunger everyday in Juba leave alone other parts of the country. Imagine, if citizens die of hunger within Juba, what about those who are far from capital city who are trapped in conflict!

In addition, Mr. President, hospitals are not in good conditions but you never know this for two reasons: first, those around you tell you that things are good when in actual sense it is the opposite and second to it you and other ministers, Members of Parliament and other civil servants have special arrangements which enable them to travel to other East African Countries, Egypt, India, Jordan, the UK, Australia, the USA, Italy and Germany for treatment.

This special arrangement has denied citizens, an opportunity for reform in the health sector as government officials including you do not need such improvement since there is no need for it. Hence, citizens are there to die of curable diseases every hour.

Mr. President, one thing that has even complicating the matter is the fact that some people who are around you and those working in your office have formed a group that prevents people from reaching you to explain to you their grievances.

They have done this in order to continue practice corruption in your office without your knowledge. Sadly enough, if some people write about their corruption, they threaten that person with arrest and even death.

For instance, there was a time I wrote an article concerning the dirty politics in your office and I was almost burned alive by those in your office. They demanded that I must apologize not because I have made false allegations against them but for having told the truth.

However Mr. President, I stood my ground and completely refused to apologize because I believe in truth and the fact that South Sudan needs the truth to prevail.

The personal experiences as explained above show that it is dangerous in South Sudan to tell the truth. In other words, the truth is a criminalized offence or considered treasonable in South Sudan and this is why those who tell the truth are viewed as rebels.

For that reason, all citizens are cowed into silence as they are being ruled by fear of being branded as members of the IO or rebels which can put them into the hands of manipulated security apparatus where they will suffer from arbitrary detention and arrest without any remedy.

Because of being considered members of the rebels for telling the truth, Mr. President, there are now two types of population in South Sudan: the truth tellers who are majority but are branded as rebel members and those sycophants and miscreants who lie to you or to the government officials in order to get earn a living.

Mr. President, as I have already pointed out above, for one to survive in South Sudan from the hands of politicians, National security, State governors and other organized forces, he or she has to learn to be a liar or to join in multi-practice to corrupt the country and its system.

Nonetheless, I should not be quoted as if I am making accusations against all organized forces of South Sudan, what I am saying is that the government officials have penetrated the SPLM/A, National Security and all organized forces, which they pay to harass or even detain incommunicado their political opponents or private citizens who are critical with them in regard to the way they are running the offices.

Your government officials are deadly corrupt but they don’t want anybody to question their corrupt practices and if one at his or her will chooses to question them then he or she is threatened.

Mr. President, may I ask you this obvious question: what did Late Dr. Garang mean when he says that “take town to people,”? You try to implement this statement by creating and taking thirty two (2) states to people and I wonder whether you properly explained this meaning of this statement to your officials.

It is sad that instead of bringing services to people through creating more states, which Garang meant when he made such statement, it is the corruption and oppression of the youth which has been brought to the people.

As you struggle to ensure that those towns or states taken to people are given money to increase services to the people, Governors and their close associates are the ones building their own houses in Juba besides harshly taxing people while leaving states and the people there in more crises than before.

Let me tell you, Mr. President, the enthusiasm that we had when you created more states has been killed by your governors who are not only corrupt but they are also oppressing youth and all citizens leave alone services.

No services to people and I would advise you that if it is appropriate, why not reconsidering your position either to appoint good governors or take your town away from the people so that people remain in their peace because those towns have brought more problems to people than good.

Those governors and their associates are absolutely corrupt and moreover, their corruption is unchecked. Besides, the commissioners they appoint are like them. They are corrupting system while using organized forces to arbitrary arrest and detain people without trial for indefinite period.

One of the clear examples in this category is the detention of a director of education, Mr. Mathen Thook, in a county called Joth Mayar in Gok State who has been under detention in military barracks for over thirty days without charge.

Mr. President, another thing I wanted to tell you concerning what makes a strong nation and if South Sudan is to be strong you have to observe them. A strong nation must have two things: a strong army and strong rule of law.

Niccolo Machiavelli in his Book, the Prince, knows this fact when he says that “the main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow”.

Our problems in South Sudan are caused by lack of strong army as the army which is there is now is full of militias, mercenaries and auxiliaries.

Machiavelli in the same Book cited above makes the following bad observations about mercenaries and auxiliaries that:— “They are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.

The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were.”

As you can understand from the above quotation, South Sudan army is not a true army in the true sense but full of militias. Such an army is not good for you and for South Sudan.

As things stand today, there are separate armies for each tribe, for each general and for each militia group, which is not good for a nation like South Sudan. You need to reform the current army of South Sudan into the national army.

In order to reform the army in South Sudan effectively, you need to carry out survey in the army to get the total number of the army and where they are trained from. Then, after that call all the true SPLM/A forces of 1983-2005 so that they are deployed throughout South Sudan while all militias who are just incorporated in the army without military training background are all sent to military training camps where they are going to be subjected to serious training for the next three years. The same thing should be done in respect to the police and other organized forces.

At the same time, the recruitments of new groups whether in the army, police or other forces should stop for the next three years in order to organize the present police, army and other organized forces into strong organized forces. This will make it possible for you and other officials to know the size of the army which we do not know currently.

Mr. President, the final thing I wanted to tell you is something to do with some of your advisors. There are some advisors within those special advisors to you who are clearly working for your downfall and the downfall of South Sudan.

Their motive is to ensure that South Sudan must fail as they still hope that if it fails then it will be liquidated and added to Khartoum, a dream that will die with them without being realized.

To tell you the truth, one of the advisors I feel pain whenever I see him with you is that person related to you who personally ordered the execution of the SPLA officers during the liberation struggle.

Why I feel pain is the fact that he has become a king to those he personally executed which is unjust because this is not the state of Jesus Christ where the executor becomes the preacher.

If there is no accountability, at least, he should not be seen to be on the top of the government he persecuted in the first place. What will he offer to the government? This particular person though related to you is not suited to be an advisor to the governor.

Another person you appointed to be your special advisor on security issues who was an advisor to the President of Sudan during the war is not working for the interest of the SPLM as a party. But his interest is to see that South Sudan is divided forever so that it fails. He is not interested for the stability of South Sudan since such stability brings in more of his tribe-mates which is a threat to his political interests.

In addition, there are two people who are not within ten advisors. One is outside South Sudan while the other is a cabinet minister. These two people are not there for the interest of South Sudan this is why they keep on creating division within the SPLM so that original founders of the SPLM are chased away.

I am not saying that they should not be in South Sudan because they are South Sudanese rather what I am saying is that they do not know the vision of the SPLM and their goal is to destroy the SPLM. Therefore, do not bring them to the heart of the government.

As I pointed out last time in my article which caused commotion in that office, I would like to repeat in this letter that you need to appoint some people in your office who can serve the interest of South Sudanese and South Sudan in general not those who turn the office turn profit making venture.

Mr. President, I need to conclude this letter by advising you that if you are appointing advisors, you need to appoint those who are at least able to disagree with you on some matters not those who always ready to agree with you on all the matters for the fear of being removed. Advisors must be specialists in their areas of expertise and are also objective. This is why we talk of advisors as advisors are not those who protect their personal interest.

Respectfully,
Yours sincerely

Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Lawyer, Kampala Uganda

Crisis of the Judiciary of South Sudan: A Leadership Problem NOT Lack of Resources

By: Tong Kot Kuocnin, LLB (Juba), LLM (Nairobi), Specialist in Law, Governance & Democracy
University of Nairobi, Kenya, APR/27/2017, SSN;

In the previous article I authored titled ‘The Nation Needs a New Face in the Judiciary NOT Justice Chan Reec Anymore,’ and another piece titled, ‘Why Too Many Judges and Justices are discontented with Chief Justice Chan Reec’s Leadership in the Judiciary?’ I explored hitherto issues that, if the judiciary of South Sudan could indeed position itself in its rightful place.

These articles plus many others were greeted with hostility by many stooges and kitchen supporters of the Chief Justice leadership. They turned a blind eye to the important issues tackled in the articles for a simple fact that they are beneficiaries of that messed up leadership and care less of the important place the judiciary occupies as an institution in our country.

In this article, I ironically intends to bring to forefront the crisis which has pervasively infested the judiciary of South Sudan which lies not in the judiciary as a juridical institution but in the leadership of the incumbent Chief Justice.

However, the malignant inertia, unruly and unscrupulous behaviour, that has rocked the judiciary since the current Chief Justice took over the administration could warrant unspeakable dysfunctionality of the judiciary and has intrinsically provoked mistrust of the institution trusted as the last hope in retrieving back rights infringed on and maliciously encroached upon aberrantly by the most powerful and untouchable mafias and oligarchs.

It has become a common saying that the judiciary is in abeyance where many judges, whether senior or junior, point fingers at the Chief Justice of not doing enough in addressing most pressing issues of concern both for them and for the institution to truly observe its boundaries of separation of powers, independence and impartiality which are the tenets of the true judiciary as a third arm of the government.

The gap between the Chief Justice and his colleagues grows wider every day and causes many judges to think of quitting the institution simply because it is not truly elegant as it should be.

Many judges and justices are discontented with the way the Chief Justice is running the Judiciary and this is manifested by judges and justices incessant strikes since 2013.

Even with intervention of H. E. the president and his learned Advisor on Legal Affairs to address judges and justices demands in 2016, the Chief Justice again went and slept on the rights of the judges and justices.

The president resolved judges and justices strike in 2016 by releasing vehicles that were parked for the last six years to be distributed to them but the Chief Justice went and took all the keys and stored them in his living room, in his residence.

The Ministry of Finance was directed by the President to release their long overdue salaries into the account of the Judiciary but again the chief justice, being the sole signatory to the account, refused to release the money to the judges and justices again, causing the current ongoing judges and justices’ strike.

This is not a problem of the state anymore, but a leadership problem within the judiciary in which our learned chief justice perceives the judiciary as his own private property with which he can do what he likes at his own discretion.

Why too many judges and justices are discontented with Justice Reec’s administration is a combination of these issues and that’s why it has become a leadership problem not a crisis that other arms of government created.

The Chief Justice is of course the head of the judiciary and one charged by law with day-to-day running or administration of the judiciary. It is on his directives that the director of judges affairs in the judiciary acted upon a communication and if he happens not to be in town, then no toilet papers, ream papers, no transport and no cleaner to clean the court-rooms and everything comes to a standstill.

The nation needs a new face in the judiciary to salvage the credibility of the judiciary and restore confidence and trust of the people in the judiciary.

The hedge is against the president to come to his senses and correct the image of the judiciary by relieving the indignant chief justice due to his heedless consideration of opposing views which heisted the people of South Sudan off their legal and constitutional rights of access to justice, a crux that will not only cost him dearly but the admired and most respected institution among all institutions of the government in the world.

The nation needs a new face in the judiciary, a face that is herald to meeting the demands of judges and justice for the people of South Sudan.

A face which doesn’t worship the appointing authority and turns his back at the institution and the people it’s meant to serve.

A face determined to reshape the chattered image of the institution of Judiciary because the administration of the judiciary under Chief Justice Chan R. Madut is heretical not only to the members of legal fraternity but to the general public which resort to judiciary as the only hope in getting rights they deserved.

Heretofore, the nation needs a new face that is not detached, divorced and disabled from the members of the judiciary, the legal community and general public.

The nation needs a new face in the judiciary not Justice Chan Reec Madut anymore. The judiciary, judges, advocates and the general public have suffered more than enough during his tenure as Chief Justice and President of Supreme Court of South Sudan.

It must be admitted that the crisis that have now engulfed the judiciary were brought about by his dictatorial and weak leadership style. It is leadership problem that is now facing the judiciary not because resources aren’t available.

Power, burgeoning parasitic capitalism & ethnic nationalism: South Sudan Self-destruction

From: Peter Adwok Nyaba , South Sudan, APR/08/2017, SSN;

Introductory remarks:
The legendary riddle of ‘chicken and egg’ corroborates the current realities of South Sudan civil war, whose effects have rendered irrelevant its causes and triggers, but at the same time have left the culprits, the victims and the mediators bewildered.

The absence of policy tools to address the crisis (writes Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba) left the region and the international community with only two options: confine Dr. Riek Machar to South Africa, and give President Salva Kiir six months to clear the SPLM/A (IO). The consequences now register as dire humanitarian situation, refugees and famine.

A few days ago, Mr. Festus Mogae, Chairman of Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC) paid a visit to Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon, the SPLM/A (IO) leader holed up in South Africa since November 2016. The purpose of the visit was to ask Dr. Riek to renounce violence, declare unilateral ceasefire and come back to Juba to join the national dialogue (ND) President Salva Kiir decreed last December. It was like adding insult to injury.

Mr. Mogae’s mission proves the very truth that the cause of the war is trying to catch up with its effects in view of the message he delivered. Mr. Mogae’s mandate is to monitor and to evaluate the implementation of the agreement on resolution of crisis in South Sudan (ARCISS).

Since July 2016, Mr. Mogae has been telling the world the opposite of what actually was happening in South Sudan. Intimidated by Information minister, Makuei et al, Mr. Mogae is reduced to a messenger; ferrying messages from President Salva Kiir Mayardit and the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) to Dr. Riek Machar.

This new assignment undoubtedly puts Mr. Mogae in an embarrassing situation of admitting that ARCISS is definitely dead and this necessitates a return to the drawing board.

The genesis of the crisis:

The Republic of South Sudan unfortunately did not avoid the pitfall most post-colonial African countries fell into on independence -organizing power and politics based on personality, ethnicity and regionalism instead of ideas and political programs.

We’ve somewhere attributed this to ideological poverty and the paradigm shift the SPLM made in the nineties in the context of thawing of the cold war and the collapse of Soviet Union. The recoil from revolutionary politics to liberal and neo-liberal brought in its wake the ethnicization of SPLM public power and authority.

The signing of comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) heralding the independence as especially following the tragic demise of Dr. John Garang de Mabior and the ascension of Salva Kiir Mayardit to the helm, the assumption that it was Dinka power, started to take roots.

The witch-hunt against the so-called Garang’s orphans was to remove from the SPLM/A hierarchy non-Dinka as well as non-Bahr el Ghazalians. There was no way of removing Dr. Riek Machar and the Nuers. So, the power configuration appeared Dinka-Nuer alliance in the political, military and civil service.

It was taken for granted that the Dinka (Salva Kiir) would be president because of their numerical weight. The Nuer (Dr. Riek Machar) would deputize him and the Equatorian (James Wani Igga) remain the Hon. Speaker of the National Legislature.

Translated into executive portfolios, in a cabinet of thirty, there were sixteen Dinka, six Nuer, two Chollo, one Azande, one Bari and one Balanda. This power arrangement engendered political exclusion, discrimination and marginalization of the smaller ethnicities.

In the army, the Dinka had the highest numbers in the officers’ corps while the Nuer were seventy percent of the soldiers.

The Dinka and Nuer controlled between themselves the civil service top positions not based on merits but political patronage. Many Dinka and Nuer people returning from the Diaspora especially US, Canada and Australia had no knowledge of skills demanded by the senior positions they occupied leading to paralysis of the system.

The political contradictions inherent in such a power configuration were bound to erupt into violence. This occurred on 15 December 2013 with the target massacres of ethnic Nuers in Juba.

Initially, the perception among many South Sudanese was that it was a Dinka-Nuer affair, explaining the indifference and lack of solidarity with the Nuer victims. This neutrality remained until combative Dinka ethnic nationalism now at the centre stage directing the war started aggressing and provoking other ethnicities to take up arms.

In August 2015, the government of South Sudan, the SPLM in opposition, the SPLM former political detainees, the other political parties, the Women Group, the Faith based Group and Civil Society Organizations signed the peace agreement.

In April 2016, the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU) was established. Barely two months in the implementation of ARCISS war erupted again. Two factors contributed to this renewed war, namely, were the Establishment Order 36/2015 (EO36/2015) and the refusal to establish cantonment camps for SPLA IO in Equatoria and Bahr el Ghazal.

The violent events in July 2016 leading to the collapse of both the TGoNU and ARCISS have created new realities

The rise of Dinka ethnic nationalism, with its ideology of Dinka (Jieng) ethnic supremacy über alles, and the formation of the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) as a power broker around President Salva Kiir became the rallying point for unity of all Jieng sections and subsections in what apparently has become a Jieng war against all others.

This may appear simplistic, but the rise of Dinka ethnic nationalism has efficaciously transformed the character of the conflict into a ‘Dinka war,’ in the guise of the government of South Sudan (SPLA), against all other nationalities opposed to Dinka hegemony and domination.

President Salva Kiir Mayardit admitted this in the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA) on 19 October 2016 that “the Nuers have rebelled and the other ethnicities refused or have boycotted the SPLA and therefore I had nowhere to look for troops to fight the war” (sic).

The upsurge of Dinka ethnic nationalism and the formation of the JCE are sides of the same coin of right wing politics in South Sudan. It is not the first time the Dinka political elites have fostered ‘Dinka Unity’ as a counter to one of their number losing power.

The call for ‘Dinka Unity’ emerged in late seventies of the last century in order to protect Abel Alier’s presidency of the High Executive Council (HEC) in the defunct Southern Region. It has now emerged as an important factor in the conflict to protect the power of President Salva Kiir Mayardit.

However, unlike its past variant, Dinka ethnic nationalism (now organized under the auspices of JCE chaired by Justice Ambrose Riiny Thiik) has come against a backdrop of an alliance between the Dinka politico-military-business elite – a parasitic capitalist class, (Salva Kiir has nurtured since 2005) and the regional and multinational comprador capitalism interested in the extraction, development and exploitation of South Sudan vast natural resource potential.

Consequent to, and through this alliance, President Salva Kiir consolidated his hold on political and executive powers by engineering a totalitarian regime as a vehicle to facilitate this extraction.

To accomplish this he had to paralyze the organizational and political functions of the SPLM as the ruling party. Thus, instead of institutionalizing, President Salva Kiir personified power and governed through presidential decrees and orders.

He embarked on the formation of ethnic and regional caucuses in the legislative and executive organs of the state and encouraged the emergence of ethnic and regional associations and lobby groups as a means of entrenching a system of political patronage.

In the course of a few years, the Dinka ethnic nationalism, Salva Kiir’s kleptocratic totalitarianism, and the natural resource extraction opportunities blended into an explosive admixture, which drives the nefarious policy decisions fueling the conflict in South Sudan.

These policy decisions like the Executive Order 36/2015 speak to this explosive admixture in the context of capitalist utilitarianism in the form of land for investment in mechanized commercial agricultural farming and livestock ranching.

This makes the Order the most contentious piece of legislation. It not only divides South Sudan into 28 dysfunctional states, but also awards the Dinka 42% of South Sudan land area making it the most contentious piece of legislation.

This order, through alteration of administrative boundaries and creation of new states, dispossesses and transfers to the Dinka ownership ancestral lands of other nationalities in Western Bahr el Ghazal [Fertit in Raga] and Upper Nile [Chollo, Maaban, Koma and Nuer].

This decision was not in response to explosion of Dinka population but in a colonial pattern, to evict people, if necessarily by force of arms, to make land available to foreign investors.

That it also permits pastoral Dinka communities unhindered access to, and settlement with their herds in, sedentary agricultural areas in Equatoria and Western Bahr el Ghazal has led to the growth of anti-Dinka sentiments throughout South Sudan with the consequence that innocent Dinka civilians were caught up in the fury.

The fallacy of existential threat:

The killing of innocent Dinka on the roads in Equatoria has prompted some Dinka intellectuals, to raise the point that there is an existential threat to Dinka people in South Sudan. This could not be further from the truth.

If there is any existential threat in South Sudan, it is the smaller ethnicities in Western Bahr el Ghazal who in addition to the socio-economic and political exclusion, discrimination and marginalization they have suffered over the decades, are now faced with brutalization, dehumanization, physical and cultural extinction consequent to annexation of Raga to some parts of Awiel.

The Acholi, Madi, Moro, Balanda and others face existential threat consequent to destruction of their livelihood and culture. The invasion by pastoral communities into their sedentary agricultural ecology is an existential threat.

The Chollo are facing an existential threat from their Padang Dinka neighbours who with the support of the government of South Sudan, in the person of President Salva Kiir, are dispossessing them of their ancestral lands on east bank of River Nile.

What I want to emphasize here is that it is the small ethnicities because they do not possess economic or political/military power who face this existential threat but not those large ethnicities in possession of state power.

These intellectuals, some feigning liberalism, have raised the existential threat only to justify their tacit support for Salva Kiir’s totalitarianism. Many of these intellectuals were known opponents of President Salva Kiir yet they refused to join the armed opposition to the regime.

They have not condemned the horrendous crimes ‘Dotku beny’ and ‘Mathiang anyoor’ (Dinka militias) committed since 2013. They have drummed up that due to this existential threat it has forced the Dinka to rally behind Salva Kiir and the JCE.

This is thrash and the only credible explanation for this rhetoric is ethnic solidarity. The truth is that the conflict has become one against sixty-three and that by whatever magic, the one cannot win against sixty-three.

This brings us to another disturbing reality linked to state formation and nation building in South Sudan. The ethnic and regional dimensions of the war are becoming prominent with the emergence and proliferation of armed oppositions groups ethnic and regional in character.

The struggle against Dinka ethnic nationalism and the burgeoning parasitic capitalist class, we categorized as the ‘explosive admixture’, in the absence of a unifying ideological thrust renders the three categories harbingers of South Sudan’s self-destruction. This plays out negatively.

First, the presence of many separate and competing armed groups without a political agreement to enable them cohabitate and operate against the regime in close proximity is bound to generate frictions, tensions and even violence. This occurred in January between the SPLM/A (IO) and the newly formed (Dr. Lam Akol’s) National Democratic Movement (NDM).

This weakened the two groups through loss of human life and military hardware thus playing into the hands of the government. The least thing opposition groups should do is to fight among themselves no matter how difficult the situation.

Secondly, the ethnic backlash pushes to the background, if not into the oblivion, the state formation and nation building objectives, which raise the possibility of South Sudan disintegrating into ungovernable pieces. The competing regional political, economic and security interests will definitely accentuate this scenario.

The military presence in South Sudan of Uganda and Ethiopia might encourage Kenya and the Sudan to send their troops under the guise of maintaining peace ala Somalia while in fact they are balance their respective interests.

Thirdly, proliferation of armed opposition spells their weakness thus prolonging the life of the totalitarian regime. This will have the negative psychological impact on the people, who politically and ideologically, have not sufficiently prepared for a protracted war. As their social and economic situation continues to deteriorate, in face of the deepening economic crisis of the regime and famine, many of them will flee into refuge in the neighbouring countries.

Fourth, in spite of the ethnic power fanfare and pride, the Dinka are not culturally homogenous. There is latent power struggle between the eastern (Bor) and western (Rek) Dinka, which could erupt into violence as the social and economic situation become untenable.

This plays into the second scenario accelerating the disintegration invoking the UN trusteeship peddled by some political leaders. UN trusteeship of South Sudan will freeze without resolving the fundamental contradiction, given the heightened ethnic furore.

What should be done?

South Sudan is going through an irreconcilable contradiction between the totalitarian regime and the masses of the people. The emerging ethnic character apart, the resolution of this contradiction will not be on the basis of power-sharing and effecting superficial reforms in the system.

The ARCISS is outmoded that any group hinging its hope on its resuscitation will be courting the perpetuation of conflict. The existence of many armed and opposition parties is indicative of the multiple layers of the problem, which therefore necessitates its deeper knowledge and scientific understanding.

It’s obvious we are aware of the problem facing the people of South Sudan. What seems not very obvious to all the political groups is that their continued independent actions work to prolong the suffering of the people of South Sudan.

In August 2016, Dr. Lam Akol initiated what was then dubbed “Consultative Meeting of the Opposition Groups.” It was one-step in the right direction. The political leaders might want to take the resolutions of that meeting a step further in the form of negotiating a charter and programme for working together to remove the totalitarian regime.

The region and the international community have no more policy tools for unlocking the impasse and it will be defeatist to continue waiting for them to come up with the solution while the regime is killing our people as happened a few days ago in Magwe County in Eastern Equatoria.