Category: National

Finance Minister, Salvatore Garang Mabior: The Bastion for our Economic Recovery, Growth and Prosperity.

By: Simon Yel Yel, MAR/23/2019, SSN;

Thought not blood, unmeasurable ink has been spilt over the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, Hon. Salvatore Garang Mabior. But the truth remains: He is not corrupt as being misleadingly alleged. That’s the reason I don’t buy all these corruption allegations born of consummate hatred and insipid circumlocution which have been circulating on the online media for sometimes now. It’s merely a political attrition in play.

All these platitudinous sermons carry no shred of truth by any imagination. They are being purposely contrived and propagated by his political nemesis to settle political scores.

However, his legacy is imprinted in a hard stone. Even if he is thrown into political oblivion by this exotic politics of subterfuge and egregious lies – and I am sure he will withstand all the odds and continue climbing the ladder of stardom and greatness, his legacy is written in the hard rock.

Upon his appointment, he has successfully managed to ameliorate the living conditions and that is why the country is now economically convalescing.  Get your popcorn and let me peel your eyes. His achievements are ineffable and here are the headlines.

  1. The salaries of civil servants:

When he was decreed by the President to head the ministry of Finance, he got civil servants in all states hadn’t received their monthly salaries for eight months. Do you know what he did? He appropriately collected the oil proceeds and other sources of revenues and approved the salaries of six months to be paid to civil servants in all states intermittently. It went well as planned.

And as you are now reading this article, the minister has closed this salaries gap from six months to only two months. This gap was created and maintained by his predecessors for the reasons known best to them. The minister achieved this unthinkable thing in just less than one year in the office. Now, there is no issue of delayed salaries again in the states.

  1. The salaries of the foreign missions:

Unless you are living in the Mars, if you don’t know this. When Hon. Garang was appointed into this docket, our embassies weren’t receiving their salaries for a period close to thirteen months. As things stand now, he paid their salaries of eight months. The embassies which were half-closed are now fully operational. This is a courtesy of the Hon. Minister.

Hey, don’t shoot me dead or grill me for obsequiousness. These are incontrovertible facts that a man living as far as in Maban area knows. I am not extolling him. But it is the truth I am telling you.

One may wonder which type of a stainless steel is Hon. Garang made of and how did he rise up to the national politics. Let me reveal to you these tips of the iceberg: Hard work and professionalism. That is his motto. His rise is not by a pure serendipity.

Yes, Hon. Garang is not a member of what Dr. Majak Agot called the ‘gun class.’ However, he has won the president‘s trust due to his trending madness of a workaholic. Indeed, his zeal for a good work, virtuousness, patriotism, loyalty, and professionalism coupled with undisputable administrative experiences of producing a strong and synergistic work output, which are very rare traits in many politicians, are the desiderata for such a top job.

He is a true nationalist who doesn’t subscribe to the politics of tribes and sections. He is a committed personality who aspires for the economic welfare of all South Sudanese. To many, he is a role model and indeed a source of inspiration to many young economists.

When he was appointed to head that ministry, he immediately found out that the ministry of Finance has become the hotbed of corruption cartels and indeed a paradise of get-rich-quick wannabes. That’s why he has done some house keepings which made the beneficiaries running amok.

As if it was bound to happen irreversibly, when he uprooted and dismantled these networks of cartels, they tend to besmirch his reputation by hiring some writers to disseminate the fabricated outright lies to corrupt the minds of the public, as well as the leadership of the country.

But the truth is this: Hon. Garang has done what all his predecessors has never done. He looked the corruption cartels into the eyes and told them to jump into the River Nile. He is not for rent nor to serve the interest of the few for him to remain in that seat for eternity. If doing right things can cost one’s job, let be it. His heart whispered to him.

Hon. Garang has firm principles and he can’t compromise them for materials gain, comes high water.  That’s why he has reshuffled some staffs in the ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and sealed off their siphoning channels where the public money is being drained off from. Bravely, he concealed all the shoddy business contracts of these corruption cartels of finagling wealth and dwarfing our economic growth.

All these administrative actions aimed at rescuing the economy and reforming the system, have earned him some detractors. His detractors fall into three categories which often intersect:

The first group is made of some prominent business men who have been looting the public money in the ministry of Finance through fake contracts. They often lie to minister to have brought some food items or having completed some developmental projects, and laugh all the way to the bank with cheques worth millions of dollars.

Now, Hon. Garang has brazenly told them that he is in charge and can’t connive such an economic crime to happen at his watch while folding his hand. You either be honest and earn what rightfully belong to you or jump into River Nile. He declared to them.

The second group is composed of his political competitors and political power brokers. It is the most dangerous group. They work day and night to generate something out of nothing which is capable of producing unpleasant odor and smear it on Hon. Garang. The main aim is to corrupt the President’s mind and give him the boot, and indeed for his popularity to fall.

However, these political power brokers don’t understand that President Kiir doesn’t give his ears to outright lies. He only believes his ears and eyes. And that is why he sacked Hon. Kosti Manibe in 2012 on his first squinting. It wasn’t done on allegations like these. But on what he personally saw.

Also, they don’t understand that Hon. Garang has no price tag. No price depreciation when it comes to him. His popularity can’t be caused to freely fall flat by these egregious lies. Despite all these attritions, he is as constant as gold’s price.

The third group is composed entirely of corruption cartels in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. This group is composed of directors and junior staffs.  They begrudge the Hon. Minister because he has reshuffled them and sealed off all their siphoning points.  This is a group that strives on corruption as a way of making a living. That’s why even the average staff with a paltry of 3,000 SSP salaries could buy mansion in Uganda and Kenya and take their kids broad to study.

This interwoven unholy trinity supports, facilitates, cover-ups, and benefits from the corruption which has invaded the Ministry of Finance for long. They (the three groups of detractors) are Siamese triplet. They think alike and have the same interest. They are littering the online media platform with these unfounded allegations because the minister has sealed off all their sources of illegal money. That’s the reason they are wreaking havoc on the media. All what they want is someone (the minister for Finance) who they can drive and control. There is no truth in what they are propagating.

That is the compendium of Hon. Garang’s detractors. Can you believe them? Of course not.  That’s why I say, Hon. Garang is the victim of exotic politics of subterfuge, egregious lies, and dangerous distortions.  He is being targeted for doing a right thing.

Conclusion: Hon. Garang is the bastion of our economic growth and prosperity. This is because no great institution can formulate programs for itself or execute programs by itself. That is why always it is important to have a public servant with a sense of nationalism, fear of ignominy and God, zero tolerance for corruption, uncompromising professional integrity, to formulate and execute the programs for any institution.

And this public servant is none other than the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, Hon. Salvatore Garang Mabior, the bastion of economic recovery, growth and prosperity in the Republic of South Sudan.

(Disclaimer: I don’t hold brief for neither Hon. Salvatore Garang Mabior nor anyone on this. These are facts from Suk Malisha. If these fact angered you, get burst at your own risk).

Simon Yel can be reached via simonyel88@gmail.com

The New State of South Sudan

NISSAN LECTURE THEATRE – ST. ANTHONY’S COLLEGE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY. THE SUDANESE PROGRAMME CONFERENCE ON CONVERSATION WITH THE DIASPORA: THE FUTURE OF SOUTH SUDAN, MAR/01/2019, SSN;

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The current situation in South Sudan may look like a déjà vu to some observers. It reminds us of particular stations in our long journey through the history of Sudan and South Sudan after secession in 2011.

History seems to be repeating itself when we analyse the events that took place before and in the early years after the independence of Sudan on 01/01/1956 against those that led to the crisis in present independent South Sudan.

Understanding this point would take us back to a particular event in October 1954 when the Liberal Party, led by Abdul Rahman Sule, Stanislaus Beyasama, and Buth Dieu held a public rally in Malakal town.

At the rally, the Liberal Party which was the only one at that time representing the Southern Sudanese voice announced its support for the independence of Sudan, opposition to unity with Egypt, and federalism. The Southerners never demanded secession in the days leading to the establishment of independent Sudan.

Here I would like to borrow the question at the top of the themes of this conference – what went wrong? It all boils down to short-sighted decisions and mistakes that were committed by the political elites in the North. Five of them stood out, and I believe had pushed the Southerners towards pursuing the politics of regionalism and secession.

Firstly, the most significant political event in Sudan before independence was the Cairo Conference in June 1953 to discuss the future of Sudan and self- determination. The elites in the North decided to leave the Southerners out of that Conference.

The move was met with anger and dismay from the Liberal Party and Southerners in general. They argued that the South is roughly one-third of the country, then how come its representatives were ignored and not consulted in decisions relating to the future of the country?

Secondly, the Sudanisation of the government positions in the South was completed in February 1954 where eight hundred posts (800) were given to Northerners while Southerners got only six (6) positions.

Regardless, whether the Southerners had enough cadres to fill up those positions or not, many likened the whole process as nothing but replacing a colonialist with another one. This notion was reinforced by the fact that not all the British officials left their posts in North Sudan immediately but stayed beyond the independence of Sudan.

Thirdly, The attitude of the elites in the North towards the Southerners wasn’t conducive to the removal of social prejudices that emanated from Sudan’s past which was tainted with the slave trade. The notion that they are “Awlad al-Balad” translated as Sons of the land, and others, particularly the Southerners, are not, was a massive obstacle in the way of nation-building.

It made a significant part of the population feel that they were being treated as second or third class citizens in their own country.

Of course, it didn’t help the people to forget the injustices of the past but rather reignited the conflict.

Fourthly, The attitude mentioned above was further complicated by the implementation of a policy of Arabisation and Islamisation of Southern Sudan. The government took upon itself the propagation of one culture and religion as opposed to the safeguarding of cultural and religious freedom. But the ethnic factor appeared to be more important than the religious one.

Such divisive racial prejudices surfaced way before the independence of Sudan. A nationalist pioneer like Ali Abdul Latif, the leader of the White Flag League, who led the struggle for self- determination for Sudan in the twenties of the past century; was met with disapproval from some quarters within the northern elites for the single reason of not hailing from the “Awlad al Balad” group.

Fifthly, Unequal economic development where most of the development projects were situated in the areas close to the Capital and the central region. Despite its massive untapped natural resources; the South never received any meaningful development projects since the departure of the British colonialists. Most of the infrastructures in Southern Sudan were built during British rule.

The rulers in the North thought promoting economic growth in South Sudan before ensuring unity based on Arabism and Islamism would empower the South to secede. They ignored the fact that equitable wealth sharing would have silenced the voices calling for secession if at all there were such voices at the time.

The question that I believe has crossed the minds of many people is: Could secession have been avoided, had the rulers done things differently?

Suppose the rulers at that time implemented a national policy based on inclusivity, democracy, equitable wealth sharing, and justice, would Sudan still divide into two countries? Of course, we cannot be 100% sure of what the future would have looked like for Sudan. But one thing is entirely plausible that such a policy would have deprived the secessionists whether in the North or the South of the justifications for their Movements.

It’s very likely that history would have taken a different course in favour of unity, had the northern elites implemented a fair-handed policy. Instead, they fell into the trap of cultural and religious hegemony thinking that integration can only be achieved by turning Sudan through an iron-fist policy into a melting pot for a pre-determined product which is an Arab and Islamic country.

It was an impossible undertaking because, at the time of the independence of Sudan, 67% of the population were deemed non-Arabs. The best approach would have been to establish a citizenship-based State that embraces all the ethnicities and religions. Unfortunately, the northern elites unwisely implemented a unilateral policy towards making Sudan a nation-based country where Arabism and Islamism become the sole identity of the populace.

Those who have different cultures and religious beliefs have to forego their heritage. That policy brought nothing but protracted wars and misery upon the people of Sudan. It backfired and utterly failed to achieve the intended objectives. The result was a division into two embattled countries. There are similarities in some aspects between Sudan in the early years following independence and South Sudan after secession.

Like in Sudan on 01/01/1956, when the northern elites took over the country – the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) party, took power in South Sudan since the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. Here a party gets full control of a country with vast natural resources, a reasonable number of technocrats (far better than Sudan and many African countries at independence), no loans, and supportive and enthusiastic people.

It was the perfect setting any President, political leader or party would dream of being at the centre of it. It was also a historic opportunity to achieve all the objectives and cement a lasting legacy that is celebrated by the people. It looked like nothing could go wrong. The future of the world’s youngest nation seemed very promising, and many people believed that it would be transformed into a prosperous country in the heart of Africa. Alas! people never envisaged that the realities would be that far from their expectations.

Again, the above question repeats itself here, what went wrong? The SPLM leaders committed the same mistakes that led to the secession of South Sudan from Sudan. Ethnic hegemony replaced the policies of Arabism and Islamism in Sudan that as we know was spearheaded by the northern elites. It’s even far worse than what we saw in Sudan before the split. The ethnic chauvinism degenerated into regionalism, tribalism, clan and family-driven politics.

Policies were developed and enacted to serve the interests of one or two ethnic groups including land grabbing and the annexation of the ancestral lands of some tribes. Also, the politics of tribal hegemony have dominated the security, economic, educational, and media sectors. Small tribes have been underrepresented in all aspects of life and significantly marginalised worst than when Sudan was one country.

In addition to the above, the government failed to maintain law and order, provision of essential services, and the establishment of development projects to move the country forward. But the biggest misrule was plunging the country into civil war that was entirely avoidable. After spending most of its modern history in civil wars, one would have expected the South Sudanese leaders to be more mindful of that fact when faced with matters related to war and peace in the country.

Seeking middle grounds and compromises would have been the right approach to spare the State the burden of civil war. Unfortunately, the SPLM elites acted irresponsibly by prioritising personal and party interests against that of the country.

Ladies and gentlemen,
The way forward is for the rulers to remember and learn the lessons of history. Being in power merely by military might is unsustainable.

The opposition won’t vanish or go away without a fair political settlement. They represent the majority of the South Sudanese people. In the absence of an acceptable peace agreement, the conflict would continue to be there while the opposition grows much stronger. The world had witnessed how the former Soviet Union with its massive nuclear arsenal failed to save itself from disintegration.

Even what happened in Sudan before secession should have shown our rulers the futility of such policies. I am afraid the same mentality of believing in military power alone, which is commonplace among dictators, is the one running the government in South Sudan. They seem not to realise that what they are doing right now is not nation-building but instead aborting the very process.

Allowing the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) out of the 64 tribes of South Sudan to interfere in national politics and clandestinely run a parallel parliament that influences the President, is not nation-building. Similarly, the recruitment of tribal militias and the establishment of the new 32 States with some carved out of the ancestral lands of some communities and given to others, is not nation-building but rather the dismantling of its foundations.

The National Salvation Front (NAS) participated in the High-Level Revitalisation Forum (HLRF) in December 2017 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia with an open mind to reach a just peace. We negotiated in good faith and gave concessions to reach a compromise. Neither IGAD’s mediation team tactics nor the general environment were ideal throughout the peace process. Nonetheless, NAS persevered with the negotiations as putting an end to the suffering of our people is second to none in its objectives.

Unfortunately, NAS was left with no choice but to reject the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R- ARCSS) because it didn’t address the root causes of the conflict. It’s more or less a power-sharing between the elites in the government and the opposition with little impact on solving the problems of the country. Federalism, accountability (both criminal and financial), revocation of the 32 States, and total overhaul of the security sector were left out.

Despite the flaws within ARCSS 2015, it provided an acceptable agreement for the majority of the South Sudanese people. Sadly, the R-ARCSS 2018 is less fair than ARCSS 2015 as it legitimised the 32 states that were not in existence in 2015, dropped federalism and threw accountability out of the window.

Peace would eventually prevail in South Sudan. How soon that would happen is yet to be seen.

It would rely on a great deal of political will and statesmanship both from the government and the opposition as well. Leaders have to rise above their personal and party interests and put the country before any considerations. They also, need to realise that time is of the essence as the more the current situation continues, the more South Sudan gets closer to chaos. The social fabric is in tatters and needs mending sooner than later. The scenario of Balkanisation is not far fetched.

A comprehensive solution could only be realised through a negotiated peace deal that establishes the foundations of good governance, inclusive security sector, and elements of economic growth. Accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity should be vigorously pursued through reputable courts whether a Hybrid Court or the International Criminal Court (ICC).

All the grievances within the communities whether due to land feuds, cattle rustling or otherwise should be resolved by the upholding of the rule of law and the promotion of the spirit of brotherhood and equality among the South Sudanese people.

Thank you

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok 
Chairman of NAS International Relations Committee,
DATE: 23/02/2019 VENUE:

Condemning the recent attack in Bieh State, Lou Nuer area by Taban Deng

By:  Col. Dickson Gatluak Jock , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, JAN/14/2019, SSN;

To the victimized community of Lou-Nuer:
I am truly heartbroken following the recent attack on the innocent civilians of Lou-Nuer orchestrated by individuals of the political elite within the dictatorial regime of President Salva Kiir in Juba.

More than 40 people lost their dear  lives on December 6 attacks and more than 80 persons were wounded. It’s very sad that such attacks are piloted by our own Nuer brothers against the innocent population to sabotage the peace in the country. 

These individuals have for long been acting violently due to unprecedented pressure from Kiir and his Dinka’ monarchy.

To begin with, this plan to attack Lou Nuer has been in place since July, 2017 by General Taban Deng, Petroleum minister Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth and General Thoi Chany.

Vice president Taban  has never been happy seeing Akobo uncontrolled and has been trying so much to convince David Yau Yau to mobilize the Murle Youth to carry out this attack after the fall  of Pagak; a plan David Yau Yau used to downplay. 

Taban should be held accountable for this deadly attack and must bear all the responsibility for the loss of lives.

Taban for long has been talking to General Hassan, the son of Ismaeil Kony, the Paramount Chief of Murle community, and to General Paulino Jiji to carry out coordinated attacks against the Nuer of Akobo while the now-renamed SSPDF (formerly known as SPLA) was to attack from behind Akobo through Waat.

All these efforts didn’t work  as planned because we were against it. Taban up to date is misleading Salva Kiir especially when he surrendered his forces through an illegal process which he and his cohorts called  integration into the national army which is not the case.

Apparently, he  is still operating  independently. Two months ago, General Thoi Chany went to Pibor for this same mission, so indeed this is not a surprise or unplanned attack. 

From the same angle, Mr. Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth has been and is still the source of funding (Finance) and this is exemplified with the types of new weapons the Murle had used during this recent attack which included brand- new machine guns [Russian made].

In the case of Pagak, Minister Ezekiel Lol masterminded the operation, bought the massive  military hardware, transported them to the site   including all their spare parts from Dubai to Paloch, and later on to Mai-wut for operation; such roles have been well noted and documented by human right watch-dogs.
 
And now with peace being signed and a chance of forming a new transitional government underway, Taban Deng Gai and his cohorts are not sleeping, they are working day and night towards sabotaging this R-ARCSS so as to provoke Lou-Nuer so that a full-scale war could return back.

This can be seen from what Taban Deng Gai and Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth are doing in Bentiu which is not isolated from the case of Biel payam in December attack which I was completely against such arrangement especially when he ordered Gen. Dor Manjur to attack Biel without the knowledge of Bilpam GHQS. 

Dor Manjur ordered Major General Riek Riek to attack SPLA-IO forces in Biel payam of Guit simply because Taban feared that Angelina Teny, wife of Riek Machar, was gaining mass support from the Jikany Kiir of Guit.

He had even distrusted the UN assessment carried out in the area for the food to be dropped by World Food program or WFP . 
 
I congratulate the brave Lou-Nuer Youth for defending their position.
 
By:  Col.Dickson Gatluak Jock 
Tell: +251929484417.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Will Khartoum peace agreement bring reform or maintain Kiir’s tyranny?

By: Duop Chak Wuol, South Sudan, DEC/04/2018, SSN;

Known for operating with a vicious precision, his trademark is ruthlessness, and how he maneuvers his political rivals is irrefutably effective. Salva Kiir, the man in question, is a formidable tyrant with a bag full of cruel leadership practices.

The Khartoum’s peace agreement is one of those political blessings that a calculating dictator like Kiir could easily exploit to further his oppressive techniques.

This is an attempt to show that the Khartoum-brokered deal could end the civil war; however, there are plausible reasons to believe that the pact could merely end up preserving the current tyrannical system, empowering Kiir to further strengthen his grip on power.

It is worth acknowledging that the only best way for South Sudan to move forward would be for peace to return to the country. I assume nearly all South Sudanese are tired of war and ready for peace.

However, there are many contentious issues that, if not properly addressed, will turn the agreement into a pro-Kiir deal, rendering him the ability to continue ruling with impunity.

These issues include hybrid court, legislative, security arrangements, and constitutional amendment body.

All four of these issues are important, but the most important issues that require critical scrutiny are the constitutional amendments committee and future national legislative body.

So, let us dig deeper into the constitutional amendment committee, including the impending role of the proposed legislative assembly.

To refresh your memory, it is good to remember that real political reforms in any established society are done legislatively. This is what South Sudanese expect from the Khartoum’s peace agreement.

Regrettably, a careful analysis of the pact reveals that it would be nearly impossible for the armed opposition and other opposition parties to advance their democratic reforms through parliamentary processes because their anticipated Members of Parliament (MPs) will be outnumbered by MPs representing the incumbent government.

The reality is that opposition MPs will not pass any reform bill Kiir deems as a threat to his presidency. In a logical sense, the incumbent MPs will represent 60.4% while opposition MPs will have 39.6% in the proposed parliament.

Khartoum’s peace agreement stipulates that the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA) will have 550 Members of Parliament (MPs).

The deal gives the incumbent TGoNU 332 MPs, whereas the SPLM-IO and other opposition parties will have 218 MPs.

This is not my opinion—it is a mathematical fact. Those who agree with this approach should consult with their consciences.

Precisely, the parliamentary maneuvering is all about the number — the majority to be precise, and back-door deal makings.

Given the nature of the legislative game, Kiir clearly would not allow some of his MPs to be bribed by the opposition leaders, let alone the fact that he will still indirectly be in control of the nation’s financial system.

There are some people within the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition (SPLM-IO) and other opposition parties who care more about making any peace deal with Kiir’s regime so that they can be part of the proposed future Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU).

These people are desperate—shockingly desperate—and eager to exchange their supposedly reformed political doctrines with positions.

One thing is clear: their desperation is logically irrelevant, because they seem to be focusing more on what they want rather than what the people want.

What the people of South Sudan want is an utter political reform in the country. In the case of constitutional reform, Kiir is clearly not into it.

For instance, the Committee formed to amend the constitution should have been given mandates to amend the current anti-democratic constitution before the proposed TGoNU is formed.

Kiir cunningly frustrated the process in September by claiming in Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, that the constitution would only be amended four months after the transitional government is formed.

One wonders where on the planet earth the leaders of the SPLM-IO and other parties would have been deceived by this self-serving strategy.

There is no guarantee Kiir will honor his promise. Remember, Kiir knows what he is doing: 16 weeks is enough time for him to fully implement or reject the agreement.

What is ironic about the constitutional amendment process is that Salva Kiir is sure about his true intention while opposition leaders seem to rely on Kiir’s four-month time frame.

In other words, the leaders of the SPLM-IO and other parties appear to have learned no lesson, let alone the July 2016 Juba one (J1) incident.

Given all these political missteps, one can easily conclude that all opposition parties have either given up their political doctrines in favor of reuniting all ranks of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) party and then resume business-as-usual or are clueless about what they are dealing with.

This assertion seems absurd, but the way opposition leaders embraced Kiir’s notion of revising the constitution four months after the formation of the future government explains it otherwise.

Yes, peace is good, but emotion should not blindfold national leaders who, for five years, vowed to transform South Sudan’s political system.

Under the current constitution, Salva Kiir wields an absolute power. For instance, Kiir can dismiss any government official, including the elected ones.

Kiir’s power does not stop at the national level. The constitution simply made him an unchallenged leader. The man can even dissolve both the national and states parliaments as he wishes.

His powers do not end here. Kiir can also remove state governors and parliamentarians at any time of his choosing. He can do all these through a presidential decree because that is what is written in the current constitution.

Salva Kiir is addicted to these broad powers vested in him by the very constitution he orchestrated.

For the opposition leaders to assume that Kiir, for some mysterious reasons, will allow full amendment of the constitution is a mere joke.

Given all these facts, it’d be irrational for any reasonable person to think that Kiir will allow the constitutional amendment committee to remove the tyrannical powers he has been exercising for nearly eight years.

There is no doubt the five-year civil war has caused so much suffering. The recent estimate released in September 2018 by the United Kingdom-based London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine of at least 382,000 dead shows that the conflict has killed a lot of people, most of whom had nothing to do with the political madness that began in early 2013.

This is the reality any sensible person would not deny. The number speaks for itself. Most of the 382,000 people who lost their lives died because of a political insanity perpetuated by Kiir in December 2013.

History and publicly available data show that most dictators tend to have hard times transitioning into a democratic process.

It is true that some tyrants change, but it would not be a surprise if Salva Kiir happened to be in the category of autocrats who changed their leadership mindsets after their people demanded democratic reforms.

Beware though that it is nearly impossible for a documented dictator who ruled for many years to abandon his or her dictatorial mentality.

It is to be recalled that Kiir was loved by most South Sudanese when he took over the helm of the SPLM soon after the accidental death of late Dr. John Garang in July 2005. This does not mean he is a better leader.

The logic behind this rather reprehensible assumption was that he was the first deputy to Dr. Garang. At that time some people thought Kiir’s personality fit within the meaning of leadership quality.

What many people did not know at the time he was elected as the leader of the SPLM is that Kiir already had a fearsome persona.

It is to be recalled that Kiir captivated this merciless character when he was the head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) military intelligence.

Consequently, Salva Kiir’s destructive leadership has its roots from the mid-1980’s to the early 1990’s.

The current constitution is indisputably dictatorial. The best way to transform South Sudan’s political system from dictatorship to a democratic process is by completely amending the existing constitution and replacing all autocratic constitutional provisions with democratic ones.

This is the right time to do it, especially when a national constitutional amendment committee was established in the pact.

Kiir’s constitution deserves to be thrown into the Red Sea—in fact, it deserves to be given to the master of hell, if any.

The SPLM-IO and other political groups must seize this opportunity to scrap all the statutory provisions that made Kiir a legal tyrant.

The people of South Sudan did not fight against Khartoum’s regime only to face the same despotic leadership practices that were once imposed on them.

If Kiir is serious about peace, then he must allow the constitution to be completely altered.

The only reasonable way to reform South Sudan’s political environment is by changing the current constitution. The people of South Sudan do not deserve to be ruled through decrees.

The current political leaders must differentiate their selfish goals from what the South Sudanese want.

Stopping the war is a good thing, but ending it should not be viewed as a reform demanded by the people of South Sudan.

The tyranny is alive and well and there is no South Sudanese who is still interested in preserving the current ruthless political system.

The constitution is the host of Kiir’s tyrannical tendency — this host must be thrown into the Nile River if the people of South Sudan want their nation to flourish.

The constitutional amendment committee must be allowed unconditional powers to bury this Uganda-borrowed constitution into Kampala’s tomb.

Enough of Salva Kiir’s one-man constitution!

The author is the editor-in-chief of the South Sudan News Agency. He can be reached at duop282@gmail.com.

BREAKING NEWS: South Sudan Peace deal signed today…. A Return to Full-scale War sooner!!

SEPT/12/2018, SSN;

Breaking News: South Sudan Peace Deal Signed Today – but Fails to Address Federalism, Corruption and other important issues pended in Khartoum that are the root causes of the perpetual conflict and division among South Sudanese politico-military groups.

September 12, 2018 will be remembered as a day the people of South Sudan have again been betrayed…yet again by fellow Africans (IGAD) and the World. Cynically, it must be recalled that in 1972, the Addis Ababa Agreement between the South Sudan and Arab Khartoum was signed in the same venue but it was finally abrogated by the Arabs.

The peace deal signed today in Addis Ababa between the government of South Sudan and armed opposition groups has significant flaws. In fact, just before the peace was signed today, it was reported the Kiir’s government forces attacked Machar’s SPLA-IO forces in Yei River State of Central Equatoria Region near the borders of Uganda.

Disappointingly, those of Riek Machar of the SPLM/A-IO and the Lam Akol’s and Changson’s of the so-called South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA) have clearly in broad daylight proven that they are simply spineless and mindless of their unforgivable betrayal of the people of South Sudan.

Bravo to those of Dr. Dario Hakim of the PDM and General Thomas Cirillo of the NAS and others who steadfastly and rightly objected to the fake and dangerous peace deal that is an impending and delayed disaster in waiting.

Furthermore, this new peace deal will be monitored by Arab Sudan and Museveni’s Uganda, both of whom are great beneficiaries of this peace deal (more than the people of South Sudan), as well as the being the main benefactors and supporters of president Kiir of South Sudan.

They are all complicit with killer president Salva Kiir in their participation and destruction of the nation and they all will be made to account on the day of reckoning.

Most importantly, the IGAD Council of Ministers in its meeting in Addis Ababa this afternoon nullified the five reservations expressed previously by the warring parties and instead adopted the peace document initialled in Khartoum.

This agreement failed to address the looting done by South Sudan leaders of state resources and revenues.

The five reservations pended in the Agreement are the following:
1- Federalism… which is the preferred system of governance in the country.
2- Number of States… that would be established in the country, that’s a drastic reduction in the current unsustainable number of states established by dictator Kiir.
3- Referendum demand by others that must be carried out before the pre-interim period.
4- Establishment of a Commission to look into the number of states that are to be established.
5- Accountability for war crimes committed etc….

Inevitably, these shortcomings by these capricious and selfish so-called ‘leaders’ could easily lead the country right back to yet another full-scale war.

John Prendergast, Founding Director of the Enough Project and Co-Founder of The Sentry, said: “Today’s peace deal lacks meaningful checks and balances on a presidency that already wields immense powers, which are primarily used to loot the country’s resources and deploy extreme violence against opponents. South Sudan’s vast oil revenues have been pocketed by high-level politicians and their families and carted out of the country.

This new peace deal fails to undo the theft of government revenue by entrusting the same corrupt politicians without any meaningful checks and balances.”

Brian Adeba, Deputy Director of Policy at the Enough Project, said: “This peace deal is simply a division of the spoils between the rival factions with the biggest guns.

The signed agreement reinforces the status quo and increases the odds of a full-fledged return to war, in its failure to address state capture by these politicians or reform in hijacked institutions.

The U.S. and other willing nations should impose sanctions and anti-money laundering measures on the networks of South Sudanese officials and their commercial collaborators who continue to loot the country’s resources and to deny them access to the international banking system.”

Nonetheless, the new Kiir-Machar & SSOA Agreement apparently resolved these four outstanding issues as follows:–

1- On the issue of the States, Annex D was reinstated.

2- The Quorum in the Council of Ministers shall continue as 23 provided that at least six (6) of them are from the Opposition.

3- Permanent Constitution making process: Articles 6.7 – 6.9 are deleted and replaced with the following provisions:
6-7. During the 4th month of the Transitional Period, a Workshop shall be convened for the
Parties to agree on the details of conducting the constitution process.
6.8. The Workshop shall be moderated and facilitated by an institute renowned
internationally for constitution making.

4- The issue of deployment of the RPF shall be handled through the engagement of IGAD and the UN Security Council.

(More updates, details and fallouts coming soon on the signed Addis Ababa peace deal coming………….)

SSOA chooses the downtrodden over the elites at the Khartoum Peace Talks

BY: Dr Lako Jada Kwajok, AUG/01/2018, SSN;

The Khartoum round of peace talks provided many South Sudanese with a rare opportunity of knowing whether their political leaders meant what they propagate and preach.

The events of the last four weeks were quite discriminating in the sense that they revealed those politicians who care about the welfare of the ordinary citizens and those who don’t.

Khartoum may seem far away from the small towns and villages of South Sudan, but modern technology has made communications and the flow of news within reach of a significant number of the populace.

Do not underestimate how closely these peace talks were followed by our folks in the refugee camps in the neighbouring countries, in our towns and cities, and in the bushes of South Sudan.

The future of the homeland hangs in the balance thus every citizen is very much concerned and very keen to know what’s going on be it in Addis Ababa or Khartoum.

For the overwhelming majority of our people, South Sudan Opposition Alliance) SSOA’s stance and refusal to initial the Agreement on the Outstanding Issues of Governance represented a breeze of hope amid desperation.

Many never saw it coming. The majority of the observers thought at best there would be a split within SSOA (led by Mr. Changson and Dr. Lam Akol, Gen. Thomas Cirillo & others) and most likely two or three Movements would hold out and not succumb to the enormous pressure exerted on the delegates.

They were proven wrong, and SSOA defied the odds by remaining compact and steadfast to its original positions.

It might not be possible to gauge the magnitude of the widespread support that some SSOA members harvested by standing firm behind popular demands like federalism, the abolition of the illegal 32 States, and accountability.

But from the outset, a bombshell landed and exploded in the midst of the peace talks audience when the news of coercion, intimidation, and the obtainment of signatures under duress was leaked out.

That alone added a new dimension to how the public perceived the political leaders who went through that ordeal.

It depicted to many of them the idiom “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.”

Some leaders have done themselves a great favour by standing their grounds. Others might not have known that they have curtailed their political future by giving in to pressure and personal gains.

It’s quite evident that SSOA’s popularity has surged as it’s increasingly being seen as the entity presenting real solutions to the root causes of the conflict.

As for the Riek Machar’s SPLM IO, its initialling of the Agreement on the Outstanding Issues costed it dearly. Its popularity has plummeted significantly.

It’s apparent that the SPLM IO is in turmoil due to Dr Riek Machar abandoning the fundamental objectives that persuaded many in the past to join the Movement.

….Riek Machar has dropped the three major issues namely, federalism, the abolition of the 32 States, and accountability. For many SPLM IO supporters, what he did amounts to a deal breaker.

It’s incredible that people like Dr Luka Biong seem to have turned 180 degrees against what they believed more than a couple of years ago. He was dismissed from his Juba University lecturing post following a direct order from President Kiir to the University administration. The reason was that he organised a public lecture to discuss the constitutionality and legality of the Presidential order number 36 to create the then new 28 States. The majority of the participants including himself were against the Presidential order. He had to leave the country hurriedly to avoid detention or even much worse.

Now, Dr Luka Biong has criticised SSOA for refusing to initial the Agreement on the Outstanding Issues of Governance that stipulates the maintenance of the 32 new States. So, how can he be against the new 28 States back in 2015 but now supports the expanded number of States in 2018?! It makes no sense at all!

His argument that SSOA shouldn’t have refused to initial the Agreement because it did sign the Khartoum Declaration of Agreement (KDA) relinquishing the sovereignty of the country to Sudan; is unconvincing. It’s not a secret that apart from the Former Political Detainees (FPDs), SSOA was never aware nor negotiated the KDA. Dr Luka Biong precisely knows how SSOA ended up signing the document. Signing an agreement in such circumstances means nothing. Appending a signature to some official document is not enough to constitute a deal, but a commitment to abide by it is all the most important. Contemporary history is full of such examples. Perhaps the most famous was the Munich Agreement of 30/09/1938 where Hitler gave the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain a white paper with his signature on it promising non-aggression before the invasion of Poland the next year. And why even go far, the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCSS) was signed by President Kiir on 26/08/2015 and violated by him in July 2016.

Decrying the loss of sovereignty by signing the KDA is misdirected. Dr Luka biong should have known better as a former Minister of Presidential Affairs. South Sudan sovereignty continued to be compromised since the time he was in office. Was he unaware of the alien forces on South Sudan’s soil?! Did he not know that we do not possess a radar system and that Khartoum and Kampala are controlling our airspace?! Has he ever heard of a sovereign country that does not have full control over its territory and airspace? And being a senior member of the SPLM party, does he not think that his leadership bears the responsibility of firstly, failing to equip the country with a radar system? And secondly, signing the Khartoum Oil Agreement (KoilA) and the KDA? Finally, is it logical to pile up criticism on SSOA for its signature on the KDA while saying nothing about the ruling party?

Dr Luka Biong could have alerted his President to the numerous encroachments on the sovereignty of the State by foreign powers since the inception of the Government of South Sudan. He was the Presidential Affairs Minister, and that was the closest one could be to the President and the decision making process. He chose to do nothing for reasons best known to him because I don’t think he was unaware of such glaring facts. It wasn’t an issue of affordability as a fraction of the loot from the oil proceeds would have provided the country with some of the modern radar systems in the world. He was a member of the cabinet when the South Sudanese people first knew about the list of 75 top-ranking officials who purportedly embezzled 4 billion USDs from the coffers.

Some of Luka Biong’s assertions were contradictory when put to scrutiny. On the one hand, he wants SSOA and the FPDs to form a unified opposition to challenge Juba from within while on the other he admits that Salva Kiir and Riek Machar may not provide a conducive environment for sustainable peace. Without the fundamental changes in the system of governance that made SSOA reject the Khartoum proposal, does he not think that it would be the same political environment that led him to flee Juba in 2015?

It’s inaccurate to say that SSOA has accepted President Kiir and Dr Riek Machar to lead the transition. SSOA has declared it time and again that it’s not seeking power-sharing (responsibility sharing) which would certainly not address the root causes of the conflict. SSOA wants the establishment of a government of institutions based on federalism and the devolution of powers to the States. Once the appropriate system of governance is in place, the participation of Salva Kiir and Riek Machar in the transition would depend on how they meet the requirements of such a system.

His claim that SSOA and the FPDs have got no moral standing to convince the South Sudanese people why they refused to initial the proposal is indeed the opposite. Some of the SSOA member organisations would have perished, had they betrayed their masses by initialling the agreement in the form presented to them. Gone are the days when people follow leaders blindly.

Of late we have seen the eminent scholar trying to position himself in the middle of the political debate between the government and the opposition. Well, actions speak much louder than words. In one of his articles, he suggested that President Kiir should be persuaded to step down amicably. What he alluded to would have been reasonable in a democratic environment whereby a leader was cleared of any wrong-doing but still bears the responsibility of mistakes committed by his subordinates. It isn’t the case in South Sudan. There’s a consensus nationally, regionally, and internationally that South Sudan hasn’t been well-governed since the SPLM party took power in 2005. The country tops the list of the Fragile States in the world (aka failed states) with Fragile State Index (FSI) of 113.4 points. Somalia comes second with FSI of 113.2 points and Yemen in the third position with FSI of 112.7 points.

On the corruption front, our country is number 2 behind Somalia with a score of 12 points on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and above Syria. Somalia and Syria both scored 9 and 14 points respectively on the CPI. Luka Biong remains loyal to his previous boss otherwise he would have been vocal within his party asking President Kiir to step down. His political allegiance and views haven’t changed a bit although he is now tactically masquerading as a neutral figure.

I am under no illusion that the road would be easy for SSOA to realise a government of institutions, the upholding of the rule of law, and lasting peace in the Republic of South Sudan. Things would most likely get worse before they could get better. But SSOA has shown to the world the kind of leadership the masses are longing for. It deserves recognition and support from the regional powers and the international community.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok

Gen. Thomas Cirillo: Demand for Federal system and the 10 former states system

RadioTamazuj, Addis Ababa, JUL/24/2018;

Gen. Thomas Cirillo Swaka, leader of the National Salvation Front (NAS), said the opposition seeks to reduce the power of President Salva Kiir and strengthen institutions in the transitional period.

The disaffected army general quit his position in the military last year and formed a rebel group to fight against the government.

In an interview with Radio Tamazuj from Addis Ababa on Monday, General Cirillo, who secretly quit the on-going IGAD-sponsored talks in Khartoum, said the opposition rejected many power sharing proposals presented by the mediation team at ongoing peace talks for failing to address the root cause of the conflict.

He further said the current system of governance in South Sudan is awarding the office of the president wide powers.

The opposition leader underscored that excessive power in President Kiir’s hand is undermining the workings of the democracy and accountability in the world’s youngest nation.

“We don’t want to dwell on power sharing. We want to tackle the system of governance, so we are saying this is our top priority,” Cirillo said.

He pointed out that a fundamental weakness of the current system of government is the way in which it allocates powers and resources to the states and counties.

The opposition official said it is crucial that South Sudanese parties agree on a council of presidency with equal powers during the transitional period.

“We don’t want powers to be in one man’s hand so that he does whatever he wants to do in the country. If Salva Kiir will continue as the president, he should be part of the presidency where there should be a consensus based decision-making process during the transitional period,” he explained.

Cirillo said that the opposition will not religuish its demand to get power at the local government level during the transitional period.

He also said that the people of South Sudan demand for federal governance, a system in which sovereign powers are divided between federal and state governments.”

“The national government has too much power and the states are being weakened, so we are confident that the federal system will empower our people at the local government level. We reject any proposal saying the federal system will be introduced after the transitional period,” he said.

The opposition leader voiced support for a peace agreement that is widely inclusive of the views of the South Sudanese people and that engages civil society, faith-based groups and women.

Cirillo demanded that South Sudan should revert to the defunct 10 states as provided for in the 2015 peace agreement. “If the people of South Sudan demand more states, there will a referendum so that they can decide on the number of states. The current 32 states have caused conflicts in South Sudan,” Cirillo said.

He further said the opposition alliance will sign a peace deal in Khartoum on Thursday if their concerns are addressed by the mediation team.

Detail Copy of the Khartoum ‘Agreement on Outstanding Issues of Governance’ yet to be signed by Kiir & Opposition

Published by SSN, JUL/21/2018;

This is the failed/pending Agreement on Outstanding Issues of Governance to be signed by Kiir’s Government and the rebel/opposition movement.

**Mindful of their commitment under the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 to lay the foundation for a united, peaceful and prosperous society based on justice, equality, respect for human rights and the rule of law,

**Deeply regretting the scale of untold human suffering that had befallen their country and people as a result of disregarding this commitment,

**Determined to compensate their people by recommitting themselves to peace and constitutionalism and not to repeat mistakes of the past,

**Recognizing the prime significance of preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country,

**Cognizant that a federal system of government is a popular demand of the people of the Republic of South Sudan and of the need for the Revitalized TGoNU to reflect this demand by way of devolution of more powers and resources to lower levels of government,

**Confirming the commitments that they have solemnly undertaken in the ARCSS and the Khartoum Declaration,
–The Transitional Government of National Unity of the Republic of South Sudan(TGoNU),
–the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement Army-In Opposition(SPLM/A-IO),
–the South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA),
–Former Detainees(FDs),
–Other Political Parties (OPP), referred to hereinafter collectively as the Parties, confirm their commitment to the agreed part of the Revised Bridging Proposal and hereby resolve as follows the outstanding issues on governance:

1. The Presidency:
1.1. As of the beginning of the Transitional Period:
a. H.E. Salva Kiir Mayardit shall continue as President of the Republic of South Sudan.
(page–2)
b. The Chairman of SPLM/A-IO, Dr Riek Machar Teny, shall assumethe position of the First Vice President of the Republic of South Sudan.

1.2. During the Transitional Period there shall be four Vice Presidents of the Republic of South Sudan who shall be nominated as follows:
a. Vice President to be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.
b. Vice President to be nominated by SSOA.
c. Vice President to be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.
d. Vice President to be nominated by FDs, who shall be a woman.

1.3. Apart from the First Vice President, there shall be no hierarchy among Vice Presidents. The ranking in 1.2 above is for protocol purposes only.

1.4. Decision making in the Presidency shall be in a spirit of collegial collaboration. However, the powers and functions of the President, First Vice President, and Vice Presidents shall be delineated along the provisions of the ARCSS 2015.

1.5. The First Vice President and Vice Presidents shall oversee respectively the following Cabinet Clusters:
(a) First Vice President: Governance Cluster.
(b) Vice President: Economic Cluster.
(c) Vice President: Services Delivery Cluster.
(d) Vice President: Infrastructure Cluster.
(e) Vice President: Gender and Youth Cluster.

2. The Revitalized TGoNU:
2.1. The Council of Ministers shall be comprised of thirty five (35) Ministers that shall be organized in the abovementioned five (5) Clusters.

2.2. The three Clusters stated in the ARCSS shall continue having due regard to the amendments required as a result of creating new Clusters and new Ministries.

2.3. The Infrastructure Cluster shall include Ministries of Energy and Dams; Transport; Roads and Bridges; Information, Communication Technology and Postal Services, and any appropriate Ministry of the five new Ministries.
—(page..3)
2.4. The Gender and Youth Cluster shall include Ministries of Gender, Child and Social Welfare; Culture, Youth, and Sports, and any appropriate Ministry of the five new Ministries.

2.5. The additional five Ministries and their clustering shall be agreed by the Parties before or during the Pre-Transitional Period further to a proposal to be drawn by the IGAD and shall be included in the Revitalized ARCSS. The full list of the thirty five (35) Ministries shall be drawn at that time.

2.6. The Ministerial positions shall be selected as follows:
a. Incumbent TGoNU: 20 Ministers.
b. SPLM/A-IO: 09 Ministers.
c. SSOA: 03 Ministers.
d. FDs: 02 Ministers.
e. OPP: 01 Minister.

2.7. There shall be ten (10) Deputy Ministers in the following Ministries:
a. Cabinet Affairs.
b. Foreign Affairs.
c. Defense.
d. Interior.
e. Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
f. Finance.
g. Agricultural and Food Security.
h. General Educational and Instruction.
i. Public Services and Human Resource Development
j. Lands, Housing and Urban Development.

2.8. Deputy Ministers shall be nominated by the Parties by rotation from the above list according to the following ratio:
a. TGoNU: five (5) Deputy Ministers.
b. SPLM/A-IO: three (3) Deputy Ministers.
c. SSOA: one (1) Deputy Minister.
d. OPP: one (1) Deputy Minister.

2.9. No fewer than three (3) of the Deputy Ministers shall be women.

2.10. No Assistant Presidents, other Ministers or Deputy Ministers shall be appointed during the Transitional Period.
—(page…4)
2.11. If more than two Advisers to the President are appointed, the responsibility sharing ratio shall apply to their selection.

3. The Transitional National Legislature:
3.1. The Transitional National Legislature (TNL) shall consist of the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA) and the Council of States.

3.2. The TNLA shall be dissolved and composed of 550 members who shall be allocated as follows:
a. Incumbent TGoNU: 332 members.
b. SPLM/A-IO: 128 members.
c. SSOA: 50 members.
d. OPP: 35 members.
e. FDs: 5 members.

3.3. The Speaker of the TNLA shall be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU. One Deputy Speaker shall be nominated by OPP and the other, who shall be a woman, shall be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.

3.4. The Council of States shall be dissolved and composed of 50 members or the closest figure that can be shared evenly by the States as per the number that shall be recommended by the IBC. However, the minimum number for the representatives of every and each State shall be two.

3.5. The membership of the Council of States shall be reconstituted as per the responsibility sharing ratio.

3.6. The Speaker of the Council of States shall be nominated by SPLM/A-IO and the Deputy Speaker shall be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.

4. Number and Boundaries of States:
4.1. Within thirty (30) days of the signing of the Revitalized ARCSS, the IGAD Executive Secretariat, taking into account the decision of the 55th Extra-Ordinary Session of the IGAD Council of Ministers held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, January 30-31, 2016, shall appoint Independent
Boundaries Commission (IBC) for the Republic of South Sudan.

4.2. The IBC shall consist of fifteen (15) members with the necessary skills and expertise.
—(page…5)
4.3. Members of the IBC shall be appointed as follows:
a. Five (5) South Sudanese who shall be appointed by the Parties, one (1) each.
b. Two (2) representatives of the IGAD states that shall come from states with no boundaries with South Sudan.
c. Three (3) representatives of the Troika states.
d. Five (5) representatives of the African Union that shall be from the C5 states.

4.4. The IBC shall be chaired by one of its non-South Sudanese members who shall be of recognized standing and integrity and who should have had occupied a senior judicial, executive or administrative position in his home country.

4.5. The IBC may retain the services of a team of experts.

4.6. The IBC shall establish three teams, each consisting of five representatives and relevant experts, to be deployed at locations it will designate.

4.7. The function of the IBC shall be to consider the number of States of the Republic of South Sudan and their boundaries and to make recommendations on the same.

4.8. The IBC shall focus on studying the alternatives currently proposed by the Parties and any other viable alternatives in the light of guidelines that shall be drawn beforehand. The IBC shall also draw its own internal regulations.

4.9. The IBC shall strive to arrive at its recommendations by consensus. If consensus is not achieved, the IBC shall adopt its recommendations by simple majority.

4.10. The recommendations of the IBC shall be presented to the IGAD Executive Secretariat and shall be immediately communicated to the Parties.

4.11. The IBC shall complete its work within ninety (90) days, extendable to a maximum of ninety (90) days more. In all cases it shall make its recommendations on the number and boundaries of States during the Pre-Transitional Period. Thereafter it shall be dissolved.
—(page…6)
4.12. The Parties agree to abide by the recommendations of the IBC, and hereby authorize the IGAD Executive Secretariat to enshrine those recommendations in the Revitalized ARCSS. The Parties accept to implement the recommendations in full at the beginning of the Transitional Period.

4.13. In the unlikely event of the IBC failing to make its recommendations before the end of the Pre-Transitional Period, the Republic of South Sudan shall have as regions the old three provinces, as per their boundaries of January 1st 1956. This solution shall be adopted on
temporary basis until the number and boundaries of the States are agreed.

5. States and Local Government
5.1. The Responsibility sharing ratio at State level and local government level shall be as follows:
a. Incumbent TGoNU: 55%
b. SPLM/A-IO: 25%
c. SSOA: 10%
d. OPP: 10%

5.2. State and local governments shall be dissolved and reconstituted as per the responsibility sharing formula stated above.

5.3. The positions that shall be subject to responsibility sharing include: Governors, Speakers of State Legislatures, State Councils of Ministers, State Legislatures, County Commissioners, County Councils, Mayors and City Councils.

5.4. In sharing State and local government positions Parties shall take into account the relative prominence each Party has in the respective State or Payam and effective administration of that unit.

5.5. The FDs shall have three State Ministers in States of their choice.

6. General Provisions:
6.1. The Parties recognize that during the Pre-Transitional Period, the Incumbent TGoNU shall continue to exercise its powers as per the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011.
—(page…7)
6.2. At the beginning of the Pre-Transitional Period, the Parties shall issue a solemn commitment to their people and the international community at large confirming unequivocally that they will not return to war and shall work hand in hand diligently and collectively for the sake of peace and stability of their country. In particular, the Parties shall pledge to use the resources of the country wisely and transparently, for the best interests of the people of the Republic of South Sudan, and to put in place the efficient mechanisms required for achieving this paramount goal. In their solemn commitment the Parties shall also appeal to the international community for support and cooperation at this difficult time of the Republic of South Sudan.

6.3. The activities that shall be undertaken during the Pre–Transitional Period, which can take as long as 8 months, shall include:
a. Dissemination of the Revitalized ARCSS to South Sudanese People inside the country, in different cities and towns of Sudan, in refugee camps in neighboring countries, and in diaspora, so that the people can own it.
b. Carrying out the tasks entrusted to the IBC.
c. A process of national healing and reconciliation that shall be led by all Parties inside and outside of the Republic of South Sudan.
d. The agreed security arrangement activities.
e. Incorporation of the Revitalized ARCSS in the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011.
f. Reviewing and drafting necessary bills as per the Revitalized ARCSS.
g. Any other activities agreed by the Parties.

6.4. Provisions of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan and ARCSS on participation of women (35 %) in the Executive shall be observed. In particular, Incumbent TGoNU shall nominate no fewer than six (6) women to the Council of Ministers, and SPLM-IO shall nominate no fewer than three (3) women to the Council of Ministers.

6.5. Having in mind that more than 70 percent of the population in the Republic of South Sudan is under the age of thirty and that youth are the most affected by the war and represent high percentage of refugees and —(page…7) IDPs, the Parties shall strive to include people of young age in their quotas at different levels. In particular, the Minister of Culture, Youth, and Sports in the Revitalized TGoNU shall be less than forty (40) years old.

6.6. In selecting their nominees Parties shall give due consideration to national diversity, including regional representation.

6.7. Without prejudice to Paragraph 6.1. above, a National Pre–Transitional Committee (NPTC) shall be formed as follows by the President of the Republic of South Sudan within thirty days of signing the Revitalized ARCSS:

a. The NPTC shall be formed of ten members representing the Parties as follows:
— five (5) for Incumbent TGoNU,
— two (2) for SLPM/A-IO,
— one (1) for SSOA,
— one (1) for FDs, and
— one (1) for OPP.
The NPTC shall be chaired by TGoNU representative with two Deputy Chairs to be nominated by SPLM/A-IO and SSOA respectively, and shall adopt its decisions by consensus.

b. The NPTC shall be entrusted with the function of oversight and coordination of the implementation of the activities of the Pre–Transitional Period with the Incumbent TGoNU taking full account of all constitutional institutions and powers.

c. The NPTC shall draw the road map for implementing the political tasks of the Pre-Transitional Period, prepare a budget for the activities of the Pre–Transitional Period that involve the Parties, and address issues of VIP security and preparations for new Ministers, among others.

d. The NPTC shall start its work in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and shall move to Juba sometime during the Pre-Transitional Period. The NPTC shall be dissolved when the Pre-Transitional Period ends.

6.8. There shall be established a fund for the implementation of the political and security activities of the Pre–Transitional Period provided for in the Revitalized ARCSS. The fund, which shall be drawn from the proceeds of oil, shall be deposited by Incumbent TGoNU in an escrow account in a bank agreed to by the NPTC. The NPTC shall manage the fund (page—8) transparently and report on it monthly to the President of the Republic of South Sudan and to the Parties.

6.9. The Parties shall agree on Inter-Ministerial Mechanism for Implementation of the Revitalized ARCSS including reporting to JMEC. The IGAD led mediation and the Guarantors shall revitalize and
restructure all monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure inclusivity of all Parties, including new Parties, and to enhance the effectiveness of all mechanisms. Such review and restructuring shall be included in the Revitalized ARCSS.

6.10. Within 12 (twelve) months of the beginning of the Transitional Period, the Reconstituted National Constitutional Amendments Committee (NCAC) shall revise relevant laws and draft new legislations pursuant to the Revitalized ARCSS.

6.11. The Parties reaffirm their agreement in the ARCSS that a federal and democratic system of governance that reflects the character of the Republic of South Sudan and ensures unity in diversity be enacted during the permanent constitution making process.

6.12. The Parties also reaffirm their commitment to the principle of lean government and to having national assembly that shall have a number of members commensurate with the number of population pursuant to the internationally recognized proportions. The Parties recognize that the high number of members of the Executive and TNLA is agreed herein on exceptional basis for the purposes of the Transitional Period only and that those numbers shall form no precedent or any precursor for the future.

6.13. This Agreement shall prevail on contradictory or incompatible provisions of ARCSS and the Revised Bridging Proposal.

Done in Khartoum, Sudan, this day 19th of July 2018.

To Be Signed:
For Incumbent TGoNU
……………………………………………………………
For SPLM/A-IO
……………………………………………………………………
For SSOA
……………………………………………………………………………
For FDs
………………………………………………………………………………
For OPP
………………………………………………………………………………
For the Republic of Sudan (Guarantor):
……………………………………………
For IGAD (Witness):
…………………………………………………………………………..

Salva Kiir’s kingdom of doom, killings and tyranny

By: Duop Chak Wuol, South Sudanese, JUN/17/2018, SSN;

Empires come and go, regardless of whether they’re good or bad. One of the chief measures employed by historians is an investigatory examination into the legacies the empires leave behind — these legacies are always methodically scrutinized by the people who the empires once ruled.

In South Sudan, the final report of Salva Kiir’s regime is already written on the wall. Kiir’s leadership isn’t just troubling; it’s a kingdom of destruction where his regime’s policy is heavily influenced by tribal interests instead of issues that’re of national importance.

South Sudan cannot be a stable country if we don’t tell the truth. Kiir’s presidency is indisputably an ethnic one.

The man is not a president for all, although he claims to be such a leader only when he sees a real threat to his leadership.

Kiir surrounds himself with known tribal hooligans who’ve hate towards other South Sudanese ethnicities. For instance, the notorious Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), that’s by default a co-president of South Sudan, is consumed by a twisted belief that the Jieng should be the only tribe to lead South Sudan.

The South Sudanese believe that Kiir and the JCE don’t work for all South Sudanese, rather they work for JCE’s interests.

This seemingly ethnic thinking is also maintained by Defense Minister Kuol Manyang Juuk, information minister Michael Makuey Lueth, and Presidential adviser Nhial Deng Nhial, among others.

But if one asks these three men if they’re for a tribal supremacy, they’d deny it and even try to kiss the soil to prove that they’re not tribalists. Kuol, Michael, and Nhial are known tribal freaks who always talk diplomatically during the day and tribally at night.

Salva Kiir always claims to be a man who cares for unity in South Sudan. History tells us that a good leader who cares for his or her legacy tends to focus mainly on policies that unite people and develop the economy.

Kiir’s a heartless tyrant who cares nothing for the suffering of the people of South Sudan because his immediate family members and close relatives don’t suffer the same way other South Sudanese do.

In addition, it appears that Kiir’ll only accept peace or act with care and consideration if, and only if, he’s confronted with a real threat striking at his very doorstep.

The man has been making surprisingly absurd claims about his leadership. Kiir believes that the people of South Sudan should recognize his leadership as the legitimate moral authority of the country.

However, investigations into his regime demonstrate that these claims are inconsistent with an actual, material state of affairs. Surely, any leader who cares for his people wouldn’t destroy his or her own country and demand respect from people at the same time.

What’s clear is that Kiir’s main focus is an imposition of a tribal supremacy on other South Sudanese tribes. This is a monumental mistake on his part. He forgets the fact that his presidency will be gone and that he’s placing an irremovable stain on his legacy and family members.

Kiir isn’t the good person he always wants people to believe. His background is spoiled with appalling crimes. In public, Kiir will pose as a national figure who deserves to be trusted by the South Sudanese. But in private, he’s a very dangerous man.

In Kiir’s world, anyone who glorifies his tyranny is a good person and anyone who questions his cruelty is a bad person. This is like a madman trying to blame his mental issue on bystanders.

In 2004, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) was fractured by rumors and factional interests. Kiir himself was furious about former SPLM/A leader, the late Dr. John Garang.

When the leaders of the SPLM met in Rumbek in late 2004, Kiir accused Dr. Garang of controlling everything in the movement. Kiir, who’s second in command of the SPLM/A at the time, also dispelled rumors about him being against chairman Garang.

He admitted during the conference that he’s for peace because his people, the people of Bahr El Ghazal, were the ones who’re hit hard by famine and attacks from Arab militias. Kiir also blamed Garang for allowing uncoordinated leadership conferences to take place.

A methodical analysis of Salva Kiir’s speech at the 2004 Rumbek meeting shows that Kiir’s now doing the very same things he once accused Dr. Garang of doing.

For instance, he cunningly changed South Sudan’s constitution to make himself an absolute dictator, imposed some provisions in the SPLM’s by-laws that allowed him to appoint his allies to the party leadership, and gave himself powers to appoint some members of the national parliament, including state governors, among others.

So Kiir’s claim of being a rational leader who wanted the democratization of the SPLM/A during the 2004 conference was a pure deceit and merely showed that he’s more dangerous than the people he always accused of wrongdoings.

Kiir’s tyranny didn’t begin when he took over the leadership of the SPLM/A in 2005. His brutality began in the late 1980s when he was the head of the SPLA military intelligence. His ruthlessness later developed to a serious stage.

In Itang, for example, Kiir was known as someone who’d summon any military commander he hated to his headquarters and execute him or her, using surprisingly similar techniques to those he now uses.

Another method was that Kiir’d abruptly tell a commander that he or she was ordered to immediately go to a frontline, claiming some changes in military command had taken place. When such an officer agreed to go, Kiir then ordered his own killing squad to eliminate the officer on the way.

For instance, Kiir’d tell the targeted person to travel in an SPLA car with a few bodyguards, carefully choose a road the individual would travel, and when the person began his or her fake assignment journey, he or she’d be stopped on the road by Kiir’s thugs and silenced for good.

After his orders were fulfilled by his killing squad, Kiir’d then turn around and lie to the family members of the deceased that he or she is still fighting on the frontline.

But when Kiir knew the family of the person he secretly eliminated was skeptical of his elaborate lies, he’d fabricate a story that the person in question was killed on the frontline.

As you can see, Kiir’s use of unknown gunmen today is deeply rooted in his blood. If there’re people who believe Kiir’s a good leader then, does this make you wonder why he’s a bad leader now? But as you can see, Kiir’s background speaks for itself.

Salva Kiir’s ambition to become an absolute dictator is real. For instance, when Dr. Riek Machar spearheaded the national reconciliation in 2012, Kiir was noticeably furious.

He employed his trusted sycophants who publicly accused Machar of running against Kiir. The irony is that Kiir now wants the national reconciliation he once labeled as “Machar’s campaign strategy” to oust him from the party leadership.

Kiir’s campaign of trying to hide behind a false concern for the nation can easily be tested if a non-Dinka tries to run against him for the party leadership or presidency.

This was what happened in 2013, when it was clear his then deputy Machar was going to take over the leadership of the SPLM. This was where Kiir’s political madness exploded.

At that time, most South Sudanese forecasted that there was going to be blood on Juba’s streets.

This prediction occurred in late 2013, when Kiir unleashed tribally-motivated attacks on Nuer civilians in Juba under the pretext of a bogus coup.

What some people do not know is the fact that Kiir’s decision to prevent Machar from contesting the party leadership was tribally-motivated.

Kiir’s a very cunning person. If his current First Vice President Taban Deng Gai decides to contest the chairmanship of the party while Kiir’s a candidate for the same post, I guarantee you that Kiir’ll go ballistic, and Taban and his followers will be slaughtered the same way Kiir massacred innocent Nuer in December 2013.

Kiir’s presidency is all about tribal reign, but because the case is somewhat sensitive, Kiir’d claim that he isn’t a tribalist. But nobody’d believe him except his tyrannical ring-lickers.

Kiir’s strategy isn’ot only limited to Dinka and Nuer decades of rivalry. This could happen to any non-Dinka person who tries to run for a position Kiir holds.

If you wonder why, then try to convince James Wani Igga to run for Kiir’s position and see what happens.

Kiir has built a kingdom that’s too destructive for the country. The people of South Sudan must stand up against this atrocious regime to free themselves.

We didn’t fight against Khartoum’s regime only to face the same brutality again. Kiir must be forced to accept peace or be confronted militarily until he’s buried in the same coffin with his doomed presidency.

The author can be reached at duop282@gmail.com.

BREAKING NEWS: UN sanctions defense minister, butcher Kuol Manyang and Martin Lomuro

From different sources. MAY/27/2018, SSN;

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has slapped sanctions against South Sudan defense minister Kuol Manyang Juk over ceasefire violations and Martin Lomuro, the cabinet affairs minister for threats to the press and UN and foreign organizations.

UNSC said the crisis in South Sudan was being fueled by the conduct of leaders like ‘Butcher’ Gen Juk, who believed in violence, thus prolonging the suffering of the people.

During the SPLM/A war of liberation in the 1980’s, the notorious Kuol Manyang infamously earned the despicable title of ‘Butcher of Equatoria’ for the egregious killings and gross human rights he personally oversaw and allegedly ordered and committed as SPLA chief commander in Eastern Equatoria region.

In the Palotaka area of Eastern Equatoria alone, Kuol Manyang kept hundreds of young boys and girls in slave-like conditions whereby these kids were starved, sexually and physically abused by him and his tribal soldiers.

“Under (Gen) Juk’s command, SPLA forces violated the agreement on cessation of hostilities, protection of civilians and humanitarian access signed between government and rebels in 2017,” UNSC said in a statement following a Saturday meeting in New York.

It also said Gen Juk provided military support to the SPLM/A-N, the main Sudanese movement fighting the Khartoum regime, to attack Pagak, the rebel headquarters inside South Sudan.

The conflict
“Under (Gen) Juk’s command and his support to the Sudanese rebel group, the SPLM-N extended the conflict through offensive in South Sudan’s Pagak,” it says.

Cabinet Affairs minister Elia Lomoro was also sanctioned for threatening members of the press against critical coverage of the conflict in the country.
“Minister Lomoro threatened the press, obstructs humanitarian missions, and threatened to eliminate the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangement Monitoring Mechanism (CTSAMM).

“(Dr) Lomoro also obstructed the activities of the UNMISS,” the statement reads.

Two pilots
Sanctioned from the Dr Riek Machar’s camp was Gen Koang Rambang Cho, who is accused of leading an attack in Bieh State recently.

“He ordered his forces to restrict the moment of people working in humanitarian organisations. He was responsible for the detention of the two pilots delivering aid, obstructing their humanitarian activities,” the UNSC statement says.

The global security agency also renewed and extended to May 31, 2019 sanctions imposed on several other key South Sudan leaders namely; Information minister Michael Makuei, former army deputy chief of staff Malek Rueben and rebel leader Paul Malong. END