Federalism isn’t the cause of war in South Sudan

BY: Dr. Lako Jada Kwajok, South Sudan, AUG/19/2018, SSN;

Five days ago, Roger Alfred Yoron Modi, published an article under the title “Federalism does not deserve war in South Sudan.” The title is quite misleading and nothing could be further from the truth.

The whole world knows that the war in South Sudan was the result of a power struggle within the SPLM party between President Kiir and his deputy, the then sacked Vice President and Deputy Chairman of the SPLM party, Dr Riek Machar.

The South Sudanese people were not responsible for igniting the war, but it was imposed on them by their leaders.

The government narrative was that it was a coup d’etat orchestrated and executed by Dr Riek Machar and his followers. That narrative fell flat under scrutiny and gained the regime Four Pinocchios on The Fact Checker Rating System.

Even President Museveni, Kiir’s main ally, refuted the claim that what happened in Juba in December 2013 was a coup d’etat.

Many of us know that Riek Machar was against federalism. It’s well documented in a meeting with the Equatorians in Nyakuron Cultural Centre in Juba before the conflict where Riek Machar threatened the Equatorians for pursuing federalism.

He needed the support of the Equatorians in his fight against President Kiir. Hence Riek Machar resorted to a tactical move by embracing federalism and even becoming more vocal about it than the pioneers.

It’s no wonder that Riek Machar has foregone federalism at the earliest opportunity to reclaim his previous position in the government. It’s clear that federalism was never the cause of the rift within the SPLM party nor the reason that South Sudan ended up in a protracted civil war.

The government went to great lengths to suppress any debates about federalism be it in the media or among the populace. Even a media gag was imposed by the government not to engage in any activities related to federalism.

A poor man was shot dead in Maridi for voicing out his support for federalism. Such an act would have drawn condemnation from the President and members of his cabinet because it was a politically motivated act of extreme violence by members of the security organs.

The case of the unfortunate man was deliberately left to fall into oblivion with no investigation, arrests or convictions. But there were numerous cases of assassinations that went unnoticed by the media.

It was noted that around that time the activities of the unknown gunmen suddenly picked up to unprecedented levels. It was common knowledge that the unknown gunmen targeted those who were vocal in their support for federalism.

At that time, no one knew for sure the identity of the unknown gunmen. It’s only recently that General Paul Malong, the former Chief of Staff of the SPLA unveiled the identity of the unknown gunmen.

We now know that they are members of the National Security Service (NSS) under the direct orders of the President and led by General Akol Koor, the Director General of Internal Security at the NSS.

Such is the environment Roger Alfred Yoron Modi thinks is conducive for a democratic discourse on the issue of federalism with all the opposition groups in Juba. One must be blind, deaf or incredibly naive to believe what our eminent journalist is alluding to.

It’s an oversimplification or just outright dishonesty to claim that the National Salvation Front (NAS) is rejecting the agreement on the Outstanding Issues of Governance because of non-inclusion of federalism.

Likewise, it’s illogical to suggest that by doing so, NAS is opting for war. It’s turning into a familiar theme that whoever does not sign the cumbersome deal is a warmonger.

At this juncture where the future of the country is in doubt, those sincere sons and daughters of South Sudan need to tell the truth.

Where in the world that you find a government having 5 Vice Presidents?! The superpowers of the world (America, Rusia, China) all have one Vice President each.

Furthermore, South Sudan represents only a fraction of the territory and population size of those superpowers. Are we being made by our leaders into a laughing stock across the world?!

But the most critical thing concerning peace is the Security Arrangements. NAS has already appended its signature to it showing its full commitment for peace. It did sign the Cessation of Hostility Agreement (CoHA) in Addis Ababa in December 2017.

The National Salvation Front continued to honour the CoHA with no single violation recorded against it by the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangement Monitoring Mechanism (CTSAMM).

It’s because of an unambiguous policy that gives priority to peace. NAS could undoubtedly cause problems for the government in various ways, but its leaders are more concerned about the plight of the ordinary people of South Sudan who are yearning for a just peace.

Our journalist also brought up the issue of NAS signing the Security Arrangements but not the Outstanding Issues on Governance as a sort of inconsistency or contradiction.

Looking at previous peace talks across the world; shows that what NAS did was never a precedent but consistent with numerous past experiences.

In peace negotiations, the parties could agree on some points while disagreeing with others that could take months or even few years to resolve. The talks could be adjourned, and when they are resumed, they do not start from square one but from where they stopped in the previous peace talks.

I am sure that our journalist is aware that the government refused to sign the Declaration of Principles (DoP) in Addis Ababa in March 2018, yet the negotiations were allowed to continue.

So now the government has signed the agreement on governance because it gives it what it wants but not the DoP that was approved by NAS and the other members of the South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA).

So, where is the difference between the two positions? And why is the government’s position right while the one that belongs to NAS is wrong?! Are we dealing with a worthless, biased view?!

It’s important to understand that federalism is not the only reason that led NAS to reject the agreement on governance.

NAS is pursuing a holistic solution to the conflict that would put an end to the war and bring about a lasting peace. It’s untrue that NAS didn’t propose the type of federalism that suits South Sudan.

It was contained in NAS’s proposal to the pre-Forum Consultations of the High-Level Revitalisation Forum (HLRF) for the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCSS).

But to our surprise, our proposal, as well as the ones from the other opposition Movements/Parties, were ignored by the IGAD mediation team. There are good reasons to insist on the institution of federalism in the transition.

Firstly, ARCSS stipulates that the National Constitutional Amendment Committee (NCAC) drafts a Constitutional Amendment bill within (21) days upon signing the agreement.

The bill shall incorporate the agreement into the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan (TCRSS). Federalism could be incorporated into the TCRSS within that timeframe.

All are supposed to occur in the pre-transition period. All are doable and in good time.

Secondly, Federalism is a popular demand since 1947, and there’s no any convincing reason to further delay its implementation.

Thirdly, The government track-record and apparent hostility against federalism as outlined above is no comfort for leaving the matter to be addressed well into the transition.

The notion that our people need understanding and enlightenment on the various types of federalism is flawed. How many among the elites in South Sudan who know the types of federalism? Not very many.

I contend that the percentage of those who know would not be much different from the one belonging to their peers in America, India or Brazil.

According to the US Department of Education, 32 million adults (9.8%) in the US can’t read. The federal government was established in 1789, that’s 229 years ago. If the illiteracy percentage is 9.8% now, what was it over two centuries ago?!

The Americans managed to run a successful federal government and made America a superpower.

The federal government of Brazil came into being in 1889, which is 129 years ago. At that time the literacy in Brazil was 16%. It means, 84% of the Brazilians were illiterate people when federalism was introduced.

Regardless of the population size, the case of India is much closer to ours. The literacy percentages in India in 1951 and 2001 were 17.02% and 21.59% respectively. Our current literacy percentage is 27% which is higher than that of India.

India is the biggest democracy on earth enjoying a prosperous and stable federal system of governance. Roger Alfred Yoron Modi would struggle in vain to make people favour such an assertion.

Regarding the Presidency, there seems to be an assumption that all the opposition groups have agreed for Kiir and Machar to lead the transition.

NAS position is that any individual who had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity should be excluded from the transition. The same applies to those who are suspects of embezzlement of public funds.

There’s a valid argument for adopting such a stance which is to avoid conflict of interests. How could the Hybrid Court of South Sudan (HCSS) function independently and fairly with President Kiir and Dr Riek Machar at the helm of the government?!

The following is an excerpt from the report of the African Union Commision of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS). “The commision therefore, finds that in order for the reconciliation process to begin, those with the greatest responsibility for atrocities at the highest level should be brought to account and mechanisms should be established to address other concerns specific to victims of violations and crimes, which include reparation.”

NAS position takes the moral high ground and conforms with the AUCISS recommendations in its entirety. It addresses the issue of accountability which seems to have been thrown out of the window in the agreement on governance.

Of course, there are some within SSOA who are more interested in power-sharing than addressing the root causes of the conflict. They do not mind letting Kiir and Machar lead the transition as long as they are given the positions they want.

NAS argument in this regard is to institute the right system of governance (Federalism) at the beginning of the transition with full accountability. That alone would address the issue of who participates in the transition and who doesn’t.

The number of States should have been a non-starter. The journalist knows very well that ARCSS is based on the pre-conflict 10 States. The inclusion of the illegal 32 States for negotiation by IGAD re-enforces the view by many that the mediation team is biased.

The Independent Boundaries Commission (IBC) and the Referendum Commission on Number and Boundaries of States (RCNBC) shouldn’t have been there in the first place. They were never a part of ARCSS.

Now a paradox has arisen because IGAD talks of revitalising ARCSS while incorporating violations into it at the same time.

Those in the opposition who have caved in and chosen to go along with the 32 states, ought to stop deceiving their followers that there is still a chance to reverse the measure when they go to Juba. By then, they would have appointed their own as Governors for the States allocated to them. What argument would they come up with to challenge the 32 States which they have already become part of it?!

Our journalist has rubbished the renewal of armed conflict during the upcoming transition like what happened in July 2016. He cited that the signing of the Security Arrangements by all the parties including NAS is enough evidence that such a thing would not happen.

But a similar signing did happen in August 2015, and yet war broke out. Even the body language of the President and his refusal to shake hands with Dr Riek Machar at the Khartoum Peace Agreement signing ceremony; is quite ominous.

When you add to that President Kiir’s speech on arrival at Juba International Airport – it becomes a matter of not “if” but “when” would the said peace agreement collapse.

Roger Alfred Yoron Modi is a very “prolific” journalist. I want to draw the reader’s attention to another article that he published one day before this one. It’s under the title “Collusion and harmful actions against South Sudan peace process.”

But much of the article is a talk about himself which I find contradictory to its title. The gist of his talk is that he is under threats for what he stands for from the government as well as from undisclosed individuals best known to him.

South Sudan under President Kiir is decidedly a dangerous place for journalists. Here is the list of journalists who were killed in South Sudan since 2012.

1. Isaiah Diing Abraham – Sudan Tribune – killed outside his home in Qudele, Juba on 05/12/2012.
2. Musa Mohammed – South Sudan Radio Wau.
3. Boutros Martin – South Sudan Television.
4. Dalia Marko – Raja Radio Station.
5. Randa George – Randa – Raja Radio Station.
6. Adam Juma – Raja Radio Station.

From 2 to 6 – killed by unknown gunmen in Wau on 25/01/2015.

7. Pow James Raeth – Radio Tamazuj – caught in gunfire between warring groups on 20/05/2015 in Akobo.
8. Peter Julius Moi – South Sudan Corporate Weekly – killed a few days after President Kiir threatened journalists.
9. John Gatluak Manguet – killed by government forces in Terrain Hotel, Juba on 11/07/2016.

We know that Roger Alfred Yoron Modi was the former Managing Editor of Juba Monitor and former Chief Editor of Bakhita Radio. Also, we do know that Alfred Taban, the Editor-in-Chief of the Juba Monitor was appointed as MP to the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA) on the ticket of First Vice President (FVP) Taban Deng Gai.

Now we all know that Taban Deng Gai’s group has gone back to the SPLM mainstream under President Salva Kiir Mayardit. So, I don’t understand why Roger Alfred Yoron Modi should feel insecure in Juba.

His previous boss who is now part of the ruling party could phone the Chief of Intelligence, General Akol Koor, and his name would immediately be removed from the blacklist in case of a mistaken identity.

As for those individuals who continue to pose a threat to his life and who are not members of the regime, General Akol Koor could similarly be contacted, and the problem would be sorted out in no time. He would unleash the unknown gunmen to hunt-down those “criminals.”

Notwithstanding the above, our journalist wants the opposition including NAS to go to Juba on board an agreement that consolidates the status quo.

It’s ironical that while he feels unsafe in Juba despite not being identified as a potential threat to the regime, he wants those who went through the J1 shooting ordeal in July 2016; not to worry about their safety. It’s beyond logic!

The National Salvation Front is a people-centric Movement driven by the need to realise the aspirations of the people in the form of equality, justice, development, and peace.

It would leave no stone unturned in its quest for a just and sustainable peace.

NAS has prioritised peaceful settlement of the conflict over other means as long as opportunities for peace talks remain on the table for all the parties.

It’s out of NAS conviction that the victims on both sides are the same South Sudanese people. Therefore, if there’s a way to resolve the conflict peacefully and save lives, then it’s the option NAS would choose.

Finally, it’s important to state that federalism is not a recipe for war but a means to avoid future wars.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok


  1. Dear: The Author Dr.Lako Jada Kwajok

    What you said in your posted article,some are very true.But some are pack of lies! Be specific.Tell to people the name of people those who are disliking federalism governance in the country in the South Sudan Republic in the government.

    You said National Salvation Front movement of Gen.Thomas Cirillo,is a remedy to the problem of the country in the South Sudan Republic! This is WISHING THINKING ALTOGETHER! Him Mr.General Thomas Cirrillo,needs to come forward with FEDERALISM SUBJECT.He is just talking on Federalism System in the South Sudan government. But which type?And which one!? Which Model?Federalism,have many different forms on governing in the government!

    Sincere:Liberating People!


    Kansas City,Missouri,USA

  2. Mor-amook says:

    Dear Dr. Lako, At least your article is not tribe targeting or tribally stigmatize, so thanks for that. This is how Southerners (junuben) should sell their opinions in social platform like this. I really respect your education from today on unlike others who display their tribal agenda nakedly. I never work in government since 2005 to-date believe it or not. I am liberal and speaking out of my mine as citizen of this beloved country.

    Despite your nice article, I don’t agree on how you emphasize federalism as the root cause of this conflict. Yes, it could be one of problem to blame. To me, our problem is our resources, the root cause of the conflict are resources in South Sudan whether you agree or not. For example, why were we supported by the USA until we attained independent?

    Not because of human rights, or being Christian & black fighting Muslims majority, not because of anything else other than resources we have. Our leaders have had greedy hearts and wanted to become billionaires in a matter of few months or years. Also unclear foreign policy of south Sudan that seems to abandoning West despite enormous support is another factor. Thus, the conflict of interest between elites in government benefiting from resources and the west/USA not getting its interest back have created space for serious internal opposition pushing us to where we are.I believe your party (NAS) has some promises to those jackals should you come to power.

    Why did we voted for separation from Sudan, if federalism was the only system of governance that can make a country strong and united? There would have been no reason to divide Sudan. The slogan of SPLM/A by then should have been fighting for federal system in Sudan. I believe Bahsir with his party NCP would not refuse if the demand was turn Sudan into Federal state. Nigeria has Muslims and is federal state. My Dr. Lako, federal system alone cannot stop conflict in South Sudan, Ethiopia is federal state but there are rebels in Oromo region fighting federal system of governance, why? Nigeria is federal state but has not been stable even before Boko-Haram emerge in 2011, why?

    Look, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda are not in federal system of governance but they are doing well in term of economy and security. To me, it’s a question of accepting ourselves as equal citizens of one nation regardless of our tribes and strong institutions to enforce rule of laws are lacking. I support federal system, but to me, it’s not the right time to introduce it. It will deepen the already prevailing stigma of tribalism in the country.

    People will not understand federal system as just for close governance and service delivery without infringing to equal rights of all, but rather they will pick it as separation, that non indigenous should either leave start or not have rights to stay, resources…etc. For example, when our state was divided into three states, the offspring states were so jubilant to extend of telling us bye, bye, thank God we shall never meet again. As a result, now we are experiencing negative statements of segregation.

    The issue of federal system needs to be put in referendum to lay it to rest, the proponent and opponent will see and hear from public.

    • Taban Alimasi says:

      Mr Mor-amok
      I am not sure if you understood the article, Dr Lako did not claimed South Sudan war in 2013 was caused by federalism. The title of the article alone informs the argument, clearly mentioned that it was “leadership struggle within the ruling part the SPLM”, but you can accuse him of promoting a particular movement which is NAS, but as a free citizen, that is his right to publish about a movement his support. Sometimes we need to accept truths, we shouldn’t be a custom to rejecting facts for the purpose argument, I do agree with you, federalism alone may not stop conflict but is one step in the right direction.
      You compared the current situation with the Sudan war, which was different from the current war. The ideology of SPLM/A under Dr John was superior and different than now, clearly articulated under New Sudan vision. If you were old enough to have followed the movement from 1983, you would have understood what SPLM/A had fought for.
      I am sorry to see you want to compare South Sudan with corrupt East African countries, who has and is participating in looting our country’s wealth, these countries are not relevant to be an example. If you consider these countries are peaceful, and then you are not reading news and not following the politics of the regions.

    • Eastern says:


      You are very naive indeed. SPLA and SPLM should have CHOSEN WHO supported them! Now blame those in charge of the movement for taking all baits dangled at them from Museveni, USA, et al……Museveni now wants his share of the cake (through the unregulated market in South Sudan), etc……Thank the Americans for having the hearts by financing the humanitarian activities in South Sudan. The Chinese have of late attempted to provide ‘rice’ and anti malarial drugs, etc.

      Now the monstrous party is in bed with China which was on the side of Al Bashir thrashing SPLA! Do you still have faith in these morons in Juba who have run the country aground in record time? Please wake up from that slumber, it’s midday!

  3. Eastern says:

    When schizophrenia sets in, you begin fearing even the IMMEDIATE family members!

    Federalism or lack of may not be the cause of the current political inferno, but certainly it is the main recepe for the next political inferno, call it civil war.

    I had liked the writings of of this young man from the beginning, but I am now wondering if his recent diversionary pieces are not the result of compromise thanks to being offered a life Bouy by the regime in his self-imposed exile!

    The young man is obviously shaken by what befallen the two doctors: Biar Ajak and James Okuk, who stubbornly or stupidly thought they can challenge the emperor from within!

    • Deng Monymor says:

      The string attached to Federalism in South Sudan is clear to all who are smart enough to see–except the fools who are watching but they can’t see. Whatever reason you give to it, nothing changes what your intention is, the dark dream of a fearful being among our diverse groups. It is clear that war won’t reward you with it but you think Federation will. Don’t play us fool.

  4. J. Malooma says:

    A witchhunt perhaps witchcraft is when engaged your audience or supporters with a misleading information!
    Mor – Amook,
    Yours is a hard-core misleading narrative; and that’s why Kirr-JCE will never recovered from this crisis. Comparing South Sudan’ situation with those of Ethiopia, Nigeria etc is not only a coverup and incompetence, but, it’s also an indication of lack of critical thinking/reasoning.
    Dr. LJK,
    How would you manage to exclude Dr. Riek from the peace and transitional government if the IO wanted to keep him? And how are you going to excludes Kirr-JCE when you didn’t changed the regime? Let’s me know!

    • Mor-amook says:

      Tribalist Malooma, you have different agenda coded in the name of federalism, and you ought to be clear. Why are you so furious when someone has different opinion on federalism? You must have an agenda which you want to achieve through federalism. You will really disclose that coded agenda and we are not afraid of it.

      Please answer, why did we break away from Sudan, if federalism was the best system to make country strong and united? I believe Bahsir would have prefer federalism from separation. Thus, the way you are advocating for federalism could really cause skepticism. The main reason for supporting federalism, you believe that by introducing federal system, all non-Equatorians will have to leave Equatoria like the era of Kokora.

      My friend, even if it is introduced today, still every citizen of this country will still have right to stay anywhere in the corners of the country. Malooma, please learn how to put your opinion forward to convince others, you are too traditional. This is 21st century, please behave contemporary.

      • Taban Alimasi says:

        Mr Mor-amok
        Brother, your argument is clear, which is nothing but fear, let me assure you federalism is not about Kokora. You quoted about Sudan’s civil war for independent South Sudan, brother you must be young or have not read Sudan history. Had you read Sudan history you would have known how and why people of southern Sudan went to war with successive Khartoum government. People of southern Sudan had no intention to separate southern Sudan, before the independent of Sudan, South Sudanese politician asked for federal system of governance, which would allow them to develop themselves within united Sudan, but the Prime minister at the time refused the idea, instead they applied centralise system of governance.
        South Sudan Liberation Movement (Anyany one movement) was founded on 18/08/1955 by southern Sudanese to fight for independent South Sudan, instead of federalism. An agreement was signed in 1972 where southern region of Sudan was given self-autonomy government under the high executive council. That is a brief history about Sudan’s civil war. I do understand you have problem with Equatorian expressing their citizenship right as South Sudanese, what system of governance they prefer. I encourage you to read history, now some Equatorian and other are calling for federalism, tomorrow they may call for independent, be prepared to swallow.
        However, federal system of governance is about division of power between federal, states and local government. It has nothing to do with where a citizen stays or want to stay, a citizen can live anywhere, if they observe the laws of the states and respect the indigenous community of that particular state. Remember South Sudan consist of 64 tribes and each tribe have their territory they call home, we can’t change that, no one can come and claim their land unlawfully and we must respect. Some of us living in the western countries wants to apply what is happening in the west to South Sudan, which will never work and would continue to cause conflicts.

  5. Dr Lako Jada Kwajok says:

    Mr J. Malooma,

    President Kiir is not the only person who could lead the SPLM IG. The same applies to Dr Riek Machar and the SPLM IO. I believe all of us agree that heinous crimes have been committed in our country with tens of thousands of victims. The culprits are out there and they need to be brought to book. When a battalion commits gross human rights abuses and atrocities, we don’t go after the foot soldiers but after the commanders and those higher up. They are the ones who issued the orders. The SPLA whether IG or IO has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. President Salva Kiir is the C-in-C of the SPLA IG while Dr Riek Machar is the Chairman and C-in- C of the SPLA IO. Both have to be held accountable for the crimes that were committed under their watch. There are cadres within both wings of the SPLM party who could replace both leaders. Of course this is all about peaceful settlement of the conflict. A regime change can only happen by war or a landslide victory at the ballot box.

  6. Dr. Jacob K. Lupai says:


    The fear of federalism is because non Equatorians are fearful that they will be booted out of Equatoria, the land of people who recognize and respect human rights and are hard working. This is the paranoia that has paralyzed non Equatorians not to look and think beyond their noses. With all the guns and absolute control of power and resources, who are those who dire to advocate for federalism. However, lessons should have been learned from the rulers in Sudan who had utterly rejected the southern demand for federalism. It is hoped that the rulers in South Sudan will be wiser in order to promote peaceful co-existence among the people of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile through federalism. People should be weary of domestic colonialism. No one chose to be a member of any ethnic group but people have found themselves in this one geographical place known as South Sudan. One open question is how will people maintain the unity of South Sudan. Of course, it couldn’t be through the use of brutal force and it is hoped South Sudanese are not daft.

  7. Dear:Jacob K.Lupai (Dr)

    I answer your question honest and sincere speaking.Those who are advocating for FEDERALISM,they are REBELS those Gen. Thomas Cirrillo, from your tribe Bari and his supporters group.! Do not dodge your question around in the corner.I am pro Unity of the South Sudan Republic I do not like tribal predominant and hegemony tribe!! Let us treat ourselves as South Sudan Citizens with equal justice for all without any prejudice and bias! But land Grabbing!

    I want every citizens to show respect to the owners of the land.If they move in any town in the South Sudan,they must ask a permission to the owners for a places to stay before they build their homesteads. NO FORCE! FORCE WILL PRODUCE ANOTHER FORCE! Thank you! Welcome to your people! You been hiding in JUBA RAFA!

    Sincere: Healing Anger!

    Abiko Akuranyang!


  8. Deng Monymor says:

    The string attached to Federalism in South Sudan is clear to all who are smart enough to see–except the fools who are watching but they can’t see. Whatever reason you give to it, nothing changes what your intention is, the dark dream of a fearful being among our diverse groups. It is clear that war won’t reward you with it but you think Federation will. Don’t play us fool.

  9. Lupa says:

    Every-time people talk about solutions to the problem in the country they rush to the types of government including Federalism etc. Rubbish.
    It is simply the quality of people that is the problem. In every system there are laws or rules. If people do not observe or respect them as is the case now, nothing is going to work.
    As for now we just urgently need a very big school to SOCIALIZE and CIVILIZE the bulk of our population, and we also need a very big hospital specialized in treating GREED from many hearts and then think of a stable south of any system we desire.

    • Taban Alimasi says:

      You are not far from the truth; South Sudan need change of attitude before any form of governance, without this stability would never come to South Sudan. We fought Khartoum government to achieve equality, but after achieving our independent, the mighty SPLM/A that had triggered political discourse in the living rooms of Sudanese for 21 years, has been reduced to militia due to personal interest, out spoken politician who clearly articulated the marginalisation and inequality in Sudan, reduce to tribal spoke person. For sure regardless what system we fight for, there would never be stability in South Sudan unless we change our attitude and approach to politics and governance.

  10. Mor-Amook says:

    Dear Lupa, I agree with you, we are the problem. We don’t want solution to our problem, thanks.

    Dear Taban,
    You are saying and I quote, “now some Equatorian and other are calling for federalism, tomorrow they may call for independent, be prepared to swallow.” To this quote you are a liar. Federalism cannot make you to think of independent. My friend South Sudan was not liberated to be divided into countries. Yes, you are right to say, “some Equatorian” because you are not sure, not all equatorians will agree with you. Again, you are saying, they may call for independent.” you are also not sure, it is not solution all equatorian opted. Please stop regional politics, it is cheap and is better for those who have not gone to school as they only know the world around them as enough. Why should I fear for unknown? I did not even fear for unknown from the so called Arab in Sudan from 1983-2005. This is 21st century, separatist have no room.

    I am not afraid as you speculate. What can I fear for? Is it your day dream that Equatorians will fight for independent? or what? Supposedly Equatorians get independent today, Eastern Equatoria which is size of Rwanda will later fight your independent state to become independent, and same to western equatoria which is more than Burundi twice….etc Because you are tribes, you don’t have the same cultures. Now according to you but not all equatorian, your common enemy is Jieng, You are using Jieng to mobilize support among equatorians for your polictial interest. But as soon as you get your independent by miracles, you will be more chaotic.

    Taban, Jieng are in equatoria today because equatoria is part of south Sudan. The sons and daughters of Jieng in SPLA by then were being sent to fight in Equatoria because it is part of Sudan to be liberated, as a result, ten of thousands of lives were lost from east to west in the name of fighting for their land. My friend don’t fear, Jieng are normal citizens like other citizens in south Sudan and they can face law anywhere they stay in South Sudan. It should not be the point to call for federalism so that you can have powers to punish them in your federal territory. Whether with federalism or without, any citizen who commits crimes in the country must face the law of the land through fair trial, that is the meaning of a nation!

    • Eastern says:

      Here you are talking as if you domiciled in Mars! Which law be it common or customary do the dinka who are resident in Equatoria follow nowadays? Whether Eastern or Western Equatoria will fight to further disintegrate Equatoria is another thing.

      Like I have stated countless time, the fate of YUGOSLAVIA AWAITS South Sudan be it in my lifetime or posterity! I don’t love the art of mincing words. I state what I think and believe in as “they are”.

    • Taban Alimasi says:

      Mr Mor-Amook,
      Please, when you read understand before reaching conclusion or assumption, I gave you a brief history of Sudan supposed to help you understand, how the civil war started and why, so that you aware what could happen when citizens are discontent with system of government. It’s a pity that you understood it as if I am advocating for independent Equatoria or against Jeing, I though Dr Riek was also calling for federalism and he is not Equatorian. If you read carefully, I never mentioned about tribe, but I am not surprise as I know there are many like you, that’s why we failed to form a nation. When mistakes are point out, we either would conclude as tribalism or regionalism, unless we change this approach, otherwise we would never achieve peace or reform. You are right South Sudan was liberated not to be divided into countries, so was Sudan if we don’t learn from mistake of successive Khartoum governments, South Sudan may disintegrate into more than what you have suggested. You mentioned about law abiding citizens, we all wish one day South Sudan citizens would become law abiding citizens and respect each other as equal citizen of our great nation.

  11. Dr. Jacob K. Lupai says:

    Hi Chief Abiko Akuranyang Tangwo, nice to hear from you. Indeed it has been a long time since the time of Equatoria2002 discussion group. How are you Chief? I hope all is fine with you in the USA. You are still the same as during the Equatoria2002 discussion group.I shall soon be visiting the USA and hopefully we shall meet for a chat if it will be possible.

    Have a nice time.

Leave a Reply to Eastern Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.