Getting tough on the Weak 'unveils' Kiir's internal troubles

BY: Joana Adams, SOUTH SUDAN

NOV. 23/2011, SSN; Over the last few weeks, this country has witnessed extraordinary events like the arrest of the two young journalists, now released without formal charges.  The arrest of the journalists overshadowed other important matters like the presentation of the audited accounts of GoSS to Parliament, for the period 2005-2006 and other issues. Just for the record, it is important to mention the “capture” of Mualana/Advocate  Peter Abderhaman Sule, a former GoSS minister and leader of the opposition party United Democratic Front (UDF).

No absolute privacy

The arrests of journalists Peter Ngor and Dengdit Ayok of Destiny newspaper was over the publishing of a strongly worded objection to the marriage of Adut Kiir to an Ethiopian immigrant.  Their release is welcomed and must be a big relief to their families, friends and all those who campaigned for their release including foreign governments and agencies.  Apart from being slightly xenophobic, the journalists seemed to have expressed views which struck accord with many Southerners.  But President Kiir, his ministers and security agents had different views for he had this to say:

“ Media freedom should not be used to the extent of attacking personalities. In any case that will be defamation…. The journalists will after investigations be handed over to the police… To appease his audience the President lamented, It is not a crime for a lady to get married to the man of her choice…. Why are you now complaining yet none of you applied to marry my daughter?”

The problem for the President and by extension to his family is that, they are not just ordinary personalities - they are the nation’s First family - and therefore whatever they do will legitimately attract public interests.  If the journalists have overstepped their boundaries and are have committed libel, this should have been established in a court of law, other than illegally arresting and detaining them. While in security custody, these individuals should have been treated as innocent until proven guilty.  This did not happen. They were physically beaten, and subjected to degrading treatment. 

For a long time, the government has been evasive about media laws and has forced journalists to operate in a legal vacuum.  If there is no media law, which laws have these journalists broken?  Even if there is a law, it is unlikely that these journalists would stand a fair trial because their arrest had been politicised and the judiciary which is headed by a close kinsmen of the President cannot be said to be an independent institution.  The arrests of these journalists and that of James Okuk before it, raise pertinent issues about the freedom of thoughts, speech and expression. A dangerous pattern of government onslaught on the media and freedom of speech is emerging. This is in spite of the fact that our human rights and fundamental freedoms are guaranteed in our Transitional Constitution, 2011 as quoted below:

Art 24.   (1) Every citizen shall have the right to the freedom of expression, reception and dissemination of information, publication, and access to the press without prejudice to public order, safety or morals as prescribed by law.

         (2)     All levels of government shall guarantee the freedom of the press and other media as shall be regulated by law in a democratic society.

This article does not only guarantee our freedom of speech and publication, but commits all levels of government to doing so.  But instead, we have a government that is not only negligent but is violating its own Constitution. 

Secondly, it is important to differentiate between President Kiir as a private individual and the President and his family as the nation's first family and therefore legitimate object of public scrutiny.  By opting for the top office in the land, the President has traded his personal privacy and the privacy of his family for power and privileges of the state.  Unlike the rest of us, the president and his family do not have absolute privacy any more, contrary to what his ministers would want him to believe.  He will only redeem his freedom when he leaves office or is voted out.

By quickly arranging for a wedding ceremony for his pregnant daughter, he has done what most loving fathers would have done.  However he has gone a little further by breaking with traditions and presumably lying to the Church.  I do not know the position of Dinka tradition on this, but I know in most Southern tribes, the marriage of a pregnant girl is delayed until she safely delivers.  To organise a church wedding ceremony for a pregnant daughter, apart from being a cover up is wrong.  As a regular church goer, the President knows that every Christian must not bear false witness.  I wonder what the Vatican would say about this.  

These young people spoke what every brother would have said.  And this should not surprise anyone because Adut Kiir is the daughter of their president.  They would have desired the whole nation to celebrate with the Kiir family, the wedding of the first daughter, even to a foreigner as long as it wasn’t hidden away in Rejaf but was honourably celebrated at St Theresa’s Cathedral in Kator where the president is a regular worshipper.  This would have given the citizens the chance to line up from the gates of the republican palace through Malakia and Konyo konyo to Kator Cathedral.  What a joyous national occasion it would have been!  

Incidentally, it is not just the President who does not have absolute privacy, but all national constitutional post holders and their immediate families. Your lives and the lives of your immediate families are legitimate matters of national concerns and scrutiny because you are enjoying the comfort and privileges which the nation is paying for.  This is the price of leadership.

                                 Report of the Auditor General

The long awaited audited financial report of GoSS albeit partial, is out.  For the first time in the history of GoSS, it is refreshing to hear accounting terminologies being used. The Auditor General has given his verdict: in 2005-2006 alone, a total of 1.3 billion US dollars cannot be accounted for, many questions remain outstanding and more is to come. What next?  When the Development Partners got tough and requested Salva Kiir Mayardit to disclose names of 13 people in government who have stolen and banked millions in their private bank accounts abroad, there was total silence.  If the disclosure of the Intiba newspaper is anything to go by, then the public has placed its trust on the wrong people.

 A lot of us knew that the disclosure of the World Bank was only the tip of the iceberg, since it specifically referred to donor money and not the oil revenue.  For over 6 years Pagan Amum and other SPLM demagogues have been banging tables pointing accusing fingers at our traditional enemies in Khartoum, for not remitting all the 50% oil money as per the CPA, little was said about how GoSS was actually managing the amount being received.  And the public got sucked into these stories of lies and deceit.

 According to reporter Waakhe Simon Wudu, JUBA, 04 November 2011 [Gurtong], the South Sudan Auditor General, Stephen Wondu, told the South Sudan National Assembly that:   

1.    US$122.6 million was used to purchase vehicles which cannot be trace.

2.    That they could not explain legality of applying US$80.6 million as an outstanding grant from GoNU.

3.    That Ministry of Finance reported the use of US$12million for construction of the Aweil-Miriam road but the knowledge of the use of this fund was denied by both the Sepaker Wani Igga and the minister of roads.

4.    That the financial statements of the GoSS accounts omitted a commitment made on 5 March 2006 of US$288.0 million in the form of bank guarantee for road works in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State by Eyat Roads and Bridges again the knowledge of this was denied  by the Speaker and the Minister of Roads and Transport.

5.    That US$7.4million was transferred in the financial year 2006 to BNP Paribas Private Bank, Geneva, not in the name of the GoSS.

6.    That during the 2006 financial year, fifteen government institutions did not submit payrolls, nominal rolls, staff dossiers and other salary related records despite numerous requests by the Ministry of Finance, which has led to the unaccounted US$440.7million.

7.    Seven GoSS institutions; Finance, Public Service, Telecommunication, Environment, Local Government Board, Relief and Human Rights Commissions are reported to have exceeded their approved annual budgets without any legal authorisation from the then Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA), totalling US$189.5million.

You can do your own sums but the amount of money which has gone missing in just two years is breath taking.  But that is not all. There are fundamental policy issues involved here.  How could ministers, overspend their budgets without parliamentary approval?  Now that the names of the offending ministries have been released, what is Parliament going to do about it?  Who regulates the ministry of Finance as the custodian of our finances?  Could it be that in all these irregular financial transactions, someone or a group of people in high places should be held accountable? 

In spite of these spectacular disclosures, the Assembly is still dithering as to what to do.  At the time when he should show leadership in Parliament, the Speaker of the August House Hon James Wani Igga, is nowhere to be heard. The best the Assembly can come up with is, formation of a Committee to investigate further, instead of moving a motion of no confidence in the President and his government.  What will this or any new Committee do which has not been done by the Audit Chamber?  How will publishing of names of corrupt officials help to bring criminals to justice?  And how would shedding tears however genuine, exonerate the Assembly from its monumental failure to hold ministers accountable?

There used to be stories in Juba that when MPs became too inquisitive about the liberty of the executives to spend ministry budget’s which created envy and resentment, the executives came up with ingenious way to keep the law makers sweet.  They poured money into the Nile Commercial Bank and Ivory bank which could be accessed as loans by disgruntled MP’s and other officials who did not manage budgets.  The result: a lot of monies were loaned to privileged customers including MPs and commanders but the terms and conditions of these loans were never honoured which resulted to the banks becoming insolvent until recapitalised by GoSS. 

Secondly, to satisfy the demand of MPS’s who were more development oriented, ministers tricked them by developing a scheme called Constituency development funds (CDF).  MPs in consultation with their constituencies were supposed to identify projects local communities would benefit from.  Some constituencies choose, schools other chose health centres roads, etc.  However, not surprisingly, there have been complaints that some MPs’ did not use these funds for the purposes for which they were intended.  What was the line of accountability for these funds?  Why were these funds not integrated into state development funds to be managed by the latter, as legitimate development authorities?  Of course they didn’t suspect the catch.  When MPs wanted to hold ministers accountable for alleged misappropriation of billions in the dura (grain) and other scandals, they were swiftly reminded of the (CDF) funds they couldn’t account for.  

Therefore the report of the Auditor general is not surprising.  What is surprising is the headline stories of MP’s breaking down in tears.  If MPs were genuinely distraught about the magnitude of misappropriation, the solution was not to weep like children in playgrounds but to take action as community empowered representatives or to resign.  Evidently, ministers and others in charge of budgets such as governors or senior commanders used these budgets as their personal properties and stashed them into private bank accounts abroad.  Even if the oil dries up today, these people and their children’s children up to the 4^th generation will never experience poverty again.  They are forever financially protected no matter where they migrate to live anywhere in the world.

Of nearly the 12 billion US dollars accrued in oil revenue over 6 years, less than 20% of these were allocated to the 10 states of Southern Sudan but more than 80% consumed at the central government mainly in forms of salaries and ghost salaries and other luxury expenses.  How many standard universities, roads and bridges could these billions have built?  Why should children be learning under trees when billions of public funds are sitting in private accounts of ministers and generals abroad?   How can you be comfortable as leader, when the schools in Juba or elsewhere in the South are not good enough for your own children; or when the maternity wards in our hospitals are not good enough for your wives to deliver in?  The motto of leaders should be: if something is not good enough for me or my family, it is not good enough for the public.  

Isn’t it unethical to jet off for treatment to Jordan, India, Nairobi, Germany or South Africa when the children of common men and women die of treatable diseases such as malaria and diarrhoea?  Isn’t it unethical when ministers keep more than three land cruisers, have 24 hours electricity and running water, when majority of families cannot afford one decent meal a day? Where is the ethics of egalitarianism, which not so long ago is the essence of our African culture, which guided and sustained our communities?  Should it be the World Bank yet again to tell us about equitable resource distribution which was one of the cornerstones of the CPA.  How our leaders could get it so wrong is truly bewildering, and to me this is nothing but systematic economic genocide.     

                      Turning on the Heat on Civil servants

This brings me to the pronouncement of Salva Kiir and some of his ministers on the issues of civil service and civil servants.  Like someone who had suddenly woken out of deep anaesthesia, Mr. Kiir announced a few weeks ago that that those civil servants, who had resigned to contest elections in 2010, should refund to the treasury, the salaries they have been receiving since “they illegally sneaked back to work”.  His fanatical supporters will press him to get tough on the weak.  First if there is any failure here, it is the failure of his ministry of Public Service for not establishing proper employment policies and procedures since 2005. Unfortunately the honourable lady, who had reigned supreme in this ministry since 2007, recently resigned or was dismissed whichever is the truth.  Since 2005, the public has been expressing concerns about irregular employment and appointments practices in GoSS, but critics were denounced as being anti SPLM or enemies of peace.  GoSS, actively allowed ministers and SPLA commanders to employ unqualified relatives and friends to lucrative positions in spite of Public Service motto which presumably promotes: service without fear or favour.

Initially the Coordination Council was blamed for employment of unqualified personnel and for inflating pay rolls with ghost names when it was merged with SPLM’s (CANS) Civil Administration of New Sudan (CANS) in 2005.  Now the survey commissioned by Hon Awut Deng, has confirmed the popular belief: up to 65% of civil servants have no relevant qualifications for the posts they are holding.  So what should be the best course of action?  Employees might have falsified their credentials, forged documents or were employed through family connections, which are deplorable, but can ministers sincerely confess that they had nothing to do with these fraudulent practices?

As suggested by the former Minister Awut Deng, there should be comprehensive screening, but the goals of this screening should not be to take vindictive actions against employees but to deploy these people in appropriate positions and by sending the younger ones for proper education and training.  The older employees approaching pensionable age, could be offered voluntary retirement package to include financial incentives for starting small businesses in commerce, animal husbandry or agriculture. This package can be paid for by the looted funds once recovered.  It would also be fair considering that a lot of the commanders integrated as generals in the armed, police, prisons and wildlife forces who would presumably not be affected were illiterate and had no academic qualifications.

 This would be a better way of maximising the use of our human capital, and it would prevent any social unrest or political backlash. No country can develop without skilled and professional civil servants.  Of course it is fundamentally important that we sort out our public services and modernise it to deliver services in the 21^st century, it is equally important that we do so in a humane and considered way.  Falsification of academic credentials is as fraudulent as embezzlement of millions and billions of public funds.  It would be good to prosecute those who have forged documents to get employment but the President must not lose focus or sense of priorities.

The priority for the government should be to prosecute those who are responsible for the missing billions of public funds as per the audited accounts and then clean up the public service. That the President and ministers are stepping up the heat on civil servants at a time when they cannot account for public funds which have gone mission under their watch could be seen as an attempt to divert public attention and to be seen to be getting tough on the weak. The disclosure of individual finances and assets should be applicable to all public servants including ministers, generals, and at all levels of government starting from 2005 not 2011 as the president had said. The question the authorities still have to address is will this disclosure include funds in foreign accounts or not, if not why not??  

Coming to the issue of the civil servants who resigned to contest elections and allegedly sneaked back to work, what was the public service regulation in place at the time?  If the civil servants in question had resigned, were their resignations accepted in writing clearly terminating their employment with their respective ministries?  What of the President of the republic and other generals who were also forced by the electoral laws to resign to contest elections but continue to appear in military uniforms and bear military titles?  No one can voluntarily dismiss themselves from a job.  That the President assumes the role of the minister of public service soon after she resigned or was dismissed, begs the question about possible power struggle between the two over this and other critical public service issues.  Whichever is the case, the President cannot take the liberty to avenge his anger on innocent public servants.  If there was no Public Service Act, at the time, these people have not broken any law. And therefore cannot be punished in retrospect. 

In South Sudan, most people who got top civil service jobs are registered SPLM members and their participation in politics is actively encouraged by the establishment.  Looking beneath the surface, the civil servants who were forced to resign before they could contest elections were disaffected SPLM members who protested to what they saw as unfair selection of candidates in the rigged primaries. The second category of people who are being targeted must be candidates of other political parties and are mainly middle level civil servants who may paradoxically be the more qualified ones.  There is no universal rule which says that civil servants should not express their views about government policies. This would be violating their fundamental human rights and freedom of thoughts, speech and expression.  In other countries, ministers would lose their jobs for victimising civil servants.

 If academics, accountants, lawyers, teachers, doctors, engineers who are all civil servants - since the government is the only employer in the South -do not speak up about government policies in their areas of expertise, then who will?  Are our intellectuals supposed to be passive recipients of products of foreign knowledge or should they be active participants in the construction of their country? If the President wants to dismiss those civil servants he said had resigned, he needs to re-evaluate his position given the statistics that 65% of civil servants are unqualified.  Those who are qualified should be allowed to continue to work to develop the nation until retirement age or when there are qualified replacements. 

With respect to refunding the salaries they have earned, this should be challenged in court of law.  Civil servants have employment rights; those threatened should seek immediate advice from advocates or from the International Labour Organisation (ILO).  The amount of funds paid out to civil servants in salaries is not comparable to the funds extorted by politicians. Gen. Salva doesn’t want to bring his corrupt minister’s and generals to account but wants to vent his anger and frustration on those he perceives as weak.  This president comes alive only when he is punishing his people.  One minute he is suspicious of his governors’ the next minute he turns his guns against defenceless civil servants.  But no country in this world has developed without the contribution of effective civil service.  Civil servants don’t need to be demonised but empowered to do their jobs efficiently and effectively.  It is critical thinking, innovation and industriousness which developed the West and is now developing the East at an accelerated rate.  Closing the doors to critical thinking is tantamount to intellectual and political genocide. 

This onslaught on civil servants is a new political strategy to silence civil servants after effectively silencing ministers and MP’s. We cannot talk of multi-party democracy anymore because the President chooses which parties should be in the opposition.  He then absorbs their leaders into government as ministers on the pretext of unity government, where they are not allowed to criticise government policies on the grounds that “they are in government”.  In the Transitional Constitution, the President has given himself unprecedented powers, which makes him one the most powerful heads of states in the world.  Now we can see he is putting these powers into practice. 

The recent volatility is indicative of a government that is in shambles.  Creating public furore over reporters or getting tough on the perceived weak is but deliberate attempt to divert public attention from internal troubles of the king.  These troubles will not vanish into thin air, now that his attempt to strengthen his position by bringing in George Athor has at least for now failed.  A government cannot indefinitely rule on the basis of personal likes or dislikes.  This government violates its own constitution.  It has no comprehensive development plan, or policy framework to regulate its own institutions.  It has misguided vision.  And it has lost its sense of priorities and moral legitimacy.  On what basis is it ruling?    

Joana Adams, RSS