There’s fundamental difference between decentralisation or devolution of powers & federalism

By: Jacob K. Lupai, JUBA, JUL/17/2014, SSN;

The debate on federalism for South Sudan has produced some mixed feelings and reactions. Some people are totally opposed to it, claiming that the system of governance in South Sudan is already federalism. They argue that the present decentralization or devolution of powers is already a federal system of government in South Sudan. For others federalism is perceived as dangerous to national unity.

Furthermore some people are very suspicious that the proponents of federalism have a hidden agenda. In their paranoia the opponents of federalism relentlessly assume that once federalism is adopted they will be thrown out of the states of proponents of federalism.

For obvious reasons the vocal proponents of federalism are people of Equatoria. The opponents of federalism reason that when people of Equatoria call for federalism it is kokora. The opponents are very fearful that once federalism is adopted they will be unceremoniously evicted from Equatoria.

The paranoia of the opponents of federalism even caused restriction of open debate. There was intimidation for any mention of a federal system of government. The opponents of federalism wanted the mouths of proponents shut. This was despite the government’s clarification on censor on federalism debate through a letter by the Minister of Information and Broadcasting to newspaper editors. However, newspapers were still being confiscated.

For example, the letter of the Minister of Information and Broadcasting dated 2nd July 2014 in part outlined that, “It is the policy of the Government to encourage the people of South Sudan to participate in debates on topics or agendas which are of National interest among others, the debate on federalism”.

Despite all this The Citizen was still confiscated on the 6th July well after the Minister’s letter. This seems to show clearly that deeper below the surface the debate on federalism was indeed hated. One can only speculate as to why there was such a poor coordination between government institutions in observing government policy.

The debate on federalism turned ugly when a soldier became undisciplined and shot dead a civilian in Maridi County in Western Equatoria State. Apparently the soldier was opposed to federalism and as with opponents of federalism, must have assumed they were the target for eviction from Equatoria.

It is a pity that both illiterate and literate opponents of federalism have no any other positive perception except the paranoia of terribly missing all that is good of land of Equatoria. They do not give themselves a minute to think of anything positive that federalism can offer. This type obstinacy is a problem because people do not stand back and be a little bit reasonable in looking at the wider picture.

Opponents of federalism live in deep rooted suspicion and will never appreciate an inch of federalism. This becomes worrying when people are being murdered in cold blood such as the murder in Maridi of an innocent civilian simply for advocating federalism. However, there will come a time when enough will be enough that the murderers will be accountable for their heinous crimes. Killing people with impunity for expressing a contrary view is not the way to build national unity when others have the license to kill while the victims have no justice.

Coming back to centralization or devolution of powers and federalism which are considered to differ fundamentally, it is appropriate to look at them separately.

Decentralization or devolution of powers

Decntralisation or devolution can simply be defined as the transfer of part of the powers of the central government to regional or state authorities and it is in response to demands for diversity. In general decentralization or devolution is a response to the problems of centralized systems. It is seen as a solution to problems like economic decline, government inability to fund services and the demands of minorities for greater say in local governance. Decentralization or devolution of powers is linked to concepts of participation in decision-making, democracy, equality and liberty from high authority.

The processes by which entities move to decentralized state vary. They can be initiated from the central government in a top-down approach. Top-down decentralization may be a political gimmick while bottom-up decentralization initiated by individuals or states may be opposed as is the case with federalism we are now debating. At any rate whether it is top-down or bottom-up decentralization or devolution, it may not be constitutionally binding. Such decentralization or devolution may depend on the whims of the central government either to implement or ignore it.

Can anybody say for certain that the decentralization in the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 is being implemented as expected of a decentralized system? If the decentralization in the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 were being implemented as expected, there wouldn’t have been a loud demand for a federal system. The level of demand for federalism seems to correlate to the level of regression to centralized system of government in South Sudan.

Federalism

Federalism is a political concept used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units such as the states in South Sudan. In comparing decentralization or devolution with federalism it can be observed that there is a fundamental difference.

Decentralisation is devolution of powers by the central authority to lower levels. The central authority may withdraw the devolved powers at will.

In contrast, in federalism powers are constitutionally divided. There is a covenant between the central authority and the state in the division of powers in federalism. This is the fundamental difference between decentralization or devolution and federalism.

Unlike in devolution of powers, in a federal system the central authority cannot easily withdraw powers from the state without the ruling of a competent constitutional court. So federalism is more just and fairer than decentralization or devolution because the aggrieved party has a chance to challenge any infringement on their powers through the constitutional court for justice. There is no any other fairer system than that justice must be seen to have been done.

Development under federalism

The high level demand of Equatoria for federalism is precisely to accelerate development but not to evict others as the alarmists would like to claim. It can be asserted with confidence that it is not to throw others out of Equatoria. Equatoria is an integral part of South Sudan. So it is mind boggling for people to fear the adoption of federalism as tantamount to Equatoria being a no go area for others.

What is very clear, though, is that people with hegemonic tendencies fear federalism the most because they want to cling to be rulers at any cost. However, adoption of federalism wouldn’t have been a big issue if it were seen from a developmental angle.

Right now federalism is seen from an ethnic angle and so it is perceived as targeting other people of different ethnic group. In fact the opponents of federalism are thinking they are under attack. This is of course false and baseless.

The centralized system is favored simply to maintain the status quo. The people of Equatoria would have none of this and so the demand for federalism would always be there. Federalism is seen as a means to accelerate development.

Dr John Apuruot Akec, the Vice Chancellor of Juba University, in his article Decentralisation or devolution and federalism are faces of the same coin, which appeared in the opinion column of The Citizen and quoting my article in Juba Monitor of June 12, 2014, said I miss the point about the yardstick by which the strength of a federalist system of governance is measured. Dr Akec added I should have acknowledged that for every 10 South Sudanese, 4 are Dinka and that in the 10 states of South Sudan, 7 states have Dinka population.

Another interesting point Dr Akec raised is that 85 per cent of South Sudan government revenue is currently spent in Central Equatoria State and that Central Equatoria State continues to lead the whole country in most development indicators. I may say I have no quarrel with the assertion made but to make my own observation.

I agree with Dr Akec that in the 10 states of South Sudan, 7 states have Dinka population.

However, my observation is that in some of the 7 states, for example in Jonglei, Upper Nile, Unity and in Western Bahr el Ghazal, the Dinka are a tiny minority and could hardly be a dominant force to reckon with. Nevertheless, they are the overwhelming majority only in Lakes, Warrap and Northern Bahr el Ghazal. So the Dinka are mostly concentrated in only 3 states of South Sudan. Giving an impression of Dinka dominance in 7 out of 10 states for numerical superiority should not be used to justify domination which is any way irrelevant in terms of quality.

The claim that 85 per cent of South Sudan government revenue is currently spent in Central Equatoria State for its development is disputable. Dr Akec has not specified clearly budget line items from the revenue corresponding to development activities carried out in Central Equatoria State that amounted to 85 per cent of the revenue. The bulk of the alleged 85 per cent spent in Central Equatoria State if any may actually be for salaries and. the security and law enforcement sector.

A very insignificant percentage of the alleged 85 per cent revenue may go for some minor development but not for the sake of development of Central Equatoria State as it is home to citizens from the other states. When asked whether the national government was really spending 85 per cent of its budget for the development of Central Equatoria State, the respondent said that was laughable. He said if that were the case why then should people of Equatoria demand federalism. The respondent concluded by saying it was a white lie and that high rising buildings in Juba is the result of individual efforts but not of any government budgetary intervention.

Dr Akec may need to visit the residential areas in and around Juba including the city centre, to travel on Juba-Yei main road and to establish what development projects in Central Equatoria State are being financed by the central government. This is in order for him to be realistic about claiming that 85 per cent of the government revenue is spent on development of Central Equatoria State. This is to avoid making misleading assumption.

The development in Central Equatoria State is because the people here are industrious. They make the use of Constitutional Development Fund (CDF) to build schools and health centers, and improve existing hospitals and roads for access to agricultural production areas. When others do not use the CDF and their budgets as intended it is not the problem of Central Equatoria State. The government of Central Equatoria State is also keen on development as shown by Central Equatoria State leading in most economic indicators.

National unity of South Sudan

It is always quoted that there are 64 ethnic groups in South Sudan. However, my little research seems to show that there are more than 64 ethnic groups. This suggests that more research needs to be carried out. People should also share information about ethnicity in South Sudan so that they are knowledgeable about their history.

Each and every South Sudanese yearns for unity because it is strength. When united people can move mountains but divided people are weaklings. The problem is how to promote national unity. There may be many theories. One theory is that development can bring national unity. The question is how?

Well, equitable power and wealth sharing can go a long way to promote national unity. With the diversities in South Sudan the only known system of government that will accelerate development hence promotion of national unity is a federal system.

We have seen how people are in despair when service delivery is poor and when development is accelerating at a chameleon’s speed. A federal system will accelerate development at the speed of a rabbit.

The economy of State of California is the 8th largest in the world if the states of the United States were compared with other countries. What is the secret of such a gigantic stride in development of a state within a country? The answer may not be that so simple.

However, like some states in South Sudan, California is endowed with abundant resources and besides, it does not need to depend on decisions and funds from the federal government in Washington, DC for its development strategies and plans.

California’s success story in development makes federalism very attractive as powers are constitutionally divided that the federal government has no business to interfere with California’s development plan.

For the states of South Sudan with their abundant and untapped resources, a federal system will tremendously accelerate development in the states with the added effect of promoting sustainable national unity as confidence increases with development.

South Sudanese must be informed that the struggle to maintain the status quo is a liability to national unity.

Conclusion

The One Nation, One People sloganeering is misleading and a mockery. How on earth can one people have no mercy on each other? How can people hate each other and slaughter each other and yet call themselves one people? The correct slogan should have been One Nation, One Destiny.

It is the oneness in destiny that can pull people together. This precisely explains how people of South Sudan with their different ethnic groups had fought jointly against Arab domination and marginalization because their destiny was one. Being of one destiny and regardless of whether one was a Zande or a Murle, Southerners had fought and died together in trenches defending their destiny.

It must be understood, though, that it is not only domination and marginalization that may pull people together as of one destiny. Challenges of development and nation building for a better future for all should also pull people together for strength in order to eradicate poverty. It is poverty that may be tearing people apart.

In conclusion, federalism is the most appropriate and peaceful means of accelerating development for a higher standard of living while a centralized system serves nothing but only hegemonic tendencies of others to terrorise, oppress and rule.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author.


25 Comments

  1. Risio says:

    Thank you Mr Lupai for a lucid and impassioned appeal on behalf of federalism. I must admit that I have struggled to understand the animosity felt by some South Sudanese to the concept. Here you have engaged concerns head on, intellectually and most importantly without recourse to crass ethnically charged rhetoric. We have had far too much of that and it is a bile that threatens to poison our national soul. In my eyes you are a true patriot.

    I agree wholeheartedly that federalism most certainly does not meen segregation. On the contrary, I believe that it offers a workable solution to the fractious politics that has nearly brought ruin to our nation. It offers the opportunity to reclaim a sense of common destiny by embracing the very thing which defines us as a nation – our diversity.

    Driving through Juba, one can’t help but notice the disconnect between privately funded high rise commercial buildings and the dilapidated public schools and hospitals that stand meters away. This alone is proof of the fallacy that CES is already benefiting disproportionately from the national wealth.

    I would be perfectly happy to remain with the current system if I felt politicians respected and adhered to the letter and the spirit of decentralisation. They do not. Instead, state governments are starved of funding and live in fear of arbitrary eviction, despite having been elected and as such are as equally mandated by their constituents as central government. Local politics should not be subordinate to national politics, for the former is the sturdy foundation upon which the latter is built. Weak local politics in a land as vast and diverse as ours will inevitably result in a distant and unresponsive central government. And that is a terrible threat to our national prosperity.

    God bless South Sudan and all who live within her. One nation, one destiny.

  2. Ma'digo says:

    To hell with South Sudan. We want independent Federal Equatoria!

    • AGUMUT says:

      @Ma’digo; I am not aganist the human race,but in my opinion,i think Equatoria needs BIRTH CONTROL or one CHILD POLICY if you think that Equatoria is going to disappear.
      Federalism is not the solution to our problems,Kokora and Federalism are the problems.

  3. Ma'digo says:

    SPLA/O proposed creation of 21 states in South Sudan, soon Equatoria will declare independent from South Sudan. Dinka + Nuer = same coin sh…t.

    Long live Federal Equatoria !

    • AGUMUT says:

      Dear Mr.Kokora. Why you people chose a Male Chicken than a bull? A Tiny stomach’s chicken who eat throughout and deny.

      • Ma'digo says:

        You can call us whatever you want but federal kokora is coming for you@Agumut

        Long live federal kokora Equatoria!

        • AGUMUT says:

          LONG LIVE NIMULE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN. I am had been to TORIT MANY YEARS AGO,THERE ARE A LOT OF CATTLES/ BULLS LIKE TWIC COUNTY WARRAP,WARRAP is very rich in a term of AGRICULTURE and CATTLES.

        • AGUMUT says:

          I had been to TORIT MANY YEARS AGO,THERE WERE MANY CATTLES/BULLS.

  4. Oduho Mamur Otuho says:

    Excellent article professor Lupai, today I am very happy with you as you have come to the true position of South Sudan. This is the kind of writing we need from you and please note, we want you to be the next president and not just minister. Your mind is much higher than the position of minister of agriculture that you are now holding.

    What we need now professor is what is next in order to implement federal system. The government told us in no uncertain terms that they will not allow its debate and implementation; are we going to stay with our hands tied behind our backs or we re going to pick guns to demand it by force? Think about this brother?

  5. Eastern says:

    Editor, there could some problem in the signature. This article is supposedly authored by Dr. Lupai but Agok Takpiny seems to have signed it off.

    Back to the article, I must comment Dr. Lupai once again for authoring another reach piece on the subject of federalism. This is a very good dissection of the topic.

    Let the anti federalism come with their ideas as well.

  6. Eastern says:

    Dear Editor,

    To be seen acting in a fair manner, kindly publish my post.

    All the best,

    Eastern

    • info@southsudannation says:

      We have always been fair. Your comment is published.

    • Moha Thabo says:

      Dear Editor,
      I have written an article title, public opinion in and outside south sudan indicates support for splm in opposition and upto now it has not been published and those who have just written after me have their article published. Is there any problem because I don’t see any fairness here unless there is political motivation. I am not a south sudanese,but a south african and first time sending article. I hope this is corrected.
      Thanks

      • info@southsudannation says:

        Sorry, Moha Thabo, as I didn’t come across the article or it was inadvertently deleted. Rest assured we do fairly published articles from across the world especially if these are pertinent to our country’s current predicament.
        Please, do re-send this article and rest assured it will receive the highest priority.
        Best wishes and sincere apologies.
        Editor

  7. cos says:

    That’s what we need to express our reasoning as
    One nation one destiny.
    And my advise to all readers is that we should not focus our discussion of federal gov,t in terms of evacuation,tribalism,regionalism but focus on terms of development.
    Look,if we can accept to increase our states to 21,based on federalism,how many people will be employed?
    How many roads,schools,hospitals,sport centers,administrative centers would have constructed using our abundant resources from our states?How would each stated tighten its security?How would people’s mind change to attract investors?
    Federal demand is from experienced and highly educated people who real love their country regardless of race,tribe.
    Thank you Agoktakerping for your article and also tell them not to hold the discussion about the Federalism as well as development also go ahead until the new govt if voted for so that that the current govt will have its more achievement other than nothing .

  8. Defender says:

    Lupai,

    Your piece is excellent! You have dispelled the confusion being thrown around about what federalism is. Those who are equating federalism to Decentralization have run out of things to compare. It behooves me that a Vice Chancellor of the most prestigious University in the land is the one who is writing a peace of article that poor. If this is the level of scholarship that the country has reached to, then we are doomed.

    IN FACT, JUBA UNIVERSITY IS ABSOLUTELY DOOOOOOOOOOMED. EDITOR

    • cos says:

      This so called Vice Challengers are the one who never spent their sixteen years of studies.
      Fortunately enough they have landed on unknown green pasture with out realizing that people behind them are more of knowledge and wisdom than them.
      How can a whole vice challenger mislead his people on such critical moment?what if there are no wise angels within.Any way I wonder where did he begin his elementary school!
      Before is too late he should go and check political “Dr” otherwise he does not deserve that position and what he says is a naked lies.

  9. Nuer-Another Israel in East Africa says:

    Dear All:

    Like Eastern, I’m confuse pertaing to who wrote this article. Is it Dr. Jacob Lupai or Agok Takpiny?

    Call for federalism isn’t new. Our leaders did call for it long time ago especially Mr. Both Diu. In his last article, Dr. Lupai ranted at Dr. Machar accusing him of having different federalsim in mind. Federalism ideology is the same. There couldn’t be federalism for Dr. Machar and one for Equatorians with opposing ideology.

    To be clear, Mr. Both Diu is the father of federalism for South Sudan and Sudan at large during those days. This is for Dr. Jacob to know so he doesn’t attempt to confuse people next time. If there is different federalism for Equatorian, that is fine. But Nuer obviously have their own federalism predated Dr. Jacob Lupai’s. Maybe it is what Dr. Machar is revisiting since the Equatoria Dr. thinks their federalisim is different. Perhap, Dinka people are right here when they said Equatorians have hidden agenda.

    CLARIFICATION FROM EDITOR: THIS ARTICLE IS AUTHENTICALLY FROM DR. JACOB LUPAI. THE INCLUSION OF MR. AGOK TAKPING’S NAME IS AN ERROR INADVERTENTLY MADE BY THE EDITOR BECAUSE AGOK DID ALSO SEND US A COPY OF THIS ARTICLE.
    SECONDLY, WHILST NOT MINIMIZING THE ROLE OF BUTH DIEU AS THEN LEADER OF THE SOUTH SUDANESE LIBERAL PARTY, IT MUST BE CATEGORICALLY STATED, AS ALSO CONFIRMED BY EXPERT DONALD JOHNSON IN JUBA RECENTLY, THE FOUNDER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY WAS NONE OTHER THAN MR. ABDELRAHMAN SULE, THE FATHER OF POLITICIAN AND SPLM OPPONENT, PETER SULE. REPORTEDLY, MR. A. SULE CEDED THE LEADERSHIP TO BUTH DIEU FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY AND CONSENSUS OF SOUTHERN SUDANESE POLITICIANS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST JELLABA ARAB NORTH.
    FINALLY, FOR THOSE YOUNGER SOUTH SUDANESE WHO DON’T KNOW MUCH, THE FEDERATION OF THE LIBERAL PARTY WAS PROPOSED VIS-A-VIS THE NORTH, WHEREBY THESE SOUTHERN POLITICIANS WANTED A TWO-STATE FEDERATION….THAT’S NORTH AND SOUTH AND IT TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THIS NEW CAMPAIGN.
    IN STARK CONTRAST, THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN FOR FEDERALISM IS WITHIN THE NEW STATE OF SOUTH SUDAN WHEREBY A FEDERAL SYSTEM DISPENSATION IS SERIOUSLY URGED BY EQUATORIANS AND OTHERS. JUST LIKE WHAT EQUATORIANS DEMANDED FOR IN 1983 WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY AND INAPPROPRIATELY CALLED ‘KOKORA,’ BUT NONETHELESS, IT WAS A NECESSARY PRECURSOR OF FEDERALISM IN SOUTH SUDAN, THAT HAS FORTUNATELY AGAIN BEEN REJUVENATED BY EQUATORIANS AND DR. MACHAR.

  10. Deng Ajak says:

    Everyone
    The eviction of Dinka or anyone from the so called Equatoria will never be that easy; even if you fought and millions of you dies for it; still you’ll never have an independent Federal Equatoria. If you people don’t believe it; then you don’t have any clue about Dinka history of domination in South Sudan. Good luck for those who are willing to die for equatorial without Dinka.

    • Ma'digo says:

      The Arabs in the north used to say the same thing and you know the result Mr. New Arabs of South Sudan deng ajak.

      Long live federal kokora Equatoria!

      • Deng Ajak says:

        Ma’digo
        Well; the result of South Sudan independent didn’t come cheap; the liberators lost 2 millions lives when you Mr Kokora were hiding in the foreign countries. We don’t have any problem with your federal kokora equatoria or Equatoria without Dinka as long as you’re willing to loose 2 millions lives fighting for it. Now enough with talk; just start your Gruella war against the liberators and that’s the first stage of the way to independent; your door is wide open to that action. Good luck to you.

  11. Madut Malual says:

    You people don’t know the cost of one’s own independent because South Sudan was liberated when most of you Equatorians were hiding in foreign countries and now think to have an independent Equatoria will happen online. I can’t wait for you Equatorians to start your Guerrilla war of independent. Deng Ajak said it here better than I could ever said; you would all be dead and yet the so called Equatorians regions would still be in the liberators’ hands.

    • call us all sorts of names but they will not relinquish our request for a federal states of south sudan. you guys resisted it in 1980s but at the end you gave in. So if it’s the matter of setting-up another rebellion to attain this demand, i don’t think it’s worth setting because you guys can’t afford that, NUER is now evicting you from all your states and setting you into constant panic, you are now refugees in Uganda and Kenya in big numbers leave alone western countries. your senseless war with neur have shown your cowardness, some of you are drowning out military uniforms and running for foreign evacuation, indeed we gather a lot of military uniforms in the airport, it was really a pity to see new jalabas running away like women. by the way, if you are really brave people as you guys claim, why do you invited foreign troops(uganda) to rescue your ass from neur? i believed that many of you who are writing these nonsense are not here( south sudan) the likes of idiots madut and deng. If we the Equatorians accepted you into our region is not because we feared you but rather for humanitarian purpose, if you really understand this but i doubt, because you guys don’t have such human values. i could go on exposing inner fears and panic but no need to be wasting my time with the issues of the well known cowards.

  12. MY EXPERIENCES TELLS ME THAT THE SOUTH SUDAN GOVERNMENT WAS POLARIZED BEFORE IN THE YEAR 1983 INTO THREE AREAS EQUATORIA,UPPER NILE,AND BAHR EL GHAZAL.THERE AFTERWARD,THERE HAVE NO DEVELOPMENT AT ALL IN THESE THREE AREAS.THAT POLARIZATION WAS NOT PART OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE SOUTH SUDAN. IT WAS CALLED DECENTRALIZATION OF POWERS IN THE GOVERNMENT.

    IF YOU KNOW,EXPLAIN NOW! THE FEDERAL SYSTEM YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.IT IS THE SAME AS IT WAS DONE ON KOKORA POLICY IN SOUTH SUDAN GOVERNMENT OF EARLIER DAYS AND TIMES. THERE IS NO ANY DIFFERENT IF BEEN COMPARED.

    THE SECOND REBEL LEADER RIAK MACHAR,HE SHOULD WRITE FIRST HIS FEDERAL SYSTEM SO PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW HIS RIGHT ON FEDERAL SYSTEM.HE SHOULD NOT TAKE THREE EQUATORIAN GOVERNORS CONFERENCE FOR FEDERAL SYSTEM IN THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SOUTH SUDAN. HIS CALLING ON FEDERAL SYSTEM IN THE SOUTH SUDAN GOVERNMENT,IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL! I AM ADEPT OF POLITICS! THERE IS A BLOOD ON FEDERALISM! EVEN IN HIS TRIBE NUER,THERE GOING BE A BLOOD SOMETIME LATER IN FRONT OF GOD! THIS IS DEPENPDS WHO IS DIVIDING A PIECE OF CAKE ON THE PLATE!

    NOW,HE IS CREATING HIS OWN GOVERNMENT IN THE WAR IN THE BUSH.HE HAS AMBASSADORS IN THE WORLD TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE WAR. HE HAS A NEW STATES IN THE SOUTH SUDAN.VERY FUNNY! WHERE IS HE GOING TO FIND MONEY TO SUPPORT HIM?????? LET HIM TRY!!!!! THANK YOU!

    THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SOUTH IN THE COUNTRY,SHOULD ALLOW THE CITIZENS IN THE COUNTRY TO SPEAK UP THEIR MINDS ON THIS ONGOING TALK ON FEDERAL SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION BEING ATTACH! THERE ARE MAJOR DISADVANTAGES ON FEDERAL SYSTEM THAT WILL MAKE RIAK FAIL FLAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Gordon Alek says:

    Its not about talking but whom control the power in the country. We believe in what we do, the Equatorians or Dinkatorians you can call and the tribes in Upper Nile and Western Bahar al Gazhala think they have the right to evict us again. A thing which will never happen in South Sudan. We were not prepared to fight Nuer, but you have seen what happened to Nuer when illiteracy droved to them Coup. We inflicted on them what they will never forget the rest of their life. But for Equatorians and others, you called us but some of you were displaced long time. If you don’t clam down with federalism, prepare to stay in exile.

Leave a 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.