War of Words, over who’s the Founding Father (s) of South Sudan

BY: J. Nguen, NOV/11/2016, SSN;

This piece analyses a showdown between President Salva Kiir’s supporters versus late Dr. John Garang’s enthusiasts. The article also underlines who really fits in the definition of a founding father in South Sudan and on what grounds, if only if all tribal and clannish bullshits were thrown overboard.

I am well aware that South Sudan is currently at war and crossroad both socially, politically and economically. Based on these particular points, some may see no reason to write about the founding fathers of the nation because there are plenty and many better things to write about including peace and war, death and salvation and who the villain is.

Hence, I must remind my readers that major fundamental changes occur when a nation is at the crossroad. Based on this dogma, there are those in South Sudan who are so determined to define South Sudan reflecting only their image and this must be corrected today not tomorrow. Back to the war of words!

The war of words we witnessed, on who’s the “Founding Father” of the Republic of South Sudan is a genuine debate if you peel out the clannish undertone. But because South Sudan is a nation where tribal allegiance is strong and has taken a centre stage after independence, because President Kiir’s policy for the nation was/still is for Dinka political hegemony. Because KIIR is tribally programmed, he is prone to divide Dinka based on their clans.

So the riveting war of words at play is clannish in nature between the Dinka of Upper Nile (Dr. Garang’s region) and those from Bahr El Ghazal (Kiir’s region). The opposing sides in the face-off include Ateny Wek Ateny, Kiir’s proponent vs. Pager Ajang, Kuir Garang and Mading Koc and many others who unnecessarily emotionalized this national agenda on social media on both sides.

In the light of this debate, Ateny Wek Ateny came out negative and childish to be exact, mostly because he was let down by his writing ability and also based his piece on personalities (Dr. Garang’s family). On the other hand, folks from late Dr. Garang’s home district were just hell bent to protect the dead man’s legacy at all cost, from what Kuir Garang termed as “bootlicking” misguided thugs.

Similarly, Mr. Pager Ajang could not just stomach comparing narrative between KIIR and Dr. John Garang. For Mr. Ajang, this is more than an insult to the dead man’s legacy.

Thus, the punching lines therein is similar in merits but grossly limited in scope for anyone to decisively qualify one side as an outright winner in the debate over another. Hence, both arguments failed in the process of explaining their modalities properly, how and why KIIR or DR. GARANG met the criteria of founding father of the nation.

The other issue that undermined their offensive and defensive bickering is the fact that the topic under discussions is a national question that needed not to be tribalized despite the desperate clannish witch-hunt egos in South Sudan. At any rate, this issue is bigger than any two tribes let alone the two Dinka clans’ clashing egos.

However, before I move further, I like to remind my readers that Mr. Ateny Wek Ateny has already chickened out in this debate and has long retracted his debacle on the ground that he was misinterpreted as “planting seeds of discords” as Kuire Garang put it.

The caveat herein is that if the question asked would be interpreted as a planting seeds of discords between X and Z, then, in my view, we are doomed as a nation because this account add to the clannish nature this issue undertook.

More so, if the planting seed of discord narrative has indeed caused Ateny to chicken out from the debate, I can affirm that there was no need for Ateny Wek Ateny to withdraw his piece. However, I honestly think that Ateny would have just apologized to late Dr. John’s family on the grounds of disparage. I humbly think that the question asked has merits and was necessary though the timing might not be right.

For example, late Isaiah Abraham on December 8, 2011, before he was brutally assassinated by KIIR’S regime asked the same question of who’s the “founding father of the republic of South Sudan.” Mr. Abraham enquiry came because some prominent politicians from Dinka Bahr El Ghazal region led by none other than the former Chief Justice of the Republic, Judge Ambrose Riiny Thiik, and now the chairman of the infamous Jieng Council of Elders (JCE).

The group allegedly distributed booklets which declared KIIR as the Founding Father of the Republic of South Sudan while they relegated late Dr. Garang as a founder of the Sudan People Liberation Army/Movement (SPLM/A).

Because the alleged booklets were not widely shared, I was informed that Uncle Thiik and cohorts’ argument was based on the grounds of independence. The group was reported to have argued that Dr. Garang died before South Sudan becomes #54 of African countries, and therefore, he can’t be the father of the nation.

Considering that statement, it’s good to remind ourselves that Ateny’s poorly written article was not off the map but followed the same line of thinking. Ateny’s piece was not just a repeat but a stark reminder that the Jieng Dinka from the West of the Nile have a concern regarding the founding father of South Sudan, which other may see as desperate attempt to elbow late Dr. Garang out of nation’s fatherhood status and other important milestones in the history of South Sudan.

I can see some desperation and logic in that. For example, soon after Dr. Garang’s death, the people of DINKA TWIC EAST were targeted and undergone all kinds of humiliations from Salva Kiir’s regime. For instance, their sons and daughters were insidiously weeded out from the SPLA-military files and ranks and politically without any possible cause. Therefore, this gives people very good reasons to wonder.

Despite this good reason, my problem in this regard is the fact that the question asked should never be taken or appears as two Dinka’s thing, which is at play. Simply because there are long set criteria for anyone to be a founding father of the nation. In our case such criteria required constructive and genuine debate from all walks of life in South Sudanese without prejudice. In my humbled opinion, the founding father question in South Sudan isn’t addressed by Ateny running into hiding because he unnecessarily snubbed Late Garang’ family over the issue.

Ateny Wek’s piece:
For those who may not know Ateny, Ateny Wek Ateny is the press secretary in the office of the President. In his first article on who’s the founding father of South Sudan, I felt Ateny started his piece wrongly by rubbishing the people of Southern Sudan’s intelligent as “ignorance,” which he thought lack of staying power stemmed from years of marginalization in the Sudan.

“It is even worse, when the majority of people of South Sudan have either having no stamina or has been made throughout the years of marginalization in the Sudan not to appreciate the different between the SPLM and the Nation,” he wrote.

To unpack this statement, it’s clear that Ateny didn’t communicate any sensible meaning furthering his argument on the founding father of South Sudan question but instead insulted people of South Sudan staying power and wrongly perceived them to lacks endurance.

Ateny went on to say, “Mr. Kiir’s adversaries often intentionally referred to Dr. John and Madam Nyandeng as Father and Mother of the Nation, in an attempt to belittle him and his wife Madam First Lady.” This sentence is simply saying that people of South Sudan are hardcore opponents to Pres. Kiir, which is unfortunate to say by a person representing the highest office in the land.

In layman’s terms, it means Pres. KIIR is at war with the people of South Sudan and KIIR’s supporters must do anything in their disposal to dump down people of South Sudan’s rightful demands deemed contrary to KIIR’s supporters’ misguided gratifications.

Second, because Ateny made his piece as an issue between Dr. Garang vs. SALVA KIIR, I must state that people of South Sudan held high regards for Dr. Garang and his family if such a comparison is necessary here. For one, Salva KIIR betrayed people of South Sudan’s trust and hard won independence by dragging them into the current raging unnecessary war.

In addition, Salva Kiir pitted Dinka tribe against the rest of the tribes which will take years to undo.

Finally, Salva Kiir is a disgraced killer who literally proved to the Arabs that, we, the people of South Sudan cannot govern ourselves, which a shame.

In compatible to the founding father narrative, KIIR MAYARDIT has ruined his chance because he would have been considered as one of the founding fathers on two grounds: (1) On the Declaration independence; and (2) by signing in to law the supreme constitution of South Sudan.

Third, it’s true that South Sudan gained its independence after Dr. Garang passing in 2005 but this doesn’t remove GARANG’s immersed contributions during the war of liberation which in my view in one way or another led to independence.

Fourth, Ateny doesn’t know how to articulate his thoughts and this is evidenced in his retraction and original piece on the “founding father question.” Therefore, it’s unfortunate that Salva KIIR has employed a press secretary who only doodles on issues of national character, lied when accorded with an opportunity and chicken out when challenged.

For Mr. Ajang, Mr. Kuir Garang & Koc and many others who made their oppositions to Ateny’s article known. I am for the opinion that most of their arguments were superficial and some had unwarranted emotional undertones and foul language which made them irrelevant.

For example, Kuir Garang argued that Ateny was not genuine because his thoughts were driven by material “bootlicking” interest and Ateny’s personal problem with the dead man, Dr. Garang. Thus, Ateny is ill-bent to trashing Dr. Garang’s family good image and legacy, according to Kuire. The caveat in this regard is fact that this issue of founding father in South Sudan has arisen before and unfit be boiled down to Ateny’s personal problem with John Garang.

Another Kuire Garang’s line of argument is as follow:
“President Kiir only implemented what was already negotiated by John Garang between 2002 and 2005. Without John Garang and his role in founding of the SPLM/A, Liberation strategies and CPA negotiation, we wouldn’t have a nation called South Sudan. Without John Garang negotiating the CPA personally with Ustaz Taha, President Kiir would have had neither an agreement to implement nor any country for which he’d have assumed presidency.”

All is true but Kuir seems to forget that Garang was not alone in signing the CPA and during the war of liberation. For example, KIIR and many others were part and parcel of the liberation and peace agreement and KIIR himself signed one of the protocols in the CPA.

Moreover, Kuir failed to mention the declaration of independence and signing into law the South Sudan’s virgin constitution which are vital in considering possibilities for anyone to be the founding father of the nation.

Brother Kuir’s justifications for Dr. Garang as one of the founding fathers of South Sudan was based on the liberation struggle, but, I must clarify that the SPLM/A’s vision for the Sudan under Dr. John Garang was a secular Sudan based on the separation between church and state and has nothing to do with the Right of Self-determination for the people of South Sudan.

If anything, Dr. John was true to his words. It’s true that he died promoting the secular Sudan agenda which embodied freedom, equality, justice and prosperity for all Sudanese in the Sudan. Needless to say that Dr. John has say time and again that he was fighting for united Sudan and that South Sudanese are not secessionists.

In numerous occasions, Dr. John Garang even boasted openly about firing his first bullet against the separatists. Therefore, these are facts, hard to deny and damning reasons to question Dr. John Garang’s qualifications to be one of the founding father of South Sudan.

Besides, it was wrong for Kuir Garang to compare Dr. John’s political vision to those of Mwzee Kenyatta of Kenya, Nkrumah of Ghana, Mwalimu Nyere of Tanzania and so forth, simply because these leaders fought for an outright independence of their nations from the colonial rules which is incompatible to what Dr. John fought and died for in the Sudan.

On a personal note, it’s perplexing seeing people who should know better about the state affairs of South Sudan and refused to be honest. Brother Kuir knows better and should be honest.

Finally, I agreed with Kuir Garang that Ateny Wek is a pathetic lair and has lied in numerous occasions in the past. Ateny also has unnecessarily centred his piece on late Dr. Garang’s death and family than the criteria for the founding father.

Mading Koc’s argument for the part is in line with Kuir Garang’s piece. Besides, Koc argued that “Dr. Garang knew that people of South Sudan would conduct referendum on January 2011 and they would proclaim their independence on the 9th of July 2011… there was no coma and there was nothing whatsoever that KIIR did in the CPA.”

This is puzzling and undoubtedly one of the emotional undertones I mentioned above. If I may, it’s true that Dr. Garang signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (PA) but he was unaware the referendum for the people of South Sudan would be conducted successfully on January 2011 and South Sudan would declare independence on July 9th, 2011.

Rightfully so, you would agree that Mr. Koc is dwelling on misplaced platform and misguided assumption simply because the successful implementation and outcome of the CPA at least for South Sudanese was unknown before and even after Dr. GARANG died.

If for any wild reason, one would think that Dr. Garang knew the successful outcomes of all protocols signed in the CPA, then, it would be equally true to say the Abyei, the Nuba Mountain and the Blue Nile protocols were to be successful as well even though all were abrogated by Khartoum at will. I wonder how my brother Mading Koc would explain this diversion in a lay man terms.

On the other hand, Mr. Pager Ajang’s piece dwelled much in comparing SALVA KIIR’s contributions during the war of liberation struggle in contrast to that of Dr. Garang, which in my view is irrelevant in the light of the founding father.

It’s true that SALVA KIIR has not done much compare to GARANG but there are also things KIIR has done which could have been attributed to claims of the founding father status, and these includes the declaration of independence and signing into law the constitution of South Sudan.

In regard to other dramatic reactions toward Ateny’s piece, I felt there was no proper reason to respond to them because they were all amount to unnecessary abusive nature this matter turned to in the social media.
The founding father of South Sudan.

Father of the Nation is an honorific title given to a man or men considered to be driving force behind the establishment of their country and in this respect I must affirm that South Sudan does not have one monolithic founding father. Men who were the driving force behind South Sudan’s independence were many and I am pleased to announced that Dr. John Garang is one of them.

One of my reasoning is that Dr. John Garang de Mabior led a guerilla movement, Sudan People Liberation Movement and Army (SPLM/A) which fought a deadly civil war for 21 years to remove the despotic regime in the Sudan.
As a result of this seemingly endless civil war in the Sudan, the rulers in Khartoum then felt threatened and opted to allow the people of South Sudan to exercise the right of self determination which resulted to independence.

This accidental political trajectory underscored the legitimacy of Dr. Garang as one of the founding fathers of South Sudan. Without this, I am afraid Dr. Garang would qualify an honorific title of the founding father of South Sudan.

In contrast, Dr. Garang was a firm unionist. Without any doubt, Dr. John Garang was determined, prepared and died promoting the programs and agenda of secular Sudan which embodied freedom, equality, justice and prosperity for all Sudanese in the Sudan.

SALVA KIIR on the other hand played limited political roles in this respect but he (Kiir) inadvertently became chairman of the SPLM/A, First Vice President of Sudan and Principal of South Sudan after tragic death of John Garang in the helicopter crash in 2005.

Sadly, immediately after Garang’s sudden death, KIIR changed goal the post and joined his deputy Dr. Riek Machar whose central goal was to have an independent South Sudan. Both men championed for the Right of Self determination for the people of South Sudan and achieved it through a referendum. South Sudan became independence and Salva KIIR became the first President of the new nation.

This prospect could have landed Salva KIIR an honorific title of the founding father of the nation but KIIR ruined when he turned South Sudanese against each other and the nation into a killing field. As a result, Salva Kiir became a satanic messiah of the high order.

For example, Salva KIIR planned and executed the massacre of 20, 000 Nuer innocent civilians in 2013 using his Dinka tribal militias and then trialed by retaliatory killings. This episode was also followed by mass killing of thousands of the Equatorians, the Fertits and the Chollo civilians in cold blood by Salva Kiir’s regime.

In closing, the question asked about who is the founding father of South Sudan is significantly important and required honest and constructive answer. Therefore, anyone who downplayed or misrepresented this profound question in attempts to protect Dr. John Garang de Mabior’s legacy or wrongly award Salva Kiir with what he did not sow is disingenuous.

J. Nguen is a Chairman of Nuer Supreme Council, Political Commentator and Analyst. He can be reached at jamesnguen@gmail.com


  1. info@southsudannation says:

    J. Nguen,
    This argument of and about the so-called ‘founding father(s)’ of the South Sudan nation has no basis presently, since, technically and politically, the presumed “South Sudan nation” was already created and in existence since and a consequence of the famous Addis Ababa Agreement (AAA) in 1972, whence the current boundaries and physical definition of the current South Sudan nation were legally and politically founded.

    Essentially, the 1972 AAA established the foundations of a future nation and it was presumed that the then incumbent president Abel Alier would assiduously and heroically proceed with the demand for a ‘Referendum’ for the vote for self determination by the people of the then legally established and defined South Sudan region.

    Unfortunately, the traitorous Abel Alier, who easily and faint-heartedly evolved into a political sell-out to the jellaba Arab North, used his legalistic skills to betray the people of South Sudan. Alier maliciously and shamefully acquiesced to all the political manoeuvres of his paymaster, Arab president Jaffar Niemery.

    The rest is history. Inevitably, heroic and unrelenting freedom fighters like the Gai Tut, Aggrey Jaden, Akot Atem, Daniel Jumi, Gwatala and others, painfully realizing the betrayal of Abel Alier, separately and individually remained in exile, or returned to the bush to reinvigorate a resumption of the liberation struggle.

    Other opponents of Abel Alier’s betrayal, like Stephan Lam, were incarcerated, tortured and killed in prisons by the then emerging gang of jieng collaborators of the jellaba Arabs.

    Others like staunch pro-independence of South Sudan proponents and critics of Alier’s sell-out rule, like Gordon Mortat, a jieng himself, chose to remain in exile forever, because of the betrayal of the independence of South Sudan by Alier and company.

    In short, South Sudan was technically a nation just awaiting some formal declaration of its political existence. We can’t be sure of what would have happened if John Garang had been alive. God works in mysterious ways.

    Finally, neither John Garang nor Salva Kiir can and will never be recognized as ‘founding fathers of the South Sudan,’ they technically in a third military struggle by South Sudanese heroes, restarted the march to total independence of South Sudan.

    Millions of South Sudanese, including Garang, Kerubino, William Nyuon, died and paid the final price in the realization and the fulfillment of the timeless dream and hope of every South Sudanese for an independent nation.

    In short, we have in totality, ‘fathers and mothers’ of the South Sudan nation, those whose undoubted and shining nationalism and heroism preceded both Garang and Kiir, from General Tafeng and Rev. Father Saturlino Ohure to Buth Dieu, Aggrey Jaden, Gwatala, Joseph Oduho, Bernadino Muonyang and the millions of South Sudanese.

    Mr. J. Nguen, I personally and technically refrain for listening or publishing comments emitted by that foul-mouthed and illogical so-called presidential spokesman, Ateny Wek, he’s blatantly and unapologetically, a shame and disaster to the South Sudan nation, whenever he is vomiting his ‘broken’ English on air.

    Editor (my personal view)

  2. Lokosang says:

    Mr Nguen,
    I just want to know what purpose does this article serve at this critical moment where innocent people are dying. About whoever may be the founding father of South Sudan, any prudent mind would know that the political struggle for the independence of South Sudan did not start with SPLM/A. It started since 1955 till Addis Abba agreement was signed in 1972 as SSN editor put it, followed by Anya Anya 11 and SPLM/A. For that reason what are the criteria used by both sides of argument to reached their conclusion?

    President Kiir is not a politician. He is a military person not even a qualified military person like other generals in the SPLA whom most of us know. The war of liberation was fought and the agreement was signed in 2005 at the time when Kiir was at the periphery of SPLM politics though he was the second in command. He was put second in command not because he is qualified, but just to please the baher Ghazal majority within SPLA.

    In 2011 we all voted unanimously for the independence of South Sudan. Therefore the argument that he is the founding father of South Sudan is void.

    Our country is disintegrating into tribal enclaves because of this semi-illiterate tribal leader call Salva Kiir. The national fabric that Dr John built in the last 21 years prior to the signing of CPA in 2005 was destroyed by Kiir and his Jieng Council of Elders in just 5 years after independence.

    The same to the other side of argument, Dr John is the founding father of SPLM/A but not the founding father of South Sudan. my reason of argument is, because he died before he could achieve his vision of new Sudan where there is justice and equality, freedom of expression, rule of law and equal opportunity for all regardless of our tribes, region and ethnicity. Had he to be alive and able to establish a new South Sudan based on the above mentioned characteristics, yes, we can say he is the founding father of New South Sudan.

    In conclusion, I may say all of us who voted unanimously for independence including those who lost their souls during all the wars of liberation are founding fathers of South Sudan.

  3. J. Nguen says:

    Lokosang and Mr. Editor,

    Thanks for your comments. I like I mentioned in my article, there are other better things to write about considering South Sudan’s state of affairs, but I refused not to respond because I was afraid some may think they have it all on their side. As you might be aware, South Sudan is currently being defines to only meet and reflects one nationality leaving the rest of us in the cold. This is what we are seeing and it must be corrected regardless.

    In my humble opinion, I agreed with an Editor that South Sudan has many founding fathers and mothers than what those I mentioned in my article attempt portrayed, which is one of the reasons I wrote this article.

    Best regards,
    J. Nguen

  4. Chief Abiko! says:

    Dear: Chief Editor And Lokosang:

    You have said it! I do not want generalizing a whole tribe in Dinka people. They are people who are honest in themselves in events and anniversaries in Sudan people politics since in 1956. Southerners fought the Sudan government in Khartoum since in 1956 for separation. It produced Addis Ababa Local Autonomy 1972.

    The war of 1983, in the South,it was obfuscated and confused since day until now! Dr.John Garang De Mabiour,fought for the unity of one Sudan. But his fighting of one Sudan, he has not yet achieved the goal of his one Sudan.
    He in fact,succeeded to have brought South Sudan Nation through vote of plebiscite! He did not defeat Sudan government in Khartoum. He did not liberate entire South Sudan! He in fact captured the places in part of the South Sudan. Let Dinka not become arrogant on liberation of South Sudan!
    His successor, President Salva Kirr, he is not the Founding Father of The South Sudan Nation. THE RECORD IS VERY CLEAR! Dr. John Garang De Mabior, by the agreement CPA he signed brought the country of South Sudan at last! Period!

  5. Chief Abiko! says:

    Dear: Chief Editor And Lokosang:

    You have said it! I do not want genelizing a whole tribe in Dinka people.They are people who are honest in themselves in events and anniversaries in Sudan people politics since in 1956. Southerners fought the Sudan government in Khartoum since in 1956 for separation. It produced Addis Ababa Local Autonomy 1972.

    The war of 1983,in the South,it was obsfucated and confused since day until now! Dr.John Garang De Mabiour,fought for the unity of one Sudan. But his fighting of one Sudan,he has not yet achivied the goal of his one Sudan.Sudan is now still blood bleeding profusely until the South Sudan! He in fact,succeeded to have brought South Sudan Nation through vote plebicite! He did not defeat Sudan government in central in north in Khartoum in military victories! He did not liberate entire South Sudan! He in fact captured the places in part of the South Sudan. Let Dinka individual not become arrogant on liberation of South Sudan! His successor,President Salva Kirr,he is not the Founding Fathers of The South Sudan Nation. He is the first president of the South Sudan Nation.THE RECORD IS VERY CLEAR! Dr.John Garang De Mabior, agreement CPA He signed brough the country in the South Sudan at last! Period!

  6. Dr.John Garang de Mabior (RIP), Salva Kiir Mayardit and Dr. Riek Machar Teny Dhurgon et’ al are warlords and the world criminals who witnessed and ordered killing of ordinary people from 1983-2016. Unfortunately Garang met his fate early without being prosecuted for the killings of Lahulaks and civilians in various towns. Kiir, Riek, Igga Wani should not die until justice is seen done against them. The father of South Sudan has not been identified yet. He/she will come from whoever rules a country even for six months in peaceful and harmonious atmosphere. Do not preach about founding father of South Sudan nation. We are still examining our choice of 2011 whether there exist a nation called South Sudan. At the moment, we’ve something similar to a nation, not yet to that standard that needs founders to be named, Nguen. Stop this topic. Focus on how Salva, Riek, Malong and Igga come together and greet each other!!!
    Thamur Dikorii

  7. Hello: Thamur Dikori Wilaam

    Sorry! There is no JUSTICE AT ALL in the 3rd world countries! Only that is applying in the western countries in the west,Do not dream of putting the warlords and world criminals to the country of South Sudan Republic to face the laws! They are now overjoying IMMUNITY STATUS QUO!


    Sincere Killing Anger!


  8. mading says:

    Thamur D. William. You sound like a former arab domestic worker who is mad now, because you lost your job to South Sudan separation from the rest of Sudan.

  9. Mading:
    I am a typical South Sudanese who live among the ordinary South Sudan. I am not proud of criminals who called themselves liberators of the South Sudan. In fact, the liberation of South Sudan is incomplete as majority are suffering for the choice they made in 2011. The political and military thugs have enriched themselves and one of them one that utterly confessing that he will never make South Sudan to progress. He had got enough wealth and slept with the most beautiful lady!!! Mading are these the human leaders you are supporting? We believe in change and justice must be done first.

  10. Tit4tat says:

    This is an irrelevant topic and makes no sense whatsoever.

  11. Tit4tat says:

    South Sudan is on the way to disintegration, so stop this nonsense of who is the father or mother because there is none. South Sudan is a poor miserable orphan.

  12. Peacemaker says:

    The foundation of an independent South Sudan was laid as early as 1950th when the first bullet of Southern consciousness was fired in Torit. Fr. Saturnino takes the credit of this honorific title. Independence of South Sudan took more than half a century in the making. It was a continuous process building on successive revolutionary struggles culminating in the referendum the outcome of which was the option to secede from former United Sudan. Hence there had been collective efforts sternly supported by the US and it allies to achieve this goal.

  13. Peacemaker
    History can be created but subject to criticism. Except for natural science, which requires confirmatotry test (put it more scientific), social sciences are questionable at all times dependingg on the condition, time and place. Fr. Saturino, deserves that fatherhood if conclusion were arbitrarily to be made as such. However, before considering one for a particular status, several factors must be factored into. Fr. Ohure, though his zeal for liberation might have been motivated by liberation theology, until the catholic Church declares him ” blessed/veneral or saint” for deserting the office of Jesus (Priestly) duty, only become a rebel and “whether or not his rebellion indeed reflected the teaching of catholic Church, Fr. Saturlino may not be clean to take search of the fatherhood of the nation. Julius Nyarere had never professed holy orders but on his way to sainthood. Arcbishop Lukudu Loro or Auxillary Bishop Santo Laku will convince Rome first before with admit Fr. Saturlino. A catholic from Equatoria but not acquiescestic to any short-cut to title of late Father Ohure.

  14. Simba says:

    I would posit that South Sudan is not even founded yet. Just when the foundations are being constructed,they came crumbling down. I dont see a nation but only fragmented ethnicities oppressed by a brutal incompetent regime.
    If there is a future for South Sudan, the founder may just be walking amongst us right now.

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.