PRESS RELEASE South Sudan Government’s Military Stockpiling to Undermine Ongoing Peace Efforts

Machine Gun from China (Wekipedia)

Machine Gun from China (Wekipedia)

The Rally for Peace and Democracy South Sudan (RPD) is profoundly perturbed following recent reports by media and human rights groups that the Government of South Sudan is importing $38 million worth of military hardware comprising missile and grenade launchers, pistols, machine guns and ammunition’s. The reports present evidence of the source of the weapons (Hong Kong, China), the name of the manufacturer and consigning company (NORINCO), and quantity and categories of the weapons. This irresponsible act is taking place despite:
1. Authoritative predictions of imminent humanitarian disaster as expressed by highly-placed personalities and none other than the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Man-made food insecurity situation of the worse kind, affecting one-third of the population of South Sudan, is said to be looming menacingly as a result of the ongoing armed conflict.
2. The Government of South Sudan signed the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, which in unequivocal terms states that the parties to the conflict shall “refrain from taking any actions that could lead to military confrontations including all movement of forces, ammunition resupply, or any other action that could be viewed as confrontational”. Hardly a month has gone past when leader of the government, Lt. General Salva Kiir Mayardit, re-committed to honouring the CoH.
3. Oil production – the main source of income to the Government of South Sudan – has fallen by about two-thirds, which has led to heavy borrowing by this government and salaries of civil servants and uniformed forces are paid in small arrears after elapse of two to three months. In addition, essential social services (health and education) have suffered severely since independence.
4. Due to ill-advised and unilateral decision to close oil production for a good part of 2013, the government was obliged to implement austerity measures, which led to tremendous economic melt-down. This forced some population to return to the republic of Sudan or back to exile in neighbouring countries.
5. China, the sole supplier of the military stockpile, is a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, which has strongly condemned military atrocities in South Sudan and even pledged to contribute with more peace keeping forces to enforce and maintain peace in the country. China is also the leading importer of the South Sudanese oil and a leading investor inits oil industry.

RPD reserves no words to condemn both the Government of South Sudan and that of China for their reckless and callous move to refuel the bloody conflict in South Sudan. Taking it further, RPD strongly urges the United Nations, the African Union and European Union to block the arms consignment on the account that it is a flagrant violation of the internationally brokered Cessation of Hostilities Agreement and also an act that is definitely going to increase to the already high death toll. RPD further urges imposition of military embargo on South Sudan and holding its president accountable for the deliberate violation of the cease fire agreement.

RPD Interim Secretariat
July 22, 2014


SPLM in Opposition Huge Delegation Not Received At Entebbe Airport

President Salva Kiir Mayardit, centre, with Vice President Dr.Riek Machar, left, and James Wani Igga, centre right, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, at Juba airport on 8 February 2011

President Salva Kiir Mayardit, centre, with Vice President Dr.Riek Machar, left, and James Wani Igga, centre right, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, at Juba airport on 8 February 2011

The nine members delegation led by the Deputy Chairman, General Alfred Ladu Gore, arrived at Entebbe Airport on Monday at 11am, morning. Unfortunately they were not received by Ugandan authorities. The officials stayed in the Airport the whole day until they decided to return to Addis Ababa in the evening.
Their mission to Kampala was in response to a request by President Yoweri Museveni who asked for a meeting with the Chairman and Commander-in-Chief of SPLM/SPLA- in Opposition, Dr. Riek Machar Teny. The delegation’s travel was arranged with the knowledge of the Ugandan Ambassador to Ethiopia.
The intentionally aborted visit was to make preparations and set an agenda for a possible meeting in Addis Ababa. In today interview with Media James Gatdet Dak,the Spokesperson of the Chairman of the Opposition stated that, Ugandan leadership has clearly indicated that President Museveni is not serious to dialogue with our leadership. May be the Ugandan leadership had a different intention. May be they didn’t like the fact that the mission to Kampala was made known to the world through media.
Kampala used to mislead the IGAD member countries that it wanted to dialogue with the leadership of the Movement, contrary to the reality which is now unveiled.” Gatdet said in an interview with Journalists today.


President Salva Kiir Mayardit, centre, with Vice President Dr.Riek Machar, left, and James Wani Igga, centre right, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, at Juba airport on 8 February 2011

President Salva Kiir Mayardit, centre, with Vice President Dr.Riek Machar, left, and James Wani Igga, centre right, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, at Juba airport on 8 February 2011

By Mangong Mawien Madut

Our State South Sudan is one of the nations internationally recognized by various global organizations in three years back. Having the country like South Sudan which the central government is mandated and publicly accepted by her citizens is more important than any other thing.

Citizens doesn’t only feel proud of having centralized government but they first love the sovereignty of their nation which whole world called now Republic of South Sudan after long waited Referendum fulfilled by people the South Sudanese citizens in 2011 when majority of civil population voted for separation.
How hopes of citizens were not only failed but regrettably destroyed by Juba Elites
Who are Juba Elites?
Juba elites are a small group of people who are/were controlling a disproportionate amount of wealth and political power since 2005 to the date of their outdated political disagreement which resulted into bloodshed in modern world of peaceful settlement of problems.

they are/were selective groups who run the government of South Sudan friendly and favorably since the transitional interim government but unexpectedly they challenged each other, criticized themselves for the total failure of the ruling party SPLM and forgotten that the citizens knew their good and poor performances in government from the date they assumed the positions.

Elites of Juba thought they are /were more clever enough to corrupt the system, embezzled the public funds and failed to implement the urgent basic human needs and at the same time instead to sit down as top government officials and advise themselves to stop misappropriation of the country ‘s resources and build for us a modern nation South Sudan because no one among them is poor compare to others they just went out barely and publicly to challenge themselves and tell the total failure of country without knowing that the poor civil population in this country alright knew how they are being failed by them {Juba Elites} but they poor civilians kept silent for having no an alternative to Juba government of selective politicians.

So elitism of Juba government’s top politicians was not their intelligence but luckiness to meet as a true friends who can never and will never make an accountability to themselves despite of how too much they are corrupting the government provide that they are in the system and practicing the similar scandal.

That is what happened to them not intelligence nor an interests of South Sudanese citizens to leave their country being mishandled to the extent of high corruption but it was their time {Juba Elites} to do what they expect not what citizens expects to be down by the politicians who loves their people and State.
Internal division of Juba Elites
As the common saying put it, politic is a dirty game. Which had misinterpret rated itself since an emerge of an earlier political theories. So I think it is not the case here in politics of modern world. The theory that says politics is a dirty game is more to be contradicted in nation of learn t politicians and people.

Then for the case of Juba Elites politics, how the politic came really to its common saying as a dirty game. Despite that the theory of politics being a dirty game was rejected by young people who made independent and accurate research about politics. But majority of people agreed when Juba Elites divided themselves into groups mainly Gen. Salva Kiir his group and Dr. Riak Machar his group.
The division came surprising and sharply when the two leaders presented their ambition for the chairmanship of the ruling party SPLM for the 2015 elections. The top politicians of SPLM disagreed in an appointment of the party’s chairperson to compete with main opposition leaders.

The politics they played in SPLM for election ticket revealed too many people that politics is a dirty game. Giving more questions to people of how Gen. Salva Kiir fell out with his long time true friends in SPLM who can never disagreed with him in any circumstances If it was not a believe theory of politics being a dirty game trying to happen and show itself in Africa’s youngest nation which truly engulfed our country into bloody civil war.

No more debate, politics is a true dirty game if it is ill-played based on what happened to our nation South Sudan. The current crises facing the innocent people who don’t know anything in politics is not only horrible but painful leaving blame always on top politicians who carelessly enforced the experienced war to poor people.

This war is not only destructive, divisive but continuously is implementing unshaken hatred between the Jieng and Nuer If there will be no sincere sensitization of Nuer and Jieng ‘s civil populations about their closeness and relativity and their none business on Kiir and Riak ‘s heedless war by rejecting unhelpful orientations.

later when almighty God make it, bring a comprehensive peace among the misled communities to understand the position they are supposed to take in any political disorientation, the government has to take necessary measures in reconstruction and transformation of the societies by educating them well not to make any mistake again to back up the politicians who doesn’t need the enjoyment of stability of country.

This is time for poor people to take their children to school instead to be misused in any situation created by those who want to come to power or maintain their positions. It is an essential and has to be considered seriously by victims.
Problems needs political settlement to end the senseless war

It would be better for two leaders of two groups the warring parties to sit down and honestly convince themselves on how to bring lasting peace to country.. They have to reconsider the suffering of civilians as currently the innocent are displaced from their homes and forced to homeless. Dialogue is a solution to grievances and political differences.
If both leaders really love and cares for people, then they have to give peace chance and forget interests they are pursuing.

Author is reached on

Besigye speaks on his dealings with Sejusa

Dr Kiza and Sejusa

On Tuesday, Dr Kizza Besigye appeared on CBS radio’s Kiriza oba Gaana talk show. He revealed that he has been meeting the exiled Gen David Sejusa aka Tinyefuza and discussing strategies to bring political and democratic change in Uganda. Gen Sejusa has been living in exile since last year after falling out with the NRM government over what he called President Museveni’s scheme to groom his son Brig Muhoozi Kainerugaba, to succeed him as president. He is now wanted for treason. The Sunday Monitor followed up Besigye’s remarks on the talk show and asked him in an email interview to tell us more about his dealings with Gen Sejusa and how the two intend to work together to cause the political change in Uganda. Below is Dr Besigye’s answers.
You said just like you, Gen Sejusa is interested in bringing change in Uganda, what change are the two of you planning?
The change our country desires is one that empowers Ugandans to freely and equitably participate in and influence decisions that affect their lives, provide equal opportunities to all, and that respects and protects basic freedoms and rights of all citizens, including minorities. This is a struggle for a transition from dictatorship to a democratic dispensation. I consider anybody who supports such a change as an ally.
From your discussion with Gen Sejusa, without going into specific, what is his strategy to bring that desired change in Uganda?
Gen Sejusa believes in using all possible channels of confronting and disintegrating the Museveni dictatorship. He believes that this includes political (non-violent), diplomatic and military (violent) means. I believe that all these means are legitimate. I however, believe that political (non-violent) means must form the vanguard of the struggle for democracy. Whereas military means can dislodge a dictatorship from power, as the NRA did in 1986, it doesn’t, by itself, offer any guarantee for ensuring a transition to democracy.
Moving forward to 2016, does Gen Sejusa intend to play any role in the 2016 electoral race? What part does he intend to play?
Gen Sejusa is best placed to answer this. My own impression is that, like me, he doesn’t believe that there can be credible elections under Museveni’s watch. He has been helpful in exposing what happens in elections, especially, the role of security organisations in manipulating the process and its outcomes. As such, I do not consider that his plans and actions would be influenced by the 2016 electoral calendar.

What is the nature of his cooperation with the Opposition? Is he forming and coming with his own party or does he want to join one of the existing Opposition parties?
Again, I am not in a position to speak for Gen Sejusa or the “Opposition”. The struggle at hand, as I understand it, is a liberation struggle, one that aims at liberating Uganda (and freeing the country) from the shackles of a vicious dictatorship. It has on one side, all formations that seek freedom; including “Opposition” political parties, Civil Society Organisations, political pressure groups, liberation movements, etc. An individual, like Gen Sejusa, may even subscribe to several formations. It’s the objective that brings all on one side. Cooperation and coordination amongst these formations is a continuous process.
In light of your reservations that the 2016 poll is “an election already stolen”, how will the two of you bring change?
Ultimately, all the struggles I’ve talked about have, as an important milestone, the change of the electoral management. The success of achieving this is not pegged on 2016 timeline. It’s desirable for that change to happen before 2016; however, if it doesn’t happen by then, the struggle will continue regardless of what the Museveni/ Kiggundu Electoral Commission would be doing.
You lived in exile in South Africa and returned to lead the struggle for change from Kampala, is this a proposal you have shared with Sejusa and what is his position on returning to Uganda?
Political activists face differing challenges at different times and need to position themselves in a manner that allows them to function in the most effective way. If it’s very risky to function from inside Uganda, it’s reasonable to do so from outside. If, circumstances change, locations of activists can change too. I am sure that Gen Sejusa would like to return to Uganda at the earliest opportunity. When he tried to do so, the military was mobilised to Entebbe airport with open threats of his arrest. He has to evaluate the threats and act accordingly. Recklessness is not an advisable way to struggle.
Gen Sejusa oversaw operations that fomented torture on you and Reform Agenda/FDC members such as when the Black Mamba military squad raided the High Court in 2005 to re-arrest your co-accused on treason. He also participated in the election rigging that possibly denied you victory, what faith do you have in him now that he is committed to democracy and freedom in Uganda?
I have no way of assessing Gen Sejusa’s commitment to democracy presently. It’s not even possible to be certain of anybody’s commitment until it’s demonstrated in practice. The guarantors of Uganda’s democracy must be the citizens themselves. This is why it’s critically important to have an informed, empowered and engaged citizenry that can challenge anyone veering from the democratic path. Sauls can transform into Pauls and vice versa.
From your interaction with him, have you talked to him about these incidents? If yes, what does he say or feel about them? Have you forgiven him personally?
Gen Sejusa has publicly regretted and apologised for his role in activities of the NRM/Museveni dictatorship. He says that some of the abuses or atrocities were wrongly assigned to him and that he acted under orders in others. I don’t consider that it’s the right time to inquire into who has done what in the past. All effort needs to be focused on working for a democratic transition.
It’s under a democratic dispensation that any previous abuses and/ or offences can be properly inquired into and disposed of. Personally, I hold no grudge against anyone who may have mistreated me in the course of our struggle. I promptly forgive and move on.
Sometime back, in an interview with this newspaper, exiled Col Samson Mande doubted Gen Sejusa’s commitment to the democratic cause and change in Uganda and expressed reservations that Sejusa might be a government decoy to trick the Opposition into a false political alliance. What is your view on these reservations about Sejusa?
Gen Sejusa’s (or any other person’s) commitment to the struggle can only be ascertained by his actions. The starting point is to welcome everyone who professes support for the struggle for democracy in Uganda. Then, whoever acts in support of the struggle is considered a friend and whoever acts against the struggle is considered a foe.
As I’ve already pointed out, even previously committed activists of the struggle can defect and work against it and vice versa. Unless he acts otherwise, I think that Gen Sejusa should be welcomed by all activists. In any case, Gen Sejusa brings a wealth of information and experience to the struggle.
Sometime back, I warned the country about Uganda reverting back to a catastrophic war. I did this far back in 2012, following the rampant murders in villages which were being stage managed by criminal state agents in order to frame some political leaders.
Those who have short memories, however, tend to gain nothing from the lessons of history.

M7 invites Machar for dialogue

July 20, 2014 (ADDIS ABABA) – A high-level delegation of the rebel faction of the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM) led by the former vice-president, Riek Machar, will soon travel to the Ugandan capital, Kampala, to meet president Yoweri Museveni.

Rebels spokesman said the visit comes in response to requests by president Yoweri Museveni to “sort out any misunderstandings” between him and the rebel movement.

In a press release issued on Sunday by the opposition leader’s spokesperson, James Gatdet Dak, a 10-man delegation led by the deputy chairman of the SPLM/A [in opposition], General Alfred Ladu Gore, is expected to arrive in Kampala on Tuesday.

“A high level delegation of SPLM/SPLA will travel to the Ugandan capital, Kampala, on Tuesday, to meet the Ugandan top leadership. The delegation will be led by the deputy chairman, General Alfred Ladu Gore,” partly reads the press release.

“This is in response to requests by President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda to meet our chairman Dr Riek Machar Teny,” Dak said.

He further explained that president Museveni since June has been requesting for a meeting with Machar to sort out any misunderstandings between the two leaders after the 15 December crisis in which Ugandan forces interfered in the internal conflict by fighting alongside Salva Kiir’s forces against the opposition group.

“President Museveni has been asking for a meeting with Dr Machar in order to sort out any misunderstandings between the two leaders in the aftermath of the 15 December crisis in South Sudan. The process has been brokered by the former president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, since 11 June,” Dak added.

He said the delegation led by Machar’s deputy Alfred Ladu Gore will include Dr. Dhieu Mathok Diing, chairperson for external relations, professor Oyet Nathaniel Pierino, chairperson for political mobilization, Mabior Garang de Mabior, chairperson for information and public relations, Hussein Mar Nyuot, chairperson for humanitarian affairs, Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, deputy chairperson for external relations, among others.

Dak said the delegation will prepare for the expected face-to-face meeting between Machar and Museveni which is expected to take place in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, any time soon.

South Sudanese rebels led by Machar have been accusing Uganda of involvement in the internal conflict which started within the ruling SPLM party.

Kiir accused his former deputy of allegedly attempting coup, which Machar dismissed as a ploy to silence political reformists in the party.

Uganda immediately deployed its troops days after the violence in which they actively involved in combats using both ground and air attacks against Machar’s rebels in many parts of the country.

The rebel leader had been resisting meeting Museveni, saying the Ugandan leader had to first withdraw its forces from South Sudan.

Uganda also insisted it would withdraw its troops only after deployment of proposed alternative IGAD regional forces, arguing that South Sudan leadership would collapse under the weight of Machar’s forces should the forces withdraw.

However, during the June IGAD regional summit, president Museveni surprisingly admitted in front of regional leaders that there was no coup attempt in Juba as alleged, a previously sole reason for its forces deployment to save president Kiir’s government.

He also agreed to withdraw his forces at an unspecified time.

The joint military effort by Uganda and South Sudan however failed to crash the opposition group, proving the war may become protracted for so long.

Analysts say Museveni’s expected meeting with the rebel leader Machar could be an opportunity for him to discuss an exit strategy.


Nasir Captured by Machar Rebels

July 20, 2014 (JUBA) – Forces loyal to South Sudan former vice-president, Riek Machar claimed they were fully in control of Nasir, a strategic Upper Nile state town.

A military spokesperson for the rebels said forces under the command of Maj. Gen. Gathoth Gatkuoth liberated Nasir town from pro-government forces at dawn.

“The liberation of Nasir came about after repeated futile attempts made by Kiir’s forces to arrest Gen. Gathoth at his twin bases in Maan-Deng and Jigmir,” said Brig. Gen. Lul Ruai Koang in statement extended to Sudan Tribune.

He further said their forces have for the last three days been fighting in self-defense in order to “protect and prevent unlawfully arrest of the top military commander”.

“Today at dawn, Kiir’s forces were finally repulsed, pursued at neck-breaking speed and as result, Nasir was captured at 700am this morning,” partly noted the rebels’ statement.

The opposition forces also claimed to have captured three government tanks and allegedly destroyed a number of trucks during the assault on Nasir.

South Sudan army (SPLA) spokesperson, Phillip Aguer earlier told Radio Tamajuz that fighting was ongoing between pro-govermment forces and rebels in Nasir.

But Gordon Buay, a member of other armed groups integration committee disputed the rebel claims, saying opposition forces were repulsed out of Nasir town by pro-government forces.

“The group that attacked the airport and commissioner’s office resisted for hours. However, the SPLA forces defeated them at 12:30 PM. At the Airport, around 230 rebels were found dead,” Buay said in a statement obtained by Sudan Tribune.


The special envoys from the regional bloc (IGAD) have strongly condemn this attack in Nasir by forces of the SPLM/A–In Opposition, describing it a blatant violation of Cessation of Hostilities (COH) Agreement, signed between the Government of the Republic of South Sudan and the rebels on 23 January.

“While the casualties of this attack are yet to be assessed, the mediation team is saddened by the continued loss of lives not only of combatants, but of vulnerable groups like women and children,” IGAD said in a statement.

Both warring parties, the regional bloc said, had on 10 June pledged to “end the war now” and establish a transitional government within 60 days.

“In view of the above and of reports of rising tensions in other areas, the IGAD Special Envoys appeal to the Parties to remain committed to the Agreements signed and to exercise maximum restraints and desist from any further violations,” IGAD further observed.

Talks between the two parties, currently on hold, is seen as the best alternative to the country’s seven-month old conflict that has killed thousands and displaced nearly 1.5 million people.


Will the remaining four detainees bring Juba under siege?

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else “― Theodore Roosevelt
There are doubts among the people whether the negotiation with go well in Ethiopians Capital on the 7th of February 2014 as scheduled due to the issue of the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) in opposition members who are still in custody in Juba. Other analyzes are predicting the complexity, bitterness of the discussion due to the four gentlemen who are still in Juba.
However, South Sudan government said Thursday that it would only sanction full and complete withdrawal of Ugandan troops from its territory, upon the complete implementation of the cessation of hostilities that permits return of peace and stability. If you may ask; will peace come when the remaining four detainees are still in custody in Juba? Meanwhile Rebel groups led by South Sudan former vice-president Riek Machar openly accused Uganda of fuelling the conflict with the direct participations of its troops alongside the government forces.
And more so, when you see the mixed reactions from United States of America (USA) and Norway, one of countries that played a critical role in 2005 peace deal ending the North-South Sudan civil war, on Wednesday said it was now time for Uganda to start withdrawing its troops from the world’s youngest nation to avoid worsening the crisis.
What will happen if Uganda troops refuse to return to their territory? Will juba not going to be under siege from Dr Machar militants? Will the International Community and IGAD not going to give ultimatum to South Sudan government with short dateline before the 7th of February 2014?
More so, some people might wonder about the meaning of the word siege; siege refers to a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.
What I have noted with concern in my country South Sudan; is the ideology of not telling the facts to ourselves or to our readers globally. Why do I bring this in to your attention? Some people in South Sudan do not appreciate the facts but rather what they like most is to hide the truth.
Hence the bible taught us that; “Proverbs 12:19 , truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment”.
Psalm 5:6 “You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man”
We all acknowledged and appreciates the commitment of the Inter-governmental Authority on the Development (IGAD) and International Community as well on the role they played in compelling President General Salva Kiir Mayardit to release all the political detainees and signing of the secession of hostility that was signed in order to stop the violence in the newest nation.
More interestingly, on Wednesday 29th of January 2013, only seven (7) out of the eleven (11) detainees were released on bail and other remained in custody like Pagan Amum, Majak D Agoot, Lol Gatkuoth and Oyei Deng Ajack. The basis of their remaining in jail is not yet very clear up to date to the people of South Sudan; citizen came out with different judgments. Other People are saying, the gentlemen that remained in door are all knowledgeable in term of experiences, militarily, politically, and they have well internationally relations that might Jeopardizes the existence of President Kiir regime in Juba.
Over viewed about the remaining political detainees
When you look objectively at someone like Oyei Deng Ajack, who was one a Chief of General Staff for the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) and also was a National Minister for National Security in Kiir Government in Juba, you will agree with me that, Kiir loyalists are very worried in case they release him, he might join the bush to bring down Mayardit because Oyei had good militarily background and expertise.
Coming to some like Majak D Agoot, Majak has been in National security some times, he was also a deputy Minister for Defense in Mayardit government. He has got skills of making lobby and advocacy to the world as well. Some guys within Kiir close friends are so fearful about Majak militarily, truth must be say my dear countrymen and ladies.
Likewise looking at someone like Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth who had been a Ambassador of South Sudan to United Nation (UN) for years back, can look for the down fall of the Kiir regime in Juba, Ezekiel is a diplomat who know International Relations and diplomatic approaches, his voice can easy be heard by most of the International Community, and that is why Juba is very much worry. Furthermore, someone like Pagan who is naturally gifted with wisdom of talking and radical speeches without fear is unsafe for Kiir to release him. He is the one who knows where Sudan People Liberation Movement money is since 2005 when the peace deal was signed up to date. He is still signatory to the party account up to now. Therefore; Juba government cannot release him unless if the International Community can give ultimatum to Kiir and his loyalists like Museveni of Uganda immediately.
However, after the seven political detainees were released on the 29th of January 2013 in Juba, people ask themselves, what is wrong with the President of South Sudan Salva Kiir Mayardit?
The eleven political detainees were detained by Juba government due to what Mayardit legal expertise’s term as a failed Coup and in real sense was denounced and condemn by the world leadership as something to get rid of the political opponents. More interestingly, the Minister of Justice in the Republic of South Sudan failed to justify the reason why other were released and other were not. When you analyzed the speech of the Minister of Justice, you find that South Sudan government have no legitimate agenda on the detention of the political detainees; they are trying to look for ways but their routes have been blocked up by world leaders and regional block like IGAD.
Right now the two parties are now waiting for the roundtable discussion that will take place on the 7th of February 2014 in Ethiopians Capital on the matter of bring peace to South Sudanese but am viewing it like ,if they fail to reach an agreement, then Juba might be in trouble again.
Will South Sudan be peaceful, if the four political detainees are not release?
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world…would do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner
Therefore “Telling the truth to our readers is good then pleasing people who are destroying the destiny and prosperity of South Sudanese” , South Sudan as the nation needs collective efforts to kick away tribalism, nepotism and chronic corruption that has manifested within our leaders.
God look at the issue of South Sudan.
Author is the Independent Journalist who had written articles extensively on the issues of Democratization and Human Rights in South Sudan; you can contact him; through

Hon. Both Diu’s legacy hijacked

By Peter Gai Manyuon
The idea of “Federalism” in South Sudan does not emanate from the SPLM-in Opposition nor does it stem from Equatorians (as claimed)but it was first proposed long time ago by some prominent South Sudanese politicians who were by then in parliament in Khartoum. These politicians got fed up with the system in Khartoum and proposed that they needed federal states (they wanted to govern and manage their people and resources by themselves). Their call for federal states was never accepted by Khartoum. This subsequently resulted to Hon. Both Diu saying “refuse it but we will rebel against this to have our own autonomy”
Though it is popularly wanted by the people of South Sudan, however, the SPLM-in Opposition and Equatorians should not use it as their hard-earned agenda without acknowledging the producer, Hon. Both Diu. This is a real plagiarism (stealing of Gatdiu’s patents).
Honorable Both Diu was also the one who advocated for self-determination of the people of South Sudan. Dr Machar and Dr Lam Akol also advocated for it after realizing the goodness of self-determination, likewise to Federalism but they were not the ones behind the program to adopt the system. Absolutely people like Dr Machar and Dr Akol should be appreciated because they vigorously continued the flight for self-determination and implemented it through advocacy but for the case of Federalism; all appreciations should go to Hon. Both Diu even though he is not alive. There is no short cut in the history; this is the time of documenting what is real because we don’t want others to take other people’s initiatives.
Most of the South Sudanese globally and in South Sudan as well have misinterpreted the concept for Federalism. Most people have taken it as personal/tribal agenda which I think might not be the case. To the way I have viewed the issue, it is something very unique that just needs good advocacy and more enlightenment in order for the illiterate people to understand the pros and cons of the federalism in South Sudanese context. Unless otherwise those who don’t accept federalism can be called anti-peace and development because they have not seen what has taken back the people of South Sudan to square one.
Hence, Federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units like states or provinces. Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and central state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
Moreover, the perception of some individual persons about Federalism is something that needs good advocacy so that those who have not understood the concept should learn more other than opposing it without good convincing the people of South Sudan.
Well, Federalism has various advantages for the country like South Sudan where social diseases like tribalism, corruption and nepotism and arbitrary arrests and killings are the only objectives and visions of Kiir Mayardit’s government in Juba.

However, I ran an article last year, May 2013 on my Column titled “Educating the nation” with Juba Monitor Newspaper in South Sudan about Federalism. After some time, order came from the highest authority to suspend my column for some weeks because the Managing Editor was intimidated. Many people gave me calls, others were appreciating the article but others were threatening me with arrests and disappearance. But now, what is happening? Everyone is talking about it (federalism) everywhere in South Sudan.
First of all federalism creates and fosters patriotism and loyalty to the state. Many Americans feel close to their home states. They feel loved and owned by their state authorities. Federalism maintains the close relationships between the federal states and the people by giving power to the least important people in the grassroots.

Practices pragmatism; running a country the size of the United States, with such a diverse population, is much easier to do if power is given to local officials. Likewise, state and local officials are closer to the problems of their areas, so it makes sense for them to choose policies to solve those problems. Why not South Sudanese to adopt this system of governance?
Federalism creates laboratories of democracy. This means that state governments can experiment on other federal countries’ policies and can learn from their successes and failures. Many politicians specifically in Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) are always advocating for democratic reforms in the country, why not implementing this system when peace come to South Sudan?
In other hand, it also leads to political stability, by removing the national government from some contentious issue areas, federalism allowed the early United States government to achieve and maintain stability, if there is Federal system introduced in South Sudan in due time, South Sudan will be the stable nation globally.
Encourages pluralism , Federal system expand government on national, state, and local levels, giving people more access to leaders and opportunities to get involved in their government.
It as well ensures the separation of powers and prevents tyranny, Even if one person or group take control of all three branches of the federal government, federalism ensures that state governments would still function independently. Federalism, therefore, fulfills the framers’ vision of a governmental structure that ensures liberty.
In any system globally there are pros and cons and for federalism it prevents the creation of a national policy. The United States of America does not have a single policy on issues. Instead, it has fifty-one policies, which often leads to confusion.
Secondly, it leads to a lack of accountability; the overlap of the boundaries among national and state governments makes it tricky to assign blame for failed policies.
And lastly, it creates citizen ignorance. Critics argue that federalism cannot function well due to ignorance and in South Sudan there is too much ignorance.
The way forward
If South Sudan is at peace, then federalism can peacefully be introduced without it being misinterpreted by people, but because there is too much mess in the country right now, people are ethnically divided and this has led to poor discussions over the matter. I would like to urge the two parties to come to common understanding and thereafter federalism will come automatically.
Each and every South Sudanese knows that federalism is what most of the South Sudanese communities are advocating for but rectification of the current crisis is very important before anything. I had experienced in this discussion about federalism, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, I was among the civil society groups that moved to all the ten states of the Republic of South Sudan, and what the Civil Society Resource Team on the Constitution got on the ground was the call for federalism. So, it is something liked by the majority in South Sudan.
Out of ten states, only one state refused the idea of federalism. People of Equatoria and the SPLM-in Opposition should not put it in their heads that they are the ones who first started advocating for federalism. If anyone wants, I can also forward to him/her what the civil society gathered for the last three years.
The Government of South Sudan under Kiir Mayardit and the Sudan People Liberation Movement in Opposition under Dr Machar should come up with the solutions to address the ongoing crisis rather than talking on something that will be resolved by the people of South Sudan as a whole afterwards. Introducing a new system of governance needs consensus and good enlightenment so that citizens get informed properly. The call for federalism is for all South Sudanese but for those who are not informed or who have not carried out any research claimed to have been the ones behind federal system of governance advocacy. Why didn’t you ask Civil Society Resource Team on the Constitution to tell you more about the work they carried out?
In conclusion, the federalism agenda was a system proposed long time ago when Sudanese were still one and it was accepted by then, therefore what is remaining is coming for the peace first and thereafter, the system will be adopted quickly. How can we introduce the system when people are still in the mess? Who will understand it? Will people not take it as divide and rule policy? Let us be realistic when we’re talking about something obvious. Talking about reforms within the SPLM as a party and the Nuer massacre that was carry out in Juba last year 2013 December , is what people should talk about in Addis-Ababa right now and the world at large. All South Sudanese are for Federalism based on the Constitutional dialogues which were carried out by South Sudanese Civil Society Organizations under the umbrella of Resource Team on the Constitutional making process.
The author is Independent Journalist and Columnist who has written extensively on the issues of Democratization and Human Rights in South Sudan. He can be contacted at