WHY SOUTH SUDAN POLITICAL PARTIES WITHDRAL FROM THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR
THE REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTHERN SUDAN 2005, AND THE TASK FORCES
By Professor David de Chand
INTRODUCTION
We would like to be absolved by history and the people of South Sudan that
nine (9) political parties walked out as an act of protest of incongruence
that they encountered with the SPLM’s notorious mannerism in the review of
the Interim Constitution of South Sudan, 2005. Before Southern Sudanese
folks pass on any judgment, it would be in the best interest of the readers
to underscore and jot down raison
d’être for our withdrawal from the process. Although the process
continues, it would be a lame duck and useless initiative. We know that the
people of South Sudan not accept this work because it could infringe their
rights, duties and obligations at the end of the day. We have decided on
behalf of the people of South Sudan not become integral part of that wicked
and undemocratic undertaking. We would like the little people or the common
man in South Sudan streets, Africa and the world to know
raison d’être for the parties
withdrawal from the Technical Committee for the review of Southern
Constitution 2005, and the Task Forces. We went to the process with high
anticipations, hopes, concomitant dedication and happiness to unite our
ranks and files to forge ahead with the SPLM in the cause of national
interest in good faith, brotherhood and sisterhood to do a marvelous or
splendid job or fait accompli for
the would-be Republic of South Sudan (ROSS) and its zealous people. However,
we were terribly disappointed by
fer-de-lance mannerism in which some of the SPLM leadership hawks,
diehards and the least informed or inexperienced in the art of the
constitution drafting and frustrated the efforts or the conducts in the
process itself. We were told to be in the process on the “Good will of the
President” by Makuei Lueth, the hawkish or the nut, that we were “illegal”
and that “South Sudan would not disappear if we walked out” reiterated by
John Luk Jok, the failed minister in the 2010 elections in his constituency
in Akobo, Jonglei State. Apart from all the aforesaid provocative
insinuations’, we were also subjected to endure, preserve patiently a hell
of a lot more in both the Sub-Committees and the Plenary. Although the
process continues to go ahead without other parties, it would be illegal,
unconstitutional and a ‘lame duck’ constitutional process because throughout
human civilization, political and historical developments, there could be no
one-party or any one-group that could comprehensively writes a transparent
and accountable constitution for the entire nation without the inclusion of
others. By the very nature of the constitution, it has always been the
supreme document that expresses the free will and consent of the governed
and how they should be governed, the idea of democratization, good
governance; the rule of law, the nature of the state or polity in a
transparent, accountable and democratic manner. The
prima facie of any constitution
of any states or polities would often be to guarantee democracy, freedoms,
liberties, equality, social justice, Basic laws and
Habeas Corpus for all citizens-
nationals, resident aliens and others- residing within the jurisdiction of
the state or polity. It should be made unequivocally abundantly loud and
crystal clear to the entire people of South Sudan that the constitution,
per se, could not be democratic,
transparent, comprehensive and inclusive because the constitution has been
written by self-conceded individuals geared towards serving their selfish
ends, self-glorifications, self-aggrandizement, profiteering and the
accumulation of wealth to build their personal financial empires at the
expenses of the masses, tribal supremacy vs. the national interest, arrogant
individuals that are obsessed with power, perpetual domination, exploitation
and oppression of others against their free will and consent. The SPLM
leadership should know and underscore in advance that no citizens with good
conscience, patriotism and nationalism would endorse such a one-party
document based on vested interests of the ruling party rather than the vital
national interest vying to remain in power indefinitely. Succinctly,
one-party rule as we had experienced in the past, was often a dictatorship
as opposed to multiparty democracy. We had accused the North of being an
oppressor; we do not want to create another new oppressor in the South
because such a creation would be contrary or in conflict with our hard won
armed struggle for democracy, freedom, liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness. Would the people of South
Sudan submit or accept this dictatorship and militarism on faith value?
We would guest not in due course of time because the times for deceptions,
manipulations and maneuvering are over with at this age and in this 21st
century of wisdom and enlightenment. We, the people of South Sudan, should
dedicate our mighty energies to resist any endeavor to establish a one-party
state in all its forms and to reclaim our government from the thugs,
hooligans and rampantly corrupt bureaucrats that had already created
political disasters for Sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century
South Sudan, unfortunately. We should not have a ‘false start’ and a ‘bad
transition’ in South Sudan or things could fall apart or go haywires or in
smoke compared to Yemen, Libya Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and Jordan to say the
least. Surely, we could not leave the North what we all termed to be an
oppressor to create another new oppressor in a free and independent and
sovereign South Sudan. This would be irresponsible, incomprehensible and
illogical and unscientific method of doing things in the world. It is about
time or the time is ripped for the people of South Sudan to dedicate their
energies and souls to create a new “South Sudan Street” similar to the
ongoing “Arab Streets” in their onerous calls for social and evolutionary
democratic changes and the removal or replacement of the
ancient régimes, autocratic,
authoritarian, totalitarian, oligarchic,
patronage regimes and proletariat communist dictatorship in South Sudan.
The wind of political, democratic and social evolutionary changes against
the dictatorship is lurking right at the corner and for those
who have been committed in vying to
establish that state of affair; they should reckon and then take a pretty
closed look at the ongoing political doldrums or storms and violence that
have rocked and gripped North Africa and the Arab world. We hope for
peaceful, political and democratic change in South Sudan sooner or later.
For those who would resist evolutionary and socio-political democratic
changes in South Sudan and elsewhere in the world, may the wrath of God be
upon them and they would be bound to fall or shape in or shape out or to get
the hell out of the way. This is the bottom line. With great determination,
patience, endurance, preservation and human sacrifices, we shall overcome
the current situation in our beloved South Sudan by any means necessary. It
is only a matter of time that spontaneous astronomical Big Bang for social
and evolutionary democratic changes would occur in the would-be nascent
nation of South Sudan. In brief, the purpose of this piece of work is to
educate or enlighten the southern people, Africa and the world on many
endless and dangerous possibilities of insecurity or no security in the
South before it’s become independence as sovereign nation-state on 9th
July 2011 or at post-independence. We hope and wish it all the best, peace
and prosperity for the would-be new nation and we do really mean it and
let’s make no bones about it. To sum up, the idea of democracy is universal
and many have made the ultimate sacrifices for the cause of democracy
worldwide and we do hope that it would take a
prima facie and supreme idea in
South Sudan because it was the gist of the 50 years of the armed struggle
and the loss of more than 3-4 million southern souls and the internally
displaced people (IDPs) of more than 5 million to become internal refugees,
squatters living in shanty towns in the land of their birthrights and
ancestral rights. It was the late British Prime Sir Winston Churchill of the
UK that said he that “democracy is not the best system in the world but
there is no other system to replace it”. We, the people of South Sudan shall
and should dedicate our ultimate thoughts and energies to strife in
implanting and nourishing the seeds of truly Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian
democracy in South Sudan by any means necessary. We should say unanimously
that No, No, No, and No to dictatorship and communism in South Sudan now and
forever.
1.
Breaking of the Ground Rules or the rules of procedure
First and foremost of all, we would begin with the general or deductive
issues, which would include the arrogant statements or pronouncements made
or uttered by the hawks and the diehards of the Technical Committee for the
review of the ICSS 2005. Basically, we challenged the Ground rules or the
Rules of procedure, which were
pre-drafted, pre-passed and pre-adopted by the SPLM as a party that they
reneged to be tempered with at all. We did call for change from a
“simple majority” to “consensus” that they did not comply with such a
request. The representatives of political parties agreed to challenge first
the rules of procedure and threatened that without such changes they would
walk out for consultation either to attend or not to attend.
Surely, we did that. In the first
place, they tactically agreed that the rules of procedure would be based on
“consensus” rather by a “simple majority”. We did not duly accept such
hypocrisy and double standard as move as legit, procedural, proper, normal
and civilized manners and/or a gentleman’s agreement or the way forward that
was to provide hope of forging ahead together in undertaking the daunting
and challenging task assigned to us by our principals and leaders to do for
the good of the would-be Africa’s 54th nation-state and the
would-be 130* plus member states of the United Nations and its specialized
agencies as of 9th July 2011.
Before could proceed on in the aftermath of handling genteelly and carefully
the ground rules, we made a request for the exchange of both pre-prepared
documents prior to starting the sessions of the Sub-Committee before the
Plenary of the Committee. We insisted that we should exchange the
pre-prepared documents on the ICSS and Good Governance because we had also
informed them that we also had a pre-prepared document on the ICSS that we
would have liked to exchange with their pre-prepared position paper. They
failed to yield or comply with the request and with no avail. They flatly
rejected any idea of exchanging the pre-prepared position documents. In my
capacity as the head of the South Sudan Political Parties Alliance (SSPPA)
to the this august committee to undertake this very important task or
assignment, we insisted that it would be intellectually, legally,
politically and amicably
appropriate on behalf of our team that it would be most ontological and
logical that we do exchange the documents for full and absolute review for
the benefits of all parties concerned in the Sub-Committee to know and to
have the feeling of what both sides have done thus far. To our greatest
surprised, we were provocatively informed by the
chairperson that we could not
possibly wind the clock backward, that we should just move on forward
without the review of their previous work and without any exchanging of the
pre-prepared documents. Most importantly, because the SPLM worked alone as a
party on the project or the document for more than 35 days, we made a formal
request for a briefing on what was done or transferred prior to our joining
of the process. Without the shadow of a doubt, such a request was overruled
with a pretty fetish, devilish, hostile and uncouth mannerism by the
chairperson of that session of the Sub-Committee. It would be worthwhile to
infer that the SPLM all along wanted to use the parties as rubber stamping
to legitimatize its autocratic and totalitarian system of governance. We
were treated like school kids rather than men and women of like minds, with
work experience and bona fide
scholars and experts. Apart from the breaking of the ground rules or the
rules of procedure, we disagreed on deductive (general) issues, which could
also become inductive (specific) issues and
raison d’être that pre-empted our
walked out at the end of day. The followings were the areas of general
disagreements:-
II. Inclusion of Abyei Enclave as part of South Sudan proper in the
Transitional Constitution.
Our argument was first and foremost of all, based on the fact Abyei Enclave,
per se, was not part of South
Sudan as of 1.1.1956. Secondly, because the future of Abyei Enclave hangs on
the balance, it has not yet been decided or determined and it remains in the
Presidency as stipulated by the terms of the Abyei Protocol of 2002, we
could be making a miscalculated encroachment, extra-territorial claim and
extrajudicial, that is ultra vires,
which could possibly trigger a bloody war between the North and South. We
persistently insisted as hard as we could on the premature inclusion of
Abyei Enclave as an integral part of South Sudan proper hitherto or that it
should remain outside jurisdiction of South Sudan until we know the outcome
of Abyei referendum whether its inhabitants would vote to become an integral
part of South Sudan or Southern Kordufan or whichever way it goes, we should
then, consider the inclusion of Abyei as an integral part of South Sudan.
The Abyei Enclave position is flawed, flux and, thus, we should not meddle
until we are sure of its final status. This is the bottom line. Certainly,
the Abyei’s big guns that control the GOSS are pushing hard and exerting
tremendous influence on the President to do as they wish for the inclusion
of Abyei to South Sudan proper. We would like them to know that this
position was totally rejected by almost SSPPA members in the Sub-Committee
and in the Plenary now and forever that “no Southerners would further shade
blood because of Abyei”. In other words, we should not return to war because
of Abyei Enclave as simple as that. Seriously, if the Abyei Mafioso would
like to fight in Abyei Enclave let the m do so without the southerners. In
brief, Abyei Enclave would surely divide the South compared to Vietnam
quagmire and the invasion and occupation of Iraq that divided the United
States into the pro-war and anti-war forces up to this day. We hope that
President Kiir would not listen and sway his eloquent statement that “no
return to war” because of the influence being exerted on him by the Deng
Majok’s gang in Juba to declare war in Abyei Enclave. We would prefer a
peaceful and political solution in Abyei but absolutely no return to war
because of Abyei. Surely, even the US Senator John Kerry a Vietnam veteran
of the US Marine Corps in Vietnam could not agree more with many of us on
the issue of war, peaceful and political conflict resolution because as a
former commander he knows war firsthand the art of war are ostensibly crazy
because war is hell and those who often talked about it are nuts and cowards
of the cowards. Good generals do not talk about war but when they are
ordered to do it by the politicians, they know only one thing and one thing
only “mayhem” kill or to be killed for good and trustworthy causes of
strategic vital national security interest. We have no vital strategic vital
national interest in Abyei Enclave now and forever. The hawks in the SPLM
should seriously underscore this phraseology with clear and open minds that
there would be “no return to war”
because of Abyei Enclave.
Most importantly, the GOSS must and ought to compensate all the fallen
heroes in Abyei Enclave as well as those ordered to fight the SPLM General
George Ator and other fighting orchestrated by the SPLM leadership against
those that rebelled against it. This is not the time for any southerners to
die but it is a time to rebuild, reconstruct and a time of peace and
prosperity that the SPLM led government has failed to provide to the people
of South Sudan in the past 6 years. It was a free democratic choice and
consent made by the Ngok Dinka in Abyei Enclave to be annexed to Southern
Kordufan administration based on their free will and consent in 1905. They
were not under duress at that time of that great decision by the Ngok Dinka
Chief Deng Majok and the Sultan Babo Nimr of Misseriyya and they freely
signed the historic Blood Covenant. The Ngok Dinka freely made the choice
and the decision to live and coexist in unity and diversity with the
Misseriyya tribesmen in Abyei Enclave. Many of the Ngok Dinka converted to
Islam and refused even to attend southern schools because they had better
opportunities to attend Northern prestigious high schools, colleges and
universities. What is the fuss that they are trying to keep South Sudan
hostage today? Should the SPLM fail to handle the case of Abyei Enclave
properly; it could trigger the disintegration of South Sudan and this would
not be in the best interest of anyone at all. The SPLM partisans and
henchmen in Washington, DC, think tanks and the lobbyists’ arena should know
that they have committed a crime against humanity and that they would be
held accountable for any eventuality in the region. We would not allow Abyei
Enclave to become Kashmir-2 between the North and South because we would
like to live and co-exist as good and peaceful neighbors. They should
further reckon and understand for certain that there would be no referendum
in Abyei without the inclusion of the Misseriyya and other nationalities in
the Abyei Enclave.
Although our position was overruled by a simple majority, we decided to full
out for consultation. Immediately, they recanted that position because it
was a mere violation of the consensus that we had previously agreed
thereunto. Therefore, they should not forget this long story. Although the
41 members of the SPLM vs. 11 out of 14 political parties present in the
Plenary failed to adhere to this eloquent position, they would one way or
the other would acknowledge this political reality. Nonetheless, we joined
the Committee with a sense of commitment and high spirit of consensus that
emerged from All South Sudan Political Parties Conference (ASSPP) held in
October 2010, and section 3 (b) of Final Communiqué. We went to the meetings
of the Committee with full vigor, rejuvenation, hope and the spirit of
renaissance that we were going to forge ahead together in order to
accomplish the mission and the great task assigned to us by our leaders of
South Sudan. Nevertheless, the Southern Political Parties represented in the
Technical Committee to review the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan
2005, declared that our continuity in the process has become futile and
untenable due to the following reasons:- (1)
referring to our first Plenary of the Technical Committee for the review
of the ICSS 2005, dated 28/2/2011, we agreed on the rules of procedure for
deliberation and decision-making in the Committee and its Sub-Committees to
be by consensus as is the case in all multi-party discussions everywhere.
The rules of procedures were deliberately and willfully violated by the
SPLM, who had 41members vs. 11 out of 14 members of other parties thus; they
superimposed a vote in the second meeting. We objected to this to no avail;
(2) in spite of our previous agreement, the SPLM unilaterally decided to use
the simple majority contrary to what we had been agreed upon as a means to
make decision on contentious issues of vital national interest.
Succinctly, this means that no matter what input other political parties may
have, their contribution would be overruled by the simple majority vote. In
this case, then, the Political Parties found themselves in a difficult
disposition or situation on how to be effective. Therefore, their
participation and performance become ineffective in the deliberations of the
review committee; (3) as is usually the case; the Committee was expected to
discuss the principles of the Transitional Constitutional review before
embarking on the details. The SPLM members in the Committee were neither
keen, enthusiastic to do so nor were they ready to discuss the pre-prepared
text shown on a Power Point by their foreign experts, which they had already
written and passed prior to our joining of the Technical Committee. As full
pledged members of the process, we were all stunted and flabbergasted,
astonished and amazed by the continuous fluctuation, façade and
fer-de-lance attitudes exhibited
by the SPLM leadership in the process that ultimately needed the overall
representation and participation of the people of South Sudan and experts in
the field. Our high expectations, fervent and
feng shui (correct
decision-making) for the future of the would-be youngest nation in Africa
and the world were assuredly become fetishistic and flustered in the
process. Oh! What a great lost golden opportunity for southerners to have
produced a good piece of transitional constitution! In brief, in order to
tell us that we were illegal as was alluded to by John Luk, many of them
that had no concept of the constitutional drafting decided to gerrymander,
filibuster and most especially young people that are inexperienced,
disrespectful, unethical and lack
spirit de corps of a team work or pack and
Dialogue in
par cum pari
(equals) - that is to
listen, learn, grow and change at the end of the day.
II. Afro-Arab Relations.
The SPLM side does not want to hear anything or much ado about the Arabs,
including the language that many of them do speak fluently and write
perfectly more than Northerners. The question that we would like to probe
heretofore is this: are the SPLM anti-Arabs? If, so its anti-Arabs would
tantamount to the worst case scenario of racism and racialism of the third
kind. Of course, this would not be the right thing to do because we are all
in the “Global Village” or a multicultural world; southerners would need the
Arabs just as much as the Arabs would need South Sudanese in the foreseeable
Global Village in the future. The SPLM leadership and its cadres should know
and underscore that the world has become a global village, interdependent,
no racism, and no social stigma or discrimination that is based on skinned
color, tribe, gender, sexual preference, creed and national origin, as well
as no nation or people that could afford to be an island of itself in this
interdependent world, interconnected by globalization and the Internet and
SMS’, international migration from one continent to next in search for
better economic opportunities and cultural experiences. We must and ought to
change our attitudes against the Arab peoples or against any peoples for
that matter. This is one of the particular,
raison d’être, to become
de-tribalized. We should have respect, cordial and mutual relations with all
peoples on this planet-Earth because we are all ‘neighbors’ and God’s
children to love and to tolerate each other rather than to hate or to be
intolerance of and with each other. We should reckon that this world is not
our home but we are just passing through. Thus, there is one good reason to
hate anyone either by race, color, tribe, creed, religion or national
origin. We should all underscore that we are one people created by Almighty
God in His own image. Naturally, we
could disagree to agree but never ever to hate anyone human being Created by
God in His own image. Arab peoples are equal human beings like us and they
are no different from us and we are equal and also like them and no
different from them. Therefore, we must and ought to resist and desist
stereotypes, racial epithets and to be committed in finding ways and means
of harmonizing and coordinating our future relations with them and
Dialoguing in par cum pari
(equals) as equals partners and freed people of two juxtaposition
independent and sovereign nation-states.
We have basic common ancestry and values with the North to share with them
as human beings. We do acknowledge our tumultuous, disharmonious and
harmonious relations because of political and cultural cross divide. We
would argue that no matter how much we have disagreed with the Northerners
and Arabs in general, we could not try to avoiding the Arabs as a people
with great contributions to human history, civilization and the world’s
economic system. We would have to deal with the Arab and Islamic world
socially, culturally, religiously, politically and economically one way or
other in all spheres of human and international global relations and
diplomacy. The international political economy and international relations
amongst nation-states in international system would compel southerners to
have contacts with the Arabs and the Islamic world with particular emphasis
with Northern Sudan. The fact that we do have the command of their language
and culture; we could lead Africa and forge a stronger Afro-Arab relations.
Our future foreign policy should be based on a Non-Aligned rapprochement
paradigm. We should have good relations with the Arab world just as much as
we would have relations with the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs in
Palestine. We could not possibly avoid having contacts with more than 200
million people with great socioeconomic potential to offer to the world and
South Sudan in particular. We insisted that in our foreign policy, we should
have solidarity with the Arab world in the form of Afro-Arab solidarity in
international forums.
The SPLM delegates were unanimous to avoid the word “Arabs” as a culture,
civilization and people. This was an absolute rubbish to hear and to know.
Their argument was redundant and was strictly based on the fact that the
Northern Sudanese had “traumatized” the South; therefore, we could
not have any healthy relations with the Arab world. How about the British
that deliberately and willfully kept the South backward for generations
during the colonial rule? Did the Arab created the “Closed District”
administration ordinance? Looking at
it now as an enlightened and a bona
fide scholar, the British did the greatest disproportionate collateral
damage compared to the Arab North that the SPLM leadership has come to hate
so much. We disagreed and remained parallel on the issue up to this day.
Last, but not least, it would be recalled that it was Colonel Maomar Kaddafi
of Libya and the then South Yemen that provided arms to the SPLM/A in its
war against Sudan a nominal Afro-Arab state, closed neighboring state, a
member state of the League of Arab (LAS) and the African Union (AU) as well
as the United Nations and its specialized agencies. When the NCP/SPLM were
at odds to renege prior to the 2011 referendum in South Sudan, it were two
Arab Heads of state and Governments, namely, President Hosni Mubarak of
Egypt and Colonel Maomar Kaddafi of Libya that flew in to Khartoum to
persuade President Al-Bashir to allow the referendum to go ahead free, fair,
transparent and peaceful. Additionally, we, the political parties
contributed so much to the idea of free, fair and transparent referendum.
So whether the SPLM leadership likes it or not, it would have to have
contacts with the Arab bloc in international political and economic
relations, including North Sudan. In brief, South Sudan could not afford to
have better relations with the Arab and the Islamic world because today, we
have highest volume of internationals trade with the Arabs through Dubai and
they have been generous in making contributions to the South sudan’s
survival although such contributions were misused because of rampant
corruption in the GOSS. For instance, the Egyptians built Clinics and power
stations, universities in the past six (6) years and plan to do more for the
South on the one hand and the Kuwaitis had built a hospital in Juba and
other projects throughout South Sudan retrospect to the 1972 Addis-Ababa
Accord and continued to provide technical Assistance and co-operation in
other fields of endeavors. Frankly speaking, we should not be kidding
ourselves on the vital roles of the Afro-Arab relations. We have got to have
stronger relations with them by any means necessary. Specifically, the
ongoing current political changes would one way or the other would force
South Sudan to forge relations with the Arab world at all levels.
Historically, the Arabs have been our closed neighbors and we should not
negate or reject prematurely that trend of affairs and transhumance.
III. Termination of All CPA Institutions as of 8.7.2011.
This was our position and the SPLM wants to carry forward all the existing
institutions package based on Article 208 (7) that we have already provided
an extensive analytical explication in the
Press Release. There is no
provision in the ICSS 2005 that would allow the CPA established institutions
to be carried forward on 9th July 2011. Basically, the SPLM was
insistent that the executive and legislative institutions of the Government
of Southern Sudan (GOSS) complete their mandate given them by the general
elections, that is up to 2015, at the same time they contradicted themselves
by insisting that the same institutions continue for a term of 5 years from
on 8th July 2011, that is up to 2016! This immolation, immoral,
fallacious and faux pas
(embarrassing) attitudes closed any doors or options for further conceivable
and commensurate healthy collective bargaining discussions on the
transitional arrangements agreed upon in the All Southern Sudan Political
Parties Conference convened on October 13th to 17th
2010 with emphasis on paragraph 3 (b) of the Final Communiqué. Our
contention was (and still is) that the current parliament was a sub-system
within an old system that does not have legal provision to allow it to be
carried forward to the new system in an independent and sovereign Republic
of South Sudan as of 9th July 2011. Frankly speaking, there is no
legal provision loophole that would take us to carry forward any existing
CPA created institutions. We would have to begin with a new system of
national interest.
In accordance with Section 118 (2) of the Interim National Constitution
2005, which states that, “in the event of a vote for secession by the people
of Southern Sudan, the seats of the members and representatives of Southern
Sudanese in the national legislature shall be deemed to have fallen vacant
and the national legislature, being so reconstituted, shall complete its
tenure to the next elections period”. This means that as soon as the result
of the referendum of Southern Sudan confirms secession, all Southern
Sudanese in the national parliament shall lose their seats. Based on the
preceded logical reasoning and reasonableness, there is no provision to
allow the current southern Members of Parliament (MPS) or National Assembly
(NA) would be incorporated into the existing South Sudan Legislative
Assembly (SSLA). They would terminate their tenure as soon as the result of
the referendum was known. As of 1 April 2011, all Southern Sudanese in the
National Legislature shall cease to exist by law because the South as opted
for secession as confirmed by the results announced on 7th
February 2011. Therefore, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to
incorporate such members into Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly in the
South. Furthermore, SSLA ceases to exist at the end of the interim period on
8th July 2011, because it was not elected for an independent
state of South Sudan. Most importantly, there are no provisions in the ICSS
for its continuation into the independent state of South Sudan. The SPLM
based their justification for the continuation of the current GOSS
institutions after 9th July 2011 on Article 208 (7) of ICSS 2005.
The other political parties believe that Article 208 (7) of ICSS 2005 is
flawed and irrelevant to the current Constitutional review process. We
should quote thereunto the part on the
Press Release for this purpose
of informing the world. Certainly, there are no provisions in the CPA that
would allow carrying forward all these existing institutions. Let us analyze
microscopically and macroscopically the gist of Article 208 (7) that gives
it precedence to hold on as far as the SPLM is concerned. If Article 208 (7)
were to hold, then:
The Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan (ICSS) 2005 would have remained
in force as it is after the 9th of July 2011, and there would
have been no need to carry out a constitutional review process as is
currently the case. Specifically, this review process is all about
transforming a regional or sub-system or sub-national constitution into a
nation one. That is, to say provides for the sovereign constitutional needs
of the new independent and sovereign state. It is not an could not be about
removing parts that got repealed, for those parts are already demised,
terminated, exhausted and redundant as well as lack any frame of reference
(worldview) in the state formation in South Sudan. The would-be new Republic
of South Sudan would be without national and sovereignty institutions, such
as the President of the Republic, foreign affairs, national judicial organs,
etc. This is because there is a regional or sub-national constitution. This
is the authentic and politico-legal meaning of Article 208 (7) when it
provides that: “If the outcome of the referendum on self-determination
favors secession, this constitution shall remain in force as the
Constitution of a sovereign and independent Southern Sudan, and parts,
chapters, articles, sub-articles and schedules of the Constitution that
provide for national institutions, representation, rights and obligations
shall be deemed to have been duly repealed”. Why would a national
constitution repeal national institutions, etc? Specifically, Article 208
(7) is flawed and it was copied or “plagiarized” without nomination from
Article 226 (10) of the Interim National Constitution, which stipulated
that: “If the outcome of the referendum on self-determination favors
secession, the parts, chapters, articles, sub-articles and schedules of the
Constitution that provides for Southern Sudan institutions, representation,
rights and obligations shall be deemed to have been duly repealed.
(I)
Nominal Roles for the Whole Government, not available.
We have discovered that the GOSS has been enlarged and continues to do so as
a large bureaucracy. Too many appointments have been made by the President
on the Presidential Advisors, Commissioners and the civil service with no
specific functions and job descriptions. This is a waste of resources that
could be use for the frontline projects such as, education, health,
agriculture, clean drinking projects, public utilities such as, electricity
in the urban dwellings, including the rural electrification projects. We do,
of course, favor a lean, balanced and
manageable government during the transitional period but the other side of
the aisle favors a bigger government for their own folks, unfortunately.
II. LACK OF RECOGNITION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES BY THE SPLM
It is well established that the SPLM does not reckon the roles of the
political parties in South Sudan, unfortunately. This is a bloody mistake
that the faithful readers and analysts should underscore that without the
roles played by the South Sudan political Parties onerous calls for free,
fair, and transparent referendum. Perhaps, the referendum could not have
been peaceful or probably could not have taken place in the first place. Let
us assume hypothetically that political parties are fests and satellites of
the NCP the premier co-partner of the SPLM in GONU for the past six years
the SPLM could not have survived in the past 6 year of rampant corruption
and mismanagement of the South Sudan. The mannerism in which the SPLM
addresses the leaders of the political is disrespectful and unprofessional.
Above all, it is indicative that it wants to establish a one-party state
rule. This would be a dictatorship and unacceptable to many southerners.
They do not recognize other political parties except the SPLM. Even those
who have made significant contributions in the armed struggle one way or
other are not recognized as significant individuals. For instance, the
chairperson of the Sub-Committee, Makuei Lueth, lauded to arrogantly that
the parties’ leaders and representatives on this Technical Committee on
reviewing the Interim Constitution of 2005 South Sudan were termed to be “on
the Good will of the President, that they were illegal and that they have no
right to be here in the first place”. This arrogance and illogical reasoning
and reasonableness was uttered by Makuei Lueth one of the hawkish, the most
arrogant and the least intelligent human being I ever met on this
planet-Earth. In a nutshell, he’s really a nut, stubborn and talks like a
drum beats before reasoning out what to say, how to say it, where to say it
and why to say it. Our simple advice to southerners and President Kiir in
particular, is this, if the South would be led by people like Makuei Lueth-
the hawkish-, John Luk Jok-the obstinate minister- and Tellar Ding Ring- the
sneakiest- of all, including the Abyei Mafioso that controls the GOSS and
keeping the South a hostage and thus jeopardizing the real political future
of South Sudan and continuously disharmonizing the North-South relations as
the would-be two independent and sovereign nation-states juxtaposition on
the Nile Basin. In brief, the people of South Sudan should not be undertaken
by emotions on Abyei Enclave but they should seriously consider if it is
worthy at all to fight and die for something that is less worthy to die for
in the first place. For the time being, however, the South should completely
keep off Abyei until we know its political future outcome in the
post-referendum in the Abyei Enclave.
President Kiir should be aware that any declaration of war in Abyei would
certainly create chaos and disenchantments in the South or any encroachment
would be perceived as extraterritorial claims, extra-judicial and that’s
ultra vires.
We know that there are hawks and war mongers in the SPLM cabinet that
are vying of making Abyei Enclave situation the new Vietnam and Kashmir
between the North and South and for this purpose the nascent young and
infantile nation of South Sudan could begin its sojourn to freedom on a
“false start” and a “bad transition”. If, I were President Salva Kiir, I
would be the first to mobilize all the hawks, the most corrupt and the war
mongers to the battle front to fight and command such that they should know
and understand the art of war; instead of dispatching poor and underpaid
soldiers to die on behalf of some of the filthy rich and rampantly corrupt
bureaucrats in GOSS that have no remorse about life and their fellow human
beings. Last, but not least,
the junkies in the GOSS should be aware that we would not let any
southerners to further shade blood because of Abyei Enclave. Historically,
it was the people of Abyei Enclave that freely and democratically made that
voluntary sojourn to be annexed to Southern Korufan in 1905; therefore, we
could not change what their forefathers had done overnight. Because of this
anti-social behavior, we must and ought to undergo through democratic change
one way or the other. They should wake up because the world is undergoing
serious evolutionary and social democratic
changes day-by-day and there is no doubt that the political wind of change
hovering now over North Africa and
the Arab world could and should blow southwards and its surely will. The
President Kiir must and ought to disassociate himself from such bad guys,
socio-politically failed sycophants and naiveté characters for his personal
safety and good health of the President and South Sudanese nation-state, its
people and its strategic security interest as a whole.
As I can see it, through scientific, methodological, Socratic and
Aristocratic thinking and neo-thinking, the success of the President Kiir
during the transitional period starting on 9th July 2011 for
18-21 months transitional period before the elections, would be to have
closed association and rapport or affinity or bond with the political
parties and or in French known as “rapprochement”
or the establishment of or renewal of a close, friendly relations,
especially between the President
Kiir and the political parties. In other words, President Kiir should
develop his own ostpolitick
similar to the late German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s
ostpolitick and capitalism with a
human face. We should be practical that due to serious internal political
divisions or disarrays within the SPLM camp, President Kiir could ostensibly
have a hell of a mess on his hands, but the only safety bulb or safety net
for him would be to work and forge closed alliance with the political
parties, heed to political advice from this group that is comprised of men
and women of like minds. The political parties would be ready to work
closely and democratically with President in realistic terms to him sweeping
powers and protection to weep out the sycophants and the most corrupt ones
in the camp. This would be the way out of existing “Tinder’s Box” and/or
“Pandora’s Box” created by the crooks and the most corrupt individuals and
sycophants around the President and his Vice President nowadays.
How could not the political parties
be on the Technical Committee on the “good will” of the President?
Assuredly, they deserve to be there as politicians representing the good
will of their constituencies. The hardliners like Makuei Lueth would not
have places in the next democratic politics in South at the state and the
national levels. In fact, the more they would continue to be closer to the
President, they could be become known in Latin and in international law
jargon as “casus belli” or the
causes of war and fragmentation of the South on tribal lines, thus,
producing catastrophic results for the nation and its people. Should these
renegades, thugs, and hooligans be allowed to continue to be closer to the
President or in the cabinet, the future of South Sudan and its hard won
freedom and liberty would surely be compromised. Therefore, the statement
uttered by Makuei Lueth, John Luk and Tellar Deng Ring were uncivil,
fer-de-lance, uncouth,
intolerable and incongruent with the
spirit de corps of team work or pack and the sole desire of creating a
roadmap of cooperation with the sole purpose of forging forward together in
the process of nation building. In brief, the statements uttered by the said
individuals were absurd and absurdum, naiveté, despicable low and
shortsighted frame of reference (worldview).
Secondly, another concerned and that’s really of no laughing matter, was
made unequivocally loud and crystal clear by Mawalana John Luke Jok that “if
we [political parties] walked out”, the South would not disappear”.
Succinctly, what he(Luk) meant by
such scandalous and inconceivable blunders, illogical, un-intellectual and
unreasonable statements were precisely and purposefully intended to
intimidate, divide and conquer, terrorize and jeopardizes our present,
contribution, representation and participation in the Technical Committee
that was not needed at all by the gang of three (G-3),unfortunately. In
other words, if I were to analyze analytically, logically,
epistemologically, ontologically, he (Luke) was inferring that the President
Salva Kiir was also illegal and should not have issued the Decree that
included the political parties in the process. Certainly, the President did
the right for the political parties to be in the constitutional review
process. Without the shadow of a doubt, if John Luk were to have the guts
and gusto, he should not have prematurely challenged the presence of the
political parties in the constitutional review process. In fact, we could
also call to question his appointment as the Minister of Justice and
Constitutional Development because he failed the elections in his own
constituency in Akobo and as such it was unprecedented to be appointed that
capacity. So how come or what really motivated the President Kiir to appoint
a ‘failed minister’ in the elections of 2010? Why a non-SSLA member was
appointed as a minister in the cabinet? Realistically, because he (Luk)
failed the elections in his own constituency was indicative that he was (and
still is) unpopular in his own constituency. Therefore, the appointment of
John Luk itself to the cabinet was itself illegal, co-optation and patronage
and let alone the presumed illegality of the political parties’ leaders and
their representatives in the Technical Committee for the review of ICSS
2005. My consolation for my brothers John Luk, Makuei and Tellar is that
they should walk with me through a decade, and learn from their mistakes of
the past. Those who fail to remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to
repeat them in the future.
History reveals humanity’s triumphs and failure, giving us a compass for the
future. In fact, the gang of three (G-3) should have been sent for political
and legal re-education and conciliation with the people who dislike and hate
him most because of their past shadows that still lingers around their necks
and souls. Succinctly, John Luk, per
se, could not pass any free, fair and democratic elections in Akobo
because of his unpopularity and even the four legged cat if it were to
contest with Brother John Luk could defeat him by a landslide in that
constituency. So his success would always be based on appoints rather than
by democratic elections. Therefore, the appointment was, of course,
conspicuous, would require a lengthy social science and legal,
methodological, epistemological, psychological, philosophical, sociological,
critical and analytical reasoning and reasonableness that I would not be
bound to undertake at this juncture. I would like to let my brother John as
a former Political Commissary, Makuei Lueth as a former Legal Affairs
Officer under the command of Dr. Lam Akol and Tellar to know what…., they
should not have the guts and gusto “to judge others such that they would not
be judged” and “to do unto others as it would be done unto them”. Having had
sufficient time to psychoanalyze these characters in both the Sub-committee
and the Plenary, I have many reservations about the three masquerading a
legal experts without any sufficient understanding, comprehension, microcosm
and compound complex analytical legal reasoning, competency and the
abilities of the law and the analytical legal reasoning and reasonableness
as well as the critical, dynamic and unique conflict of the law as a noble
profession based on commonsense, honesty and truthfulness. In the legal
profession, we could call to question their abilities and know-how of the
ever growing and expanding the law profession, particularly in the frontline
during the armed struggle.
We could further challenge their abilities to command given the nature of
the works and job descriptions that they did in the armed struggle.
Militarily, they are not trained professionals; therefore, they have no
abilities and the leadership that is required to command soldiers. In order
to provide political conducive atmosphere, they should have senses of the
golden rules of private and public political life in particular. In actual
fact, based on the inferences and the political vibrations in both the
Sub-Committee and the Plenary of the Technical Committee, we deducted in
inductively that in as far as we are concerned, the SPLM is determined and
vying to build a “one-party state dictatorship or an autocratic rule vs. a
multi party democracy. Would this really happen in South Sudan? We would
hope not. Furthermore, we should reiterate it again that we [political
parties] were not “illegal” to be in the Technical Committee. Again, John
Luk was further referring to the Decree issued by the President to include
the political parties in the process as illegal. On the contrary, he (John
Luk) should be illegal because he has failed the elections in April 2010 and
had been appointed as the Minister of Legal Affairs and Constitutional
Development. Therefore, we could staunchly and logically argue and challenge
that his appointment in that capacity was illegal and unconstitutional and
let alone the allegations that he uttered against the parties that he
derogatory termed as being illegal by virtue of their presence in the
Technical Committee.
Nevertheless, the fact that 9 out 14 political parties walked out, this
should be a big concerned, a deep and wide wound against the SPLM that could
act as a prelude to the disappearance of the South because in the 21st
century there would be no room for perpetuating a one-man’s show, domination
and exploitation autocracy, oligarchic or one-party rule that could not
possibly write a constitution for a nation. The SPLM should know hereon that
such an expectation would surely contradict Charles Dickens’ ‘Great
Expectations’’ a novel by Charles Dickens, which first appeared in ‘All the
Year Round’ in 1860-1’ in London, England, UK. It was further clearly stated
bluntly by Makuei Lueth that “if you (SSPP) were to walk out you would never
return again and that we would go ahead without you because after all you
have no place in this committee” and that was what we exactly did. In brief,
the statements were bluffing and lack substance in the mannerism that the
doers uttered them. Let’s assume that they continue with the review of the
ICSS to make a transitional constitution for the would-be nascent
nation-state in South Sudan, it would be a mockery, the biggest lie of the
century and it would after all, be a “lame duck transitional constitution”
that could give South Sudan a “false start” and a “bad transition”
surpassing our learned viable experiences and lessons from Sub-Saharan
Africa before South Sudan. We do reckon that we have not only a room but
multifaceted rooms for representation and participation in the process one
way or the other. Assuredly, we would like brothers Makuei, Luk sand Tellar
to know that the document would not go to the SSLA without the approval of
the parties’ leaders. We would also to request the President of the leaders
of the Technical Committee to be grilled for their code of conducts and
misbehavior. Of course, the SSPP would return with pride, vigor,
rejuvenation and with new ideas at the next South Sudan Leadership Forum to
be chaired by Salava Kiir Mayardit, the GOSS President and Chairman of All
South Sudan Political Parties Leadership Forum (ASSPPLF) (Forum). We will
tear or rift apart any submission from the Technical committee. There is no
doubt in my guts and gusto that the three
mascosteers or the maniacs would
be defeated, disseminated and annihilated to the point of return.
As per ambiguous statements made by the Gang of three were (G-3) concerned,
whether the South would disappear or not to disappear, would be a different
matter that would require a different juggernaut, analysis and
socio-politico philosophical and sociological undertaking. For instance, the
current insecurity or no security throughout South Sudan could make the
South disappear literally and could possibly make it to become another
Somalia in the Horn of Africa retrospect to 1992 up to present. The SPLM
leadership should wake up and draw its viable and vibrant lessons from the
ongoing passive uprising or revolutions in the North African nation-states
of Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, including the Kingdom of Bahrain, the
Arab Republic of Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
wherefore all the people are demonstrating in the “Arab streets” demanding
or proclaiming their governments from the tyrants leaders to step down for
evolutionary and social changes. Could the ongoing political expediency and
episodes in North Africa and the Arab world could it not happen in South
Sudan? Of course, the political expediency and episodes in North Africa
could surely happen because the masses are ripped for national political
renaissance, moral consciousness, patriotism and they could be faster
mobilized for peaceful and political demonstrations in South Sudan streets
of Juba, Malakal, Wau, Jonglei, Yambio, and Warap States….etc., demanding
the rapid and endless political wind of change that would eventually blow
southwards and never northwards backward, never!
We anticipated and hope that we should not have a “false start” and a “bad
transition” from being a semiautonomous region to a full independent and
sovereign nation-state as of 9.7.2011. We should by now have learned our
viable and vibrant historic lessons from Africa past. Succinctly, all of
these rhetorical and arrogant statements were deliberately and willfully
meant to frustrate, demean and to superimpose psychological war of terror
and to make the political parties become completely alienated, submit or
succumb to the SPLM political pressure points as well as to be dysfunctional
in the process and making them laughing stocks. We should all be determined
to give the people of South hope for their hard won political independence
and as such, we should together unite and forge ahead for a better and
prosperous South Sudan. This should be the dream of every one of us whether
the SPLM is the system or not, we all should revere this dream for this
generation and the next generations to come. In summation, in spite of all
the euphoric and cacophonic statements uttered, they were strategized,
planned and intended for intimidating and to bring pressure to bear on the
political parties’ to become dysfunctional and effective in representing and
participating in the process. This is the bottom line. It would be recalled
that the Technical Committee would have no choice but to launch opposition
against the Interim Constitution through other available legal and
international means. We should overcome this problem and charade created by
the SPLM diehards.
III. Specific areas of contentious disagreement with the SPLM
Specifically, as the head of the opposition to the Technical Committee to
Review of the ICSS, there were at least a nine (9) irreconcilable points and
contentious disagreement with the SPLM as follows:-
First, we absolutely and completely disagreed on constantly and persistently
rejected the breaking of the Ground
rules or the Rules of procedure. We stood firmly on our grounds without
any compromised on the principle of consensus vs. a simple majority
introduced by the SPLM 41 members vs. 11 out of 14 members of SSPP,
including one civil society person, Angelo Beda that was, in fact, attached
to our ticket but did not walk out with the nine (9) political parties and
did not indicate whether he is still committed to us or not remains to be
seen in the long run. Most importantly, the NCP agreed with us but failed to
walk out with us because there was no green light from the then NCP
(Southern Sector) leadership in Khartoum. The unilateral application of the
simple majority was the premier root causes of our withdrawal or the turning
point of departure as we all agreed prior to our departure and arrival
in Juba and through our consultations at the end of each session of
the Plenary and/or via phones, SMS’ and the Internet. This was what we all
did as per instructions from our principals- meaning the heads of South
Sudan Political Parties Alliance (SSPPA). We did it exactly with pride,
dignity and without bias or prejudice what we had already agreed on
accordingly should the Ground rules or the Rules of procedure were to be
disobeyed, dishonored and violated by the other side of the aisle. This was
the spirit de corps of a team
work and unity of purpose and of equals.
Secondly, as we had already illustrated in the preceded paragraphs, we
disagreed on inclusion of Abyei
Enclave as part of Southern Sudan in the process. We insisted that it
should remain out until we know the status of the Abyei Enclave in the
aftermath of the referendum as unequivocally and clearly stipulated in the
Abyei Protocol. Moreover, the partners-referring hereinto were the National
Congress Party (NCP) and the SPLM and the issue still remains in the
Presidency for deliberations. We should not jump into conclusion otherwise
we could be accused of Encroachment, extraterritorial claim, extra
jurisdiction and/or extrajudicial or
ultra vires. We should all acknowledge that Abyei is too sensitive and
could trigger a bloody conflict between the North and South. Furthermore,
the SPLM has not briefed the parties on the Abyei problem: what are the
prospects for solution? Could that be possible before the 9th
July 2011? If not, what is expected of the South to do? In the case of
Abyei, we should absolutely and completely not to look for trouble until
trouble travels us. We should accept the proposed American solution that the
North of the Kiir River otherwise known as Bahr-el-Arab should belong to the
North and that anything that falls below south of Kiir River (no relations
to President Kiir) should belong to the South.
Fact, it would only be the people of
Abyei Enclave as a whole to determine the political destiny of the area. The
nascent nation-state of South Sudan should keep off from Abyei conflict. We
should Never Again, Never Again and Never Again to permit any southerners
should shade blood or die because of Abyei Enclave. In fact, a Class Action
lawsuit should be filed against the GOSS for its failure to compensate the
families of all SPLA soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice fighting
in Abyei and in all other foolish and stupid ongoing fighting throughout
South Sudan. This is raison d’être
that I do tend to disagree with the drafters of the Abyei Protocol and
Senator John Danforth (R-Mo.) in particular, because he was not frank about
the composition of the Abyei inhabitants and focused only on the nine (9)
Ngok Dinka Chiefdoms and excluded the presence of the Misseriyya tribesmen
in the area in question.
Thirdly, we had a major disagreement
on Afro-Arab relations. Although we lectured the SPLM folks about the
importance of solidarity and invariability of the Afro-Arab relations on
international forums, they disagreed and there were impasse, no compromises
and no agreements. The anti-Arab sentiments and the Afro-Arab relations are
themselves Muslims faithful, educated in the North and very fluent Arabic
speakers that could be useful one way or other in forging Afro-Arab
relations in many spheres of influence, international trade, business,
commerce, international relations amongst nations, diplomacy and the
improvement of the North-South (Third World vs. First World) relations and
many other aspects of global relations. It was shocking to learn that even
the word “Arab” they do not want it to appear in any paragraph or sentence.
Many ignoramus individuals and pretty learned personalities argued of even
abolishing the Arab language from the South Sudan School’s curriculum. What
would they do with Arabic Juba as a recognized special Arabic language?
Well, there is no doubt today that many young southerners are educated in
Arabic language more than in English. Therefore, to phase out the Arab
language in southern schools would be a disaster and could not be done
overnight. Surely, it would take years if not generations to scrape or do
away with it. Of course, we do acknowledge the political and psychologically
trauma because of the war, but at the end of the day, it would be the human
spirit that would triumphant and replaces the hatred of the past. We should
all remember that deep in our hearts and minds that we are all Sudanese by
birthrights and ancestral rights even if we may be politically separated. We
all have many magnificent rooms or
places in Sudan because it is our land from Wadi Halfa on the far north to
Numele on the savannah and tropical rainforest on the South and from the Red
Sea Port of Port Sudan on the East to Nyala on the West.
Fourth, we are in favored of
dissolution of the government after 8.7.2011, but the SPLM wishes to
continue with current CPA institutions inherited from Sudan. The SPLM
position or argument was based on Article 208 (7) that we have thoroughly
analyzed in details in our Press
Release.
Fifth, we proposed short
transitional period, which shall be comprised of
18-21 months to allow for the registration, writing of election laws and
the drafting of a Permanent Constitution for the would-be Africa’s youngest
Republic. The SPLM favors 5 years
transitional period on the ground that they feel that
they have been democratically elected. The Proposed 5 years interim
period by the SPLM would be the first of its kind ever in Africa and
elsewhere in the world at large. Even the former Soviet satellite states did
not take five years of interim period before democratic elections were held
in every one of them.
Sixth, on power sharing, we
proposed that it should be 50/50 as
discussed in the Forum. This percentage applies across the board to the
national, states and county levels. The SPLM
proposed exclusivity and only hand
picking individuals and parties would be co-opted into the parliament and
the ones that they do not like would be denied representation and
participation or could be sanctioned by law. In brief, the SPLM is vying
for the establishment of a one-party rule in the 21st century
enlightened world, including South Sudan. Could this be possible? Would the
people of the South accept this demagogic vs. pedagogic games? You the
readers should be the best judges. We did fight for democracy rather than
dictatorship, authoritarianism, autocracy, oligarchy and totalitarianism
and/or communism. If this position were Pagan Amum’s, a Cuban trained
Communist and his fellow communist protégés behind the scene vying to
establish a Communist State in South Sudan, they should be sure that they
would not attain this dream in their lifetime.
They would be vigorously resisted
and defeated by the forces of democracy, freedom, liberty, equality, social
justice and fraternity. This was one of the political impasses and the root
causes of the split on August 28th 1991 and beyond. We should not
forget history because history repeats itself mysteriously and miraculously.
It should be made known and crystal clear to the SPLM that it could face
tough résistance on the superimposition of a dictatorship and Communism
because southerners’ are committed to a multiparty democracy as opposed to
the former.
Seventh, on the current rebellion within the SPLM structures throughout the
South has created continuous insecurity or no security; we proposed
peaceful and political settlement of
disputes as opposed to military solutions. The SPLM proposes
military solutions, which it
cannot deliver based on the
National Revolutionary Army (NRA) of Museveni’s scheme in Uganda to fight or
resists anyone that is perceived to
be against it. We believe that any proposed military solutions to the
current situation in South Sudan would be impractical, if not impossible, to
attain now and in the foreseeable future. The SPLM has left absolutely with
a short time to resolve or de-escalate such pending internal conflicts
before they could escalate to full scale civil war.
In the South Sudan Parties
Leadership Forum (SSPPLF), it was agreed that there is an urgent need for a
comprehensive plan to eliminate all forms of insecurity or no security. It
is necessary to have peace and stability before the declaration of the new
states. Some areas to pay attention to are: serious peace talks with armed
rebels, professionalization of the security organs, revision of the salary
scale of soldiers, combating hunger, reinstatement of government officials
dismissed because of their participation in the 2010 general elections, and
carrying out Demobilization,
Disarmament and Rehabilitation (DDR) in a professional and comprehensive
mannerism. The SPLM has declared war on the rebels instead of Dialoguing
with them on par cum pari
(equals) to hear their grievances and concerns. They have, of course,
grievances otherwise they could not have rebelled. The 2010 rigged elections
could be cited as one of the root causes of such rebellion in the South up
to this time. Most importantly, entrenched tribalism and rampant corruption
or “looting” of the public coffer or purse are major real social diseases
that must and ought to be cured before they are too late to be cured
otherwise the South could not have any political stability in the
foreseeable future, unfortunately.
Eighth, on what kind or type of government that we have proposed should be
a lean government and legislature
during the transitional
period in order to save money
for frontline projects and social services such as health care, social
welfare for the needy, universal education (pre-K-1-12th Grade
and up to college or University) for all such that no child left behind. We
wanted to keep some resources for the aforementioned frontline projects such
as education, health care, cleaning drinking water projects or schemes,
agricultural development for food production leading to self-sufficiency,
food security and self-reliance. On the contrary, the SPLM wants a bigger
government simply because they wanted to accommodate their members who
were in Northern Sudan. The Transitional National Assembly and States’
Legislative Assemblies have to maintain same numbers of members as the
current Southern Legislative Assembly and States’ Legislative Assemblies,
i.e., 170 and 48 members, respectively. This is congruent with the lean and
effective government we are advocating.
Ninth, the Southern Political Parties and the SPLM agreed on the name of the
currency to be known as “South Sudan Pound” at the last South Sudan
Political Parties Leadership Forum. However, there was no discussion on the
printing of currency before any formal
agreement with the Central Bank of
Sudan (CBS) and the international financial institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (The World Bank) would be political
suicide. Most importantly, before the currency goes into printing, it has to
be shown to the people of South Sudan to make sure that all national symbols
and historic sites and prominent persons are incorporated into our would-be
new currency. It would be pretty wrong if not a miscalculated mistake to
assume that only the head of the late John Garang alone should be engraved
on the currency otherwise would be known as the South Sudan Pound (SSP)and
that the currency should have only one serial number. There were other
heroes and moraines before him that should also be given their prominent
historic place in South Sudan. We should also honor for this long hard and
bloody sojourn towards independence that they paved the way for centuries in
the armed struggle for democracy, freedom, liberty, equality and fraternity.
We urge the GOSS to be transparent and accountable on the issue of currency
and other matters involved relating to economics and the Micro-management
and Macro-management as well as human resources management. From the
economics viewpoint, any attempt to print the money before full membership
to the UN, the international financial institutions, could ultimately become
hectic because no country would accept the New South Sudan Pound as a legal
tender to undertake business transactions.
Secondly, it could cause inflation in the North and this could
trigger currency and commodities problems similar to Ethiopia and Eritrea.
We would have to go slowly but surely on the currency printing. There is no
rush in this business. When the Finance Minister David Athor Bey was
questioned to give details of the money presumably to have been already
printed in Switzerland, he made no comment; therefore, it was reported that
his reply was that in his capacity as the Minister of Finance or the
Exchequer, he is only answerable to the President. Funny, wasn’t it? This
arrogance would not be for too long because changes are eminent throughout
the GOSS, including finance portfolio.
THE WAY FORWARD
We have had difficulty working with the Marxist-Leninist SPLM and there is a
need for international intervention that would provide guidance. Without any
significant roles played by the peace sponsoring countries (the USA, the UK,
Norway and Italy), things could fall apart and thus leading South Sudan to
have a “false start” and a “bad transition”. If these conditions or
processes were allowed to prevail, then, the critics who have prophesized
that the South is not capable of governing itself or it is not yet ready to
govern itself would be justified to say that did I or
did we not told you so.
In order to revamp the roadmap on the review of the constitution between the
SPLM and the Southern political parties the following should be put into
considerations:-
(1)
That
there is a need for a neutral body to mediate and harmonize our differences
such that we all forge together in the process;
(2)
That to establish the code of conduct for the Ground rules or the Rules of
procedure or engagement in the process;
(3)
That
to guide the process and
Dialogue on par cum pari (equals)
between the SPLM and other Southern Political Parties that it does not
recognize as legitimate political parties in South Sudan with the exception
of the SPLM solo;
(4)
That to inform the SPLM to desist from its allegations that the parties were
in the Technical committee because “on the goodwill of the President”, that
“we are illegal” and that “if they walked out the South would not
disappear”;
(5)
That
there would be no one-party rule in South Sudan because the people of this
would-be nascent nation-state do hereby desire to have a multiparty
democracy that the SPLM is not prepared to co-exist side-by-side with it
because it does not know the concept or the art and logic of multiparty
democracy;
(6)
That
we urge and appeal to the civil society organizations to disseminate and to
create awareness about the right to know the government and its functions of
the would-be new country in Africa;
(7)
That
there is a need to conduct seminars and workshops to educate and/or
enlighten the communities of their right to know their own government, its
mangers, how they are managing it and of their rights of public opinion in
the government of the would-be new state.
(8)
That
the SPLM must adopt a sense of respect, camaraderie,
spirit de corps,
team work or pack concepts and the
ability to work and communicate comprehensively with the parties in the of
constitution making is a “no laughing” matter, it’s one-man shows, but an
elaborate, comprehensive and the mellowing spirits of men and women of like
minds;
(9)
That
we do envisage a spirit of cooperation, good will, mutual understanding,
mutual respect from the other side of the aisle as the way forward in the
process of reviewing the Interim Constitution of South Sudan; that we should
and ought not to fail our beloved people and their hard won
politico-military struggle for generations in which they had
made the ultimate sacrifices on so
many lives and loved ones not because of personal political blind ambitions,
inter-personality conflicts and idiosyncrasies, but for the cause of the
nation.
(10)
For the above reasons as already stated in our Press Release on Withdrawal
from the Technical Committee for the Review of the Constitution,
inter alia, we would like to call
on South Sudanese public and the international community to underscore that
if: the SPLM cannot subscribe to the principles of democracy as the wave of
the 21st century, we hereby declare that we as political parties
could not subscribe to such a process. We would further want to register
that we would like to start our would-be new nation on the right foot rather
than on a “false start” and a “bad transition” cognizant of the past lessons
we have learned from the African nation-states, including Sudan.
Furthermore, we would like to state that:-
·
The SPLM has no intention of allowing the other Southern political parties
to effectively participate in reviewing and writing the transitional
constitution of South Sudan. On the contrary, its wants the transitional
constitution to reflect sole entire interest of the SPLM solo;
·
The SPLM does not desire the other Southern Sudan political parties to
participate in a broad-based government of an independent South Sudan.
Furthermore, the SPLM feels that it alone liberated South Sudan and as such,
must and ought to be rewarded by forming an exclusive SPLM government of an
independent and sovereign South Sudan. The unity of South Sudanese at the
point of independent is not important and paramount to the SPLM leaders,
cadres and partisans.
·
The SPLM has already shown that it is not committed to democracy and
democratic process, democratization; the rule of law, transparency and
accountability. As such, and to avoid rubber stamping only the SPLM
dictates, we, other political parties have decided to pull out from the
constitutional review committee. Can the SPLM do it alone without other
political parties?
·
We would not return to the said process unless the SPLM would agree to obey
the Ground rules or the Rules of procedure based on consensus rather than on
a simple majority. This is the bottom line; and finally, South Sudan.
At the end of the tumultuous period
of the state formation, would become a truly democratic and multiparty
nation-state rather than a one-party state or a dictatorship, totalitarian
and a communist state that the diehard Garang’s Boys are vying to establish
in South Sudan. It would be too late for the Garang’s Boys or Orphans to
conquer the South. The constitution and the system of governance shall be
based on the principles of democracy and its true values. We would be
committed to establish that represents a human face as opposed to
individual’s whims.
[ Copyright ©2002-2010 SouthSudan.Net
info@southsudan.net ]