By: Bol Khan Rom
August 10, 2014 (SSNA) -- One of the South Sudanese independent writers recently wrote an article titled “Kiir is a constitutional President not elected President of the Republic of South Sudan”. I cannot exactly remember the date on which this article was published. Though, the article was very interesting. The independent writer we are talking of is none other than Kuir e Garang, who writes from Canada. I always attentively read the articles he authors. And I do agree with him. Specifically, on the point that Kiir is not an elected President of Republic of South Sudan. He (Kiir) was a democratically elected and legitimate President of Southern Sudan. But he is now a “constitutional” or consensus President of the Republic of South Sudan. Interestingly, Mr Garang ended his article by stated that “Kiir would have become a democratically elected Republic of South Sudan’s President unless elections were held in our new Republic, after independence”. But, did that happen? Of course, the answer to this question is a BIG NO.
I, personally, incorporated this point in one or two of my articles published before Kuir e Garang’s article. As a matter of fact, there was no Presidential election held in the Republic of South Sudan since 2011 right after the Independence. My friend Abendego Akok, Republic of South Sudan National Election Commission’s Chairperson would have invited and told me a Presidential candidate of his choice both of us could have vote for. I had been in the Republic of South Sudan until recently, that is to say up to Dec, 2013. No election process in the Republic of South Sudan was even initiated! What I know was that, Southern Sudan Political Parties by the time, on 13-17 Oct, 2010 held South-South Dialogue conference in Juba. And in that conference the same Political Parties’ Leaders agreed in a deliberate consensus that Salva Kiir would lead a Transitional national Government in the Republic of South Sudan. Should the Southern Sudan Referendum (SSR) results favor separation? So, as we speak, Bol Khan Rom, the author, is in full agreement with Kuir Garang. To be specific, on the point that Salva Kiir is not “a democratically elected/legitimate” President of the Republic of South Sudan but “a constitutional or consensus” President of the Republic of South Sudan. Take and own this truth from here.
However, let me today temporary agree to disagree with Mr. Garang, if he can also think that Gen. Pual Malong was/is not a democratically elected Governor of Northern Bahr el Gazhal State (NBGS). I am not contradicting myself. I said it is my decision to say it in the way they do! I decided or agree to change my argument today so to favor or make thing right in the hearts of the status quo and its supporters. And to see together publicly with them whether or not a language of “a democratically elected or legitimate” Government, there widely spoken uses to be logical (realistic). Let’s go straight to the point! Gen. Pual Malong Awan is a democratically elected Governor of Northern Bahr el Gahazal State (NBGS). We know this fact. Right? He was democratically elected in general elections by the people of Northern Bahr el Gahazal state (NBGS). Whether in Southern Sudan general elections or Republic of South Sudan’s general elections (take what can please you) is none of my business. Hence, the most important point we are running after, here; if we can all agree, is that Gen. Malong Awan was/is a democratically elected or legitimate Governor of NBGS. However, is he still a Northern Bahr el Gahzal State’s Governor, now? Why? What happened?
Yes I know, in our stained Transitional one man Constitution of South Sudan we can read it in Article 101 (r) that a state’s Governor shall be removed by the President in an event of a crisis in the state which threatens state or national security and territorial integrity. But was there anything that happened in a Northern Bahr el Gahzal state, for which he (Malong) could be removed? I think there wasn’t. Which is which now? I am confused here. Anyway, I think we have all now agreed that Gen. Pual Malong was democratically elected in the same election the President or other Governors were elected; which becomes the central point that we based our argument of “a democratically elected/legitimate” language. Then, why and who removed Pual Malong from the Governorship? The President? Who is also a democratically elected and legitimate President of Southern Sudan, sorry; Republic of South Sudan? The chief implementer of the law and South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution? Is it now a convincing notion, for a democratically elected person to remove another democratically elected one? Is this how democracy works in a circle or in an island of their own? Did the people of South Sudan in general and NBGS’s in particular fight and agree to this? I doubt. Aren’t we in an animals’ farm? I think we are unknowingly in an animal’s farm; where it was stated that animals with two legs are better than those with four legs or vice-versa.
Therefore, I think we must logically choose from the following: Either we all agree that a language of “a democratically elected/legitimate” Government is declared invalid, especially after these messes. Or we come to our sense that a proven constitutional blunders which we created and remove “a democratically elected Governor” need correction (radical reforms) with new bloods. The technocrats, in the proposed Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU). In addition, I also think it is squarely absurd, for us to support a removal of “a democratically elected/legitimate” persons (like Governor Malong) and at the same time we consider Mr. Simon Kun Puoch, Upper Nile state’s Governor or President Kiir is “a democratically elected/legitimate” persons who shouldn't be touch. Take categorically incurable and deadly messes created which also kill immensely South Sudanese people! Certainly, we may be seen legally as an isolated megalomaniac clique which contradicts itself. Because, Gen. Paul Malong, Simon Kun, President Kiir, Gen. Matur Chut and so forth were all elected in the same elections by the same people of the Republic of South Sudan if not Southern Sudan. Even in a traditional way of doing things, such reasoning cannot be, or accepted. The heavenly father (Almighty God) either cannot agree. This case of (Northern BGS) alone plus the other national fatal blunders combined could earth quaked the nation we’re pretending to build. Who can tell me that the people of Northen Bahr el Gahzal state shouldn’t win the case in the court of law against the status quo? If the South Sudan Judiciary or Legal system under Justice Chan Reec Madut were to granted a chance for NBGS’s people to open such an obvious case. I think none of you will tell me. This is another version of majority South Sudanese and I which we think may bring down an irrational argument of a so-called democratically elected Government.
In conclusion, as far as my take to the status quo is concern, I would like to say that the language of “a democratically elected/legitimate” Government is just becomes a bogus defend mechanism. Which glued-like in the lips of those who have already corrupted, pocketed and messed up the nation unconstitutionally but want to cheat the nation and continue receiving their remunerations (salaries) at the expense of the people’s deaths. The language is not realistic or valid at all. Otherwise, Gen. Pual Malong Awan who was “a democratically elected/legitimate” Governor of NBGS would have not lost his position to Mr. Kuel Aguer Kuel.