South Sudan News Agency

Monday, Jul 28th, 2014

Last update09:31:55 PM GMT

You are here: Opinion

Federal decentralization versus dictatorial centralization in South Sudan

By Lul Gatkuoth Gatluak

July 26, 2014 (SSNA) -- The debate over federalism to be adopted as the system of the governance in South Sudan and dictatorial centralization has generated excitement in the country’s political spectrum. Many South Sudanese politicians had excessively overused jargon accusations which could cause malapropism to the word “federalism” among ordinary citizens. When Dr. Riek came out of South Sudan in the first week of May, following the United States and the United Nations’ pressure to involve high profile leaders in the steady and stagnant peace talks in Addis Ababa Ethiopia, Riek brought with him the idea of adopting federal system, as the basis of ruling South Sudan once peace prevail.

As soon as Dr. Riek revealed his intention to push for federalism, some politicians including James Wani Igga the current vice president, throwed it as rubbish, and denied the fact that federalism demand is a Dr. Riek making and pointing at Nyakuron cultural center as a base of federal demand origination out of Equatorian convention.

The country’s vice president openly reacted and opposed the federalism proposal. A demand he previously agreed to support in 2010 before independence. In his reaction, Wani cautions his fellow Equatorians against buying the concept as majority of equatorians have seen that Dr. Riek idea on federation: will rescue them from others’ domination. In his own words quoted by Sudan Tribune news outlet, James Wani stated “this federation here is not the creation of Riek, we all know that Riek actually stole this renewed call for federalism in this Hall here—Nyakuron—during Equatorian consultative conference like this.” On the other hand, President Salva Kiir has also reacted swiftly that, “it was not Riek Machar who tabled the quest of federation, federal system was what Southern Sudan demanded from North Sudan during Juba conference in 1947.” He further acknowledged, “South Sudanese politicians also asked for federalism in 1955 in Torit and 1963 during a meeting in Khartoum.” Salva Kiir was somehow right when he said South Sudanese demanded federalism in above mentioned occasions and he is wrong that federation is meant only between North and South excluding our internal administration in waiting.

Then, James Wani is wrong when he said Riek did not start the demand of federalism. Below are the historical facts in regard of what Southern Sudanese people wanted and whether Dr. Riek previously demanded federalism or had he just borrowing it out of Equatorian convention. But first, one must highlight our forbearers’ historical demands before dipping and plunging into this current featuring debate.

Initially, during Sudanese nationalism, which developed to oppose to British indirect rule and advocated for a centralized national government that would be responsible for both North and South in the period of 1920-1947, (similar to what Salva Kiir is demanding at the moment), after Arab nationalists perceived British policy toward Southern Sudan as a tactical agenda that dividing Sudan and preventing its unification under an Arabized and Islamized State. Southerners at that particular period, weren’t prepared for a statehood loyalty. Their loyalties laid or accustomed to a traditional way of life, which is cultivating the soil or grazing their herds of cattle. They were overwhelmingly illiterate and did not aware of any changing world around them and how it is passing through. Due to the lack of political consciousness or experiences, a conference of 1946 was convened in Khartoum without participation of any single southern Sudanese. Thank to British officials in the South who argued that-----another conference must be called, which will include Southern Sudanese. This culminated into the historical Juba conference of June 12-13, 1947.

In that conference, thirteen Southern Sudanese delegates included herein Clement Mboro, Both Diu Thong, James Tambura, Philemon Majiok among others, had reacted by demanding a federal system of governance opposing to centralization system. When British had finally decided to give up its colonization and its stand for Southern Sudan, it drastically allows referendum consultation. This turned into open hostility after the results of the Sudanization were announced, given the fact that, the whole process was favoring northern Sudanese interest or aspiration. In this regard, political active southerners-----call a meeting again in Juba on October 1954 to discuss the political future of the Sudan as a whole, and the political future of Southern Sudan within the Sudan. In their deliberations, southerners agreed they must vote for independence Sudan from condominium partners, but on a condition that a federal system for the entire country is adopted, and southern Sudan must have its own autonomy. If this demand does not prevail, the region must opt for the rights of self-determination.

Apparently, northerners reviewed this call as a tactical demand by Southerners to secure full independence within the preceded independence process of the whole country. Then, they responded by rapidly increasing the number of northerners in the South as administrators, senior officers in the army and police, teachers in government schools, and as merchants. Such an action brought fear to southern Sudanese that Arabs had declared themselves as a new colonial masters and this increase the mistrust that resulted into the disturbance of August 18, 1955 in Torit when members of the Equatorian army unit refuse to be transferred to Khartoum. In preference, the soldiers have done what the army supposed to be doing beforehand and later deserted to bushes of southern Sudan under two grievances i.e. the demands of “federalism and independence South Sudan.”

The rebellion stunned the northern Sudanese impatient for independence, and the twenty-two southern Sudanese members of the parliament at that time became unwilling to agree to a declaration of independence which would perpetuate Northern control over the country. They stick on the demand of federal system, as a form of the government that the country could adopt in governing itself. Southern politicians proposed this ideology as a way of protecting southern provinces from being completely subordinated to a northern dominated central government. Ideologically in their intention, they were in a mood that, if northerners refuse this demand, all southern members of the parliament should vote against independent. On the other hand, Northern politicians were ironically left for nothing other than hastily consented to consider a federal solution for the Sudan. That pledge won the hearts of southern representatives and dissuaded them to vote for an independent Sudan on December 19, 1955 which led to the declaration of independence on January 1, 1956.

Moreover, the debate over southern Sudan issue resurfaced again ignited by students, teachers, ordinary workers and other professional staffs in 1964 follow by round table conference in 1965. Southern Sudanese political groups were pushing for the same two objectives. For instance, William Deng Nhial who represented Sudan African National Union (SANU) inside the country, was campaigning for federal system in the united Sudan. Clement Mboro, Darius Bashir and Both Diu Thong also insiders aimed for federalism, and then SANU in exile represented by Elia Lupe, Rv. Fr. Saturnino Ohure, Joseph Oduho, and Aggrey Jaden among others were advocating for a complete independence for southern Sudan.

Then, in 1972 when the historic negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM) was opened on February 16, 1972 in Addis Ababa at Hilton Hotel with the blessing of his majesty Emperor Haile Selassie on the fundamental understanding that the talks were to produce a plan for regional autonomy within a united Sudan, not the separate State as originally demanded by SSLM, many southerners opposed the move despite the fact that their interest laid on separation and forming a federal democratic State. This by far became the reason why those who did not satisfy with the deal returned to bush as early as 1975 under the command of Vincent Kuany Latjor.

By 1981-2, the High Executive Council mismanagement of self-autonomous Southern Sudan affairs reach to the point where majority of Southern Sudanese especially Equatorians were dissatisfied. Under such failure, wealth, political positions, among other grievances were not equitably shared. This led to the claim of decentralization or division of power equally which is where Bari speaking word “Kokora” find its root in South Sudanese political system. This claim coincided with the northerners’ decision to abrogate or get rid of the Addis Ababa Agreement by opposing a single Southern Sudan region, the secular constitution, self-autonomy for the south, English language usage, and the security arrangements; which gave southern Sudanese an equal role just as northerners. Base on such action, Southern Sudanese rebelled and slipped to bushes of Southern Sudan which is spearheaded by Kerubino Kuanyin Bol on May 16, 1983 in Bor and Pochalla and William Nyuon Bany on June 6, 1983 in Ayod and Waat respectively.

Following the Ayod, Bor, Pochalla and Waat uprisings, many Southern Sudanese leaders start moving to Ethiopia to establish a rebellion aiming to solve the problem of Sudan one and for all. The new movement must include former 1975 and 1983 mutineers. However, the situations were soon turn in different angle when different ideologies regarding the objective of the movement emerged. One group wanted to fight for independence South Sudan and another one wanted to fight to liberate the whole country and replace the old Sudan with the new Sudan within the context of united Sudan under socialist system that afford democracy and human rights to all nationalist and guarantee freedom to all religious beliefs and cultures. This ideology became foreign to Southern Sudanese whether in government or in the rebel held areas. Unfortunately, the strangeness of the United Sudan objective, trigger the 1991 internal division. The split brought about by the dissatisfaction of the movement’s misguiding objective, absent of democratic principles, human rights abuses and lack of a decent strategy among the leadership.

When Dr. John Garang realized the genuineness of Southern Sudanese quest for self-determination and democratization, he called 1994 first SPLM Convention in Chukudum to resolve the grievances rise by the Nasir group and later incorporated all the demands into the movement policies. From there, the rights to self-determination had become a solid objective and some sort of democratic debates start rooting. While those grievances were being pushed to be adopted in the movement, in many occasions, southern Sudanese slowly sought each other in term of reuniting their forces. Hence, on February 5-6, 2002 in Nairobi Kenya, Southerners became one again through a deal that was christened Nairobi declaration marking the end of 1991 quest for objective and internal institutional democratization.

After the reunification of all Southern Sudanese Factions beside remaining forces that form alliances with the north, the move coincided with the international community rising to pressure Sudanese warring parties, to come to negotiating table and debate peace. As the result, the first peace talks among Sudanese was opened at Karen Nairobi on May 2-5, 2002 under able, energetic, persevering lieutenant general Lazarus Sumbeiywo as Kenya special envoy for IGAD peace process toward Sudan. The second session took place on June 18, 2002 at Machakos Kenya. After a month of intense negotiations, the machakos conference ended on July 20, 2002 with a signing of self-determination document. It was a landmark agreement where the Sudanese government and the SPLM/A agreed that the right to self-determination will be settled by a referendum after six years interim period.

During the heady atmosphere at Machakos, the three critical issues brought on the table, predicated on extensive sharing of power, wealth, security arrangement and the establishment of asymmetrical federal system, with the government of Southern Sudan to exist as buffer between the central government and southern Sudan. In 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was finalized, as good clean document emphasis good governance in Southern Sudan, democracy, institutional transformation and reconstruction of southern Sudan under federal structured system.

In the beginning of the interim period, both government of national unity (GONU) and government of southern Sudan (GOSS) were formed. In the government of southern Sudan, all functions of the federal system were put in place. On top of these functions has been the establishment of the institution of presidency, Southern Sudan council of ministers, southern Sudan legislative assembly, the judiciary of southern Sudan (Supreme Court and courts of appeal) and southern Sudan States’ governors, States’ council of ministers and legislative assemblies. According to the structure, counties in ten Southern Sudan States will be led by commissioners, Payams and Bomas/Bumas administrations will be run by administrators, who will be appointed locally in their respective areas. Then, the newly adopted constitution of the southern Sudan (ICSS) provides the framework for assigning governmental powers and decision-making that include protecting of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It also outline fundamental objectives and guiding principles for the GOSS related to citizenship, the decentralization system of governance, the judicial system, independent institution the country around and begin ruling the nation by the so-called presidential decrees. He can appoint, order court persecution, and most of all fire elected public servants. That kind of practice is picked up by governors to appoint individuals who are loyal to them.

Commissioners as well appoint their close aids or relatives to available jobs or send them to trainings which will later result into their employment once they return. Federal functioning practices where leaders can be elected by ordinary citizens is absent and the whole system became a big mess or an ultimate nightmare. Citizens particularly journalists are daily harassed, censored and even killed. Dictatorship, corruption, nepotism, tribalism and brutalization have engulfed the country. Ordinary folks are only expressing dismay given the fact that none is for them and the bread is for elite.

To reverse and correct the trend and how salva Kiir is running the country, many political players particularly in Equatoria region, setup public gatherings in 2011-14 aiming to discuss system of governance or how South Sudan as a nation should adopt and rule itself (e.g. majority of Equatorians, commissions, local government, and finally economic functioning governance...). Base on the above structure, south Sudanese began to hope that democratic system where public servants should enter political arena through adult franchise is rooting. However, that turn out not to be the case. Kiir tur since the dawn of CPA negotiation, started to debate on how sustainable peace will be implemented throughout post-conflict Sudan. Many of them believe during the war time, they have been driven out from their homes or faced with economic and political oppression under the SPLA occupation. Therefore, they wanted a government by and for the people where accountability and transparency transcended.

However, when people start talking too much about, democracy, federalism or multi-partism, Salva Kiir is always seen as very reluctance in allowing such a change. He is only interesting in centralizations where wealth of the country concentrated on him and his choosing few that is why he had driven the country to war and adamantly stated if anything touched his position war is eminent and it is the only solution. His worried is dwelling only on keeping the power not on solving the suffering or the flight of the people.

As the world is tirelessly engaging on finding a solution to zeal the spilled blood of South Sudanese, they must know beyond the reasonable doubt that----Salva Kiir is the only problem---who perpetrated and implanted the hatred among South Sudanese tribes, who almost coexist and mutually live side by side. He has proven to be pure dictator who does not know how to share power with different organs of the government. In that regard, he will not bring back the trust South Sudanese start building during the interim period. The only person who will bring mutual understanding is Dr. Riek Machar who is a natural democratic oriented person. James Wani was wrong when he said “Riek borrow the idea of federalism out of Equatorian convention,” for the reason that, when Dr. Riek signed the political Charter with Khartoum on April 10, 1996, he was aiming to resolve the conflict in the Sudan through peaceful and political means. He has recognized that during the interim period, a constitution will be developed to form the relations between the South and north. Such relations shall be based on federalism and this type of federal structure have to be built on the values of participatory democracy, so that the people of then Southern Sudan can behave and act freely without any sort of intimidation or fear of blackmailing. This is the idea he has carrying all along and not just borrowing it yesterday.

This writer hope James Wani, Salva Kiir and all their likes, had now satisfied Dr. Riek mean democracy in all its functionalities. The proposal of 11 more States plus Abyei in God willing is an indication of federal model similar to American federalism. This kind of leader, need to be given a chance to pave the way so that South Sudan had to be ruled under constitution supremacy.

It will be a country where the president, governor and/or commissioner will only appoint their cabinet members. All civil and public servants started from president, governors, commissioners and members of the parliament in both national and State governments, in addition to Payams and Bomas administrators, must be elected and ruled for a short specified time frame else one has a potentiality to convince people to bring him/her back to power. Sycophantic, nepotism, and loyalty will stop. Members of the media outlets will not be censored or killed. Wealth will be shared and businesses will start booming. Life in that given occasion will start going back to its normalcy. Creating a transitional government under Salva Kiir, the country will not be a democratic State. It will be a country similar to that of Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Uganda under Idi Amin Dada or Museveni, just to mention only a few. This is the reason why we are eager to remove him from the leadership of South Sudan. Had it not been for his increasing dictatorship tendency, the country would not have been driven to war. One strongly believes that, the unity of South Sudanese will be restored when Salva Kiir is out of way. That is when our society will enjoy a democracy which will freely allow them to speak, to publish and most importantly the freedom to criticize the government.

Although freedom of expression is enshrined in our current constitution, yet, it’s just symbolic, we need a remarkable/workable federal system that will honor the freedom of the press. The freedom of expression can be found almost in every nation constitutions, but only few countries such as the United States that guarantee the freedom of expression as the people and the government are dedicated in making the ideal come true.

In conclusion, as we are debating trying to find ways of how our country should be governed, we ought to avoid unnecessary collaborations. There might be people among us who had and will choose sides before analyzing and correctly identify the cause of the problem. If that would be the case, one would like to illustrate and educate such people that, accordance with the SPLM party constitution, every five years period leadership of the party has to expired and the party must convened a national convention to either reinstall its serving leaders or elect new leaders, that made Dr. Riek, Pagan and Rebecca Nyandeng a room to challenge the incumbent party chairperson, is that a crime which can caused the war? If it is a crime, only in South Sudan it might be seen. Had the leader called the convention and allows democratic voting manner, Dr.Riek would not drag the country to war. Promptly, leadership failure and lack of vision from the country’s top seat drag us into this mess. Had the leader of our nation choose democratic principle, the blood of our citizens that is spilling daily, would have been prevented.

Ruling the country on iron fist rarely succeed in today’s world. National unity that is imposed on people through dictatorial tendency or spurious nationalist will never work. It will only promote disunity and ultimate disintegration of the country. No one in their right mind or senses will force the medieval behaviors like centralization of power on people. National unity is a voluntary coming together of diverse people and regions based on fair equitable sharing of power and wealth, imposing it will stir the people to dissatisfaction and anger. IGAD and its partners must bear in mind majority of South Sudanese are longing for a federal republic State that exclude Salva Kiir since he already had shown oddness to it. Once he steps aside, the country will be at peace and national healing will soon follow.

The author is a political commentator who have written several articles on both Sudan and South Sudan, he is also a member of the SPLM-In Opposition in the State of Minnesota, he could be reach via This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

The Jieng’s vile plan to ethnically cleanse Equatoria

By Elhag Paul

July 26, 2014 (SSNA) -- When a liar is caught in the act, their first reaction is ‘denial’. They would protest their innocence. If the case is pressed harder they will then begin to crack.  At the end lies are always exposed because lying by its very nature has no foundation to sustain itself. Unlike truth which remains constant, solid and unassailable.

President Kiir and his advocates have resorted to denying their evil plan to ethnically cleanse Equatorians because they have been caught red handed. They are now calling their evil plan ‘assassination rumours’. But the question is: rumours by whom? If these are rumours, why has the government not come out publicly to dispel the story and set up an enquiry? Again if the evil plan to ethnically cleanse Equatorians was an ‘assassination rumour’ why did General Paul Molong Awan, the chief of the army specifically disarm the Equatorian members of the armed forces? Why did General Awan deploy Jieng militia under the cover of SPLA to all the three states of Greater Equatoria? What was the rational? Can somebody tell us please?

If people can learn from the contemporary conflict in the country, the South Sudanese would do well to remember that it was the attempted disarmament of the Nuer on 15th December 2013 that set the prelude to the Nuer ethnic cleansing. If this was the case, could the act of disarming Equatorians in the armed forces itself be clear evidence that something fishy was afoot? SPLA is repeating the same pattern of behaviour towards the Equatorians now as they did towards the Nuer prior to 15th December 2013.   Why this behaviour?

Equatorians should not buy the story of ‘assassination rumours’. The evidence points to the existence of such a vile plan. Thus, Equatorians must not lower their guard and allow themselves to be taken by surprise in the future. 

The Jieng are now reported to be angry because of these ‘assassination rumours’. In addition, the Jieng leaders are vigorously complaining that they are being provoked by Equatoria’s call for federalism. Surely, something is not right here. How can Equatoria’s demand for federalism amount to provocation? The Jieng need to explain this most bizarre and irrational assertion. Why should a political right of the Equatorians enshrined in the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 amount to provocation? Part 1, Article 1 of the mentioned instrument grants all peoples including Equatorians the right to organise themselves in the way they like. Why is it a problem to the Jieng?  Who are the Jieng to decide on Equatoria’s choice? Why do the Jieng feel free to bully people of other ethnicities?

It is important that all the people of South Sudan realise that we are all equal and nobody including the Jieng is better or above the others. So, if the Jieng do not like federalism, they simply need to argue their case to win. If they win through argument that would be fair and square, but not to intimidate, bully and kill people as in Maridi in the mistaken believe that they will dissuade people from federalism. Throwing tantrums like spoilt brats is juvenile and unacceptable.

Equatorians should not back down from their rightful demand for federalism. They are the first people to call for federalism in independent South Sudan in their conference held in Nyakouran in mid April 2011. Equatorians consistently pioneered federalism in independent South Sudan and it would be a disaster for them not to follow it through regardless of what the Jieng do. The importance of this is to assert the fact that all South Sudanese are equal and nobody must be allowed to intimidate others. South Sudanese fought to obtain this right from Khartoum. Therefore no South Sudanese must accept this kind of abuse. This is a principle that people died for and it can not be conceded simply because somebody does not like it for no credible reason or anger. Appeasing the Jieng will only feed into the stereotype that Equatorians are cowards and slaves, but it would set a precedent which psychologically will always make Equatorians insecure and undetermined. 

Further the Jieng are spreading rumours that Equatorians are preparing to attack and evict them from Equatoria. To back this wild unfounded allegation, General Paul Molong Awan has put the Jieng militia in SPLA uniform on standby supposedly to protect the Jieng. This is the grandmother of all lies constructed by the Council of Jieng Elders. How could Equatorians attack the Jieng when they have no arms and their sons and daughters in the army are already disarmed. The reality is that the placement of the Jieng militia on standby was supposed to carry out their vile plan of ethnic cleansing.

Killing other people is something that the Jieng leaders seem to routinely do without any thought of consequences. This is because the system (Dinkocracy) is blatantly Jieng centred and totally irresponsive to Jieng crimes. They think if they kill their supposed or perceived enemies their problems will go away. This is a bizarre state of mind. 

Rational people always think in terms of cause and effect, this does not seem to be happening in South Sudan. Why is that?   For example, in mid December 2013, the Jieng set out to ethnically cleanse the Nuer without weighing the repercussions that would follow. As a result, the Nuer reacted with a lightening speed which scared the Jieng prompting them to hire UPDF (Uganda People Defence Force) for protection. Until when will the UPDF be able to protect them? Do you see the irrational and pathological behaviour of President Kiir and his Council of Jieng Elders?

In relation to Equatoria, the Jieng have gotten comfortable with killing them. Dr John Garang using predatory tactics carefully and systematically eliminated prominent Equatorians to the extent that he decapitated the Equatorian body politic psychologically. For example, early on at the inception of SPLM/SPLA, prominent Equatorians like Joseph Kabulo, Justin Keri etc were brutally murdered. Others like late Colonel Martin Kejivura were basically detained for years without charge and eventually murdered. Those who joined the SPLM were brainwashed to accept being nobodies. The worst case scenario relates to the current Vice President James Wani Igga. During Dr Garang’s era, Wani often on seeing Garang would grin widely and start singing Baba ja! Tindikili! Baba Ja! Tindikili inflating the ego of the ‘born to rule’. Literally, Wani was (competing with Dr Garang’s children for recognition and attention) and this reduced him to the status of a puppet. 

Under President Kiir now, Equatoria has a new bunch of grafted leaders to serve the interest of the Jieng. These so called leaders in their private hours are busy serving their masters (supposedly colleagues) with liquor. One of them has been observed cleaning the shoes of President Kiir when liquor accidently spilled on it. The poor soul quickly jumped up and pulled his own handkerchief and started cleaning his master’s shoes akin to some scenes in slave dramas exhibiting ultimate subjugation. What a disgrace?

With the foregoing, how can the Jieng audaciously claim to be provoked or angered by the Equatorian call for federalism when they have all along been the perpetrators of atrocities and horrendous crimes against Equatorians. If anybody would be angered it would rightly be the Equatorians as innocent victims of the system. For three decades the Jieng have been killing Equatorians with impunity. If they want to dispute this, let them come forward and the extensive list of their Equatorian victims can be published. The latest of this Jieng killing spree are the two boys killed in Maridi a couple of weeks ago over the issue of federalism. The question that must be asked is: what gives the Jieng the right to kill others as they want without accountability?

It is therefore disturbing to find that Equatorians exercising their right of self expression in relation to their right to claim for federalism, angers the Council of Jieng Elders. Why should the Equatorian call for it anger the Jieng? Let the Jieng tell the people of South Sudan why it is not good and not just resort to violence and abuse of power. The Jieng must also know that the current centralised system of government they dearly love can also work against them when others are in power. Given what is going on, it is highly likely that they will lose power. When that time comes they will regret their own foolery. With Uganda seriously re-assessing its intervention in South Sudan and with the rebellion gathering pace, the exit door is beckoning to President Kiir and the hopeless so called Council of Jieng Elders.

Whoever accedes to power will undo all that the Jieng are doing now including the dismantlement of the Dootku Beny with its leaders possibly heading to some form of courts to account for their crimes. Paradoxically, this seems to be what the Jieng are asking for by their continued short sightedness. Therefore, with or without federalism the Jieng are already losers in South Sudan because their behaviour repels others and coincidentally unites those others against them. The die is cast. If there is any wisdom in the Jieng community, they should now be apologising to South Sudanese for their horrendous acts and making amends. This is not the time for them to think of committing more crimes as these amounts to grave irresponsibility on part of the Council of Jieng Elders.

Now, if the Council of Jieng Elders consisting of blood thirsty people like Salva Mathok, Albino Akol Akol, Paul Molong Awan, Aldo Ajo etc are bent on implementing their vile plan of ethnic cleansing in Equatoria as evinced by the continuing disarmament of sons and daughters of Equatoria in the armed forces and the ceaseless threats from the likes of Salva Mathok, they need to know in advance that they will be doing Dr Riek Machar a favour. Under the adage, ‘your enemy’s enemy is your friend’, the Equatorians will not need to be persuaded. They will automatically rebel and make alliance with whoever is out there and this will be the time that the Jieng will truly be brought to account for their crimes of the past three decades. They must not think that they will get away with the murder ing Equatorians if they refuse to accept a system by all for all, which would ensure justice for all as well.

In conclusion, Equatorians should not buy President Kiir’s denial of their vile plan against Equatorians because he and the Council of the Jieng Elders have not sufficiently provided convincing answers.  What they have done is to hide behind a lie and then shift more false blame that they are being provoked and angered. This is nonsense. They are the aggressors and they need to take responsibility for their obnoxious behaviour. Further their current actions and demands to silence Equatoria do not help anyone really nor do they assure any peaceful co-existence. Thus, Equatorians need to prepare for all eventualities in this chaotic South Sudan. Equatorians must not collude with a system that does not help them nor does it help the Jieng or any other groups in South Sudan except the individuals in power.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

The author lives in the Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Join the rebellion or leave the country

By: Sirir Gabriel Yiei Rut

(One word is enough for wise)

July 25, 2014 (SSNA) -- My fellow youths of south Sudan, it has come into my very own mine that, the regime in Juba will not have a follow up of all the promises they had made during general election campaign done in 2010.Our leaders left the way of the light and the truth and follow a wrong route of lies, corruption, murder and black mailing.

Forgetting what they were chosen or elected to do, but clingy hold onto Evils plans of national destruction and human displacement. Hence, causing more souls to perish and properties looted. A government like this should be dissolved and reconstructed.

I called upon the vulnerable youths in Bhar el ghazal, Eguatoria, Murle and those in Greater Upper Nile who are still being fool that there is still a gold left for them to enjoy. Government of comrade salva kiir, comrade Paul Malong Awan, Makuei Lueth, Kuol Manyang and among others does not have a vacancy for a desperate youths with fresh skills and experiences like we do, instead deployed some youths who are not qualified simply because they won’t know whatever they will be doing there on top seats.

So the only option for us is to joint the rebellion under comrade Dr. Riek Machar or else leave the country to Museveni and his Updf who were allow by Salva Kiir to invade our country south Sudan indirectly. President Kiir allowed the Ugandans Army to caused permanent destruction, Chronic conflict between the two sister countries. And they will one day regret it.

The youths are the true future leaders of tomorrow. But if we won’t take this chance to clearly decide our position, than we will be no more in the coming years because the dictator would have enriched its roots deep into the soil, and its will be hard, very, very hard for us to uproot it.

God help those who help themselves and it always true to act earlier than latter, dictatorship is a chronic greed of leadership without vision and mission. Why should we allow somebody to destroy us? And we kept quiet watching him slaughter our friends who help us fight our strong enemy (Jalaba) for years and we are still laughing together with him? This is unwise of us.

Why can we just look at few examples as why the leaders don’t have plans for us, we spent our days in a hot “Tukul” or unfinished buildings repeating the same tea for several hours and maybe we can’t afford to pay that, secondly their families are living in abroad and they refused us to stayed with them in the house saying that it’s too much to accommodate many people? Why do they look for us went it comes to defense them and they don’t look for you during their enjoyment time? They think we are fool.

We will prove to them that every dog has it own day by disgracing them in public, by saying enough is enough. Our position is needed being in frontline or in term of demonstration and protest whether in the country or outside, we have to denounce this government by revealing every secrets, every evils move, every every every every………………………………..

To those who will not be interested in joining the revolution, I personally ought you to evacuate the country as soon as possible because Salva Kiir and His counterpart Yoweri Kunguta Museveni who is famous and well known of assassinating African leaders have actually redesign our country to be their field for launching their weapons.

I once again I thank those young warriors with strong hearts, who are struggling in the frontline to get rid of the status quo bravely. Continue with that spirits of liberation and installation of democracy and federalism. We will one day celebrate the victory with our rifles and machine guns held high.

Hopefully, one fine day in steal of a night freedom will come.

The author can be reached simply by his email address This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

More Articles...

Page 1 of 556

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »

Our Mission Statement

To bring the latest, most relevant news and opinions on issues relating to the South Sudan and surrounding regions.

To provide key information to those interested in the South Sudan and its people.