South Sudan News Agency

Saturday, Jan 31st, 2015

Last update11:29:07 PM GMT

You are here: Opinion Columnists

Analysis: South Sudan 2015 Election—a One Man Ideology!

By Peter Gai Manyuon

January 18, 2015 (SSNA) -- South Sudan Government said on 16th January 2015, it has fully prepared to go ahead with planned elections despite the United States and other foreign countries refusing to support the ballot. South Sudan’s foreign affairs minister, Barnaba Marial Benjamin, called on the international community to work with South Sudan, describing the decision as disappointing.

On the other hand, the electoral commission head, Abednego Akok Kacuol vowed that the elections would go ahead as planned in accordance with the country’s Transitional Constitution.

He assured that the polls would be free and fair, despite criticisms from some political parties and civil society organizations who want peace prioritized before the elections.

The question, which is clicking in people minds, is; what is the reason for government of South Sudan claiming to follow the constitution when it was the violation of the constitution that has taken South Sudan to zero level internationally and regionally as per now? How can one man interest destroyed the demand of all South Sudanese people?

In reality, South Sudanese some times are comedians in nature. They sometimes said controversial things that, they don’t contextualize /conceptualize first on what might affect people in the Country in the near future. Most of South Sudanese leaders don’t think for peaceful co-existence of society but rather advocating for the dis-integrations of society in to disarrays!

More interestingly; if South Sudanese leaders especially the opposition and government have sense of togetherness, patriotism about their country, why should they unite first before elections? Very disappointing that, most of South Sudanese leaders only thinks about their stomachs not general publics!

Ideally, agenda related to the elections in South Sudan, need proper analytical thinking from all the people because it is not easy to carry out general elections when there are very many burning issues that need re-settlement at first before anything.

Logically, what kind of election could be carrying out when thousands of civilians have been displaced? What election is Juba government talking about when half of the population has been massacred in Juba in 2013? What will help South Sudanese in the election process when Greater Upper Nile region is destroyed by two warring parties? Who will participate in the election when thousands are under United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) protection? What kind of shamelessness and hopelessness is with Juba government? Do President Kiir Mayardit and his cabinets have sense of humanity or their senses are lost? Is President and his Parliamentarians good mentally, psychologically or they want serious diagnosis from specialized medical doctors?

Truly speaking, if people have sense of humanity; what kind of election could be held when the entire Nation is in mess from National government to the states level? Do South Sudanese who are in the Electoral Commission have mental disorder or they are forced by something else?

The Chairperson of Electoral Commission of South Sudan is advocating for elections to be carry out soon in the Republic of South Sudan, when he is aware that, there is civil war that has been going on and still going on in the Greater Upper Nile Region and some parts in Bhar-Elgazal and Equatoria respectively.

Possibly, elections are suppose to come when two parties answers the reason of killings innocent civilians in South Sudan especially from Bentiu, Malakal , Bor and Juba where thousands have been massacre based on ethnicity by both sides.

President Kiir and his group MUST answer the killing of civilians at the International Criminal Court (ICC) first unless otherwise world is happy with the genocide carried out in Juba by (Gelweng) of Kiir Mayardit and Malong Awan who is the current Chief of General Staff of the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA)-Juba in South Sudan.

Obviously, the people who are suppose to face charges for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in South Sudan are only seven individuals, the rests will come afterward.

But don’t ask the author about the names and titles of the seven individuals!

Besides, if elections are going to be carry out in all ten states of the Republic of South Sudan, will elections be free and fair or 2010 malpractices will happen, where Taban Deng Gai of Unity State, Kuol Manyang of Jonglei, Wani Konga of Central Equotoria, Malong Awan of Northern Bhar-Elgazal were imposed to the Citizen/publics by the SPLM government of South Sudan?

Hence, if elections are to be held in South Sudan this year as some people who are not informed upstairs are advocating for it; will elections be free and fair from the National Government to the states Government or insurgencies will increase and take over the government by forced?

In summary, no one globally, regionally and nationally is of the view of carrying out election in the Republic of South Sudan in 2015; accept some few people who run the affairs of the country as tribal, family agenda/manner to fulfill the interest of consumption of country resources in one way or the other. Very shameful scenario to be advocated for!

Conclusively; I wish Government of South Sudan should adopt evaluation mechanism to resolve the conflict with the rebels first before any agenda to do with election in 2015 June.

The Author is an Independent Journalist and Columnist who has written extensively on issues of Democratization Processes and Human Rights in South Sudan. Follow him on

The Obama’s administration and the war in South Sudan

By Kuach Tutkuay

January 15, 2015 (SSNA) -- The United State has been known as a country championing the fight for democracy, justice and human right. This owe to its story of responding to any threat to human life anywhere as soon as it occurred. One of these responses to save human life was by USA’s president JFK, who took on the Vietnamese dictator, President Diem, when a Buddhist religious leader self-immolated in protest for the right of Buddhist leaders. This intervention was quite expensive but with mission to save lives at heart, the US selflessly undertook it despite the cost. Decades later, the USA under the leadership of President Bush responded swiftly to save million lives in Iraq, one of the terrorists-infested states no one will ever dare tread....the rest is a story. These actions does not come from any political interest but purely from moral obligation to save lives—that is, if people are being killed and you remain silent, you are actually consenting to the act by virtue of moral obligation.

Thinking about South Sudan, a country which America, as a midwife, has done everything possible to make sure they have an independent state. Spending a lot of resources to help them develop the fastest they could. A country they helped selflessly through institutionalization, democratization and harmonization. To see that effort being consumed today by corruption, dictatorship, civil war, mass murders and many other inhumane acts any neo-Nazis can do—and yet America remains silent—is quite unthinkable. One would wonder whither did those courageous Americans vanished and whence did they came. I wish the intelligence of Obama and his esteemed administration could comprehend that their silence about South Sudan is dubbed as giving a green light to the perpetrators who are just giving themselves a pat on the back that they got away with the massacre of innocent women and children.

While I am alert that America is committed to the peace process in Addis Ababa, I am also alarmed that this effort, too, will vanish into thin air. The regime in Juba is quite ignorant about peace and the more ignorant one is, the bigger lies one will swallow. That is to say the peace will not be negotiated in good faith. Everyone in South Sudan wants peace the most, but not necessarily that “obnoxious peace” that will only cost us more lives. I want the Obama administration to understand that the peace they are pursuing, that retains Kiir as the president, will only pave way to the lifeboat analogy: room for everyone means death for all. Although some people might yearn for Kiir’s leadership, he has actually proved to South Sudanese that he is no longer a symbol of peace but of conflict, not of unity but of tribalism, with him blood will never cease. It is true to say that even mass murders have their admirers but how does it help an average South Sudanese to rewards president Kiir who has killed tens of thousands civilians in cold blood. The presence of Ugandan and JEM interlopers will only prolong the suffering of civilians.

In a recent news development as quoted by Sudan Tribune, President Kiir demanded election in 2015 as a democratic process to restore his legitimacy. Not providing for any probability to either win or lose, you can now imagine the drama Mr. President wants during the election. In the president’s own jargon, when did election become a “process for restoring legitimacy”? The world must understand that the regime in Juba have no legitimate government as they sings loudly every day in front of cameras, no supreme moral orders, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything, yes, anything—force, violence, murder, lying to public, bribing—is justifiable means to the millennial end. That is why Kiir started by silencing the media and then his critics, the metamorphosis of a dictator. And when all those avenues did not pass muster, he resorted to silencing his political rivals through the barrel of the gun, landing the country into the abyss of destruction and human lynching—hence, a real field of mass murder.

In a situation where human beings are reduced to the status of things, that they could be destroyed at will and be owned like properties, what would the USA, who fought hard for democracy and human right, say about this treacherous act? The difference of pacifism and ignorance, I think, is just a slippery slope in the sense that a pacifist will try to maintain peace through nonviolence. But what the pacifists did not know is that to separate two fighting bulls, one need a stick. Like in situation where a murderer pointed his gun on school children and you are the only person in possession of a gun to intervene and save lives of those innocent kids, what would you do? To kill the murderer and save the children or to keep silent and let the children perish? Either way, you participated in a killing but which killing is more moral than the other? This is what differentiates killing from murder. The fifth Decalogue proscribed murder, not killing per se; although loosely translated from Hebrew to English Bible as “thou shall not kill”, it is lo tirtzach in Hebrew referring to “thou shall not murder.” If it is “thou shall not kill” as in the English version, it would be lo taharog. Even God Himself would ask you, “What do you think I put you there for as the only person with a gun?”

Obama has been very passive about issues threatening justice, democracy and human right around the globe. In fact he has actually reinvented a new wheel of foreign policy that seemingly inclines toward dictatorship regimes. South Sudan crisis is just one of the many controversies the US has decided to play cool when things are actually getting out of hand. The “Kerry Diplomacy” is just another drama by the Obama administration that proved futile. The question is, “what is next for the Obama’s?” after condemnations, sanctions, demands for peace, calls for CoH implementation, calls for foreign troops withdrawal; all of which fall into deaf ears of president Kiir—thank to Almighty, the political detainees were released as the US demanded but that is too little a progress as their release did not help the peace process in any way. If, for sure, the America’s fight for democracy and justice is not an absurd utopia, then, they better know that much is expected of them as helpless civilians lies in wait for the dry season where their fate will be decided by the two rivals factions.

The author could be reach on This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or follow him on twitter @kuach444.

Analysis: What makes a true and competent leader (part two)?

By: Sirir Gabriel Yiei Rut Thijoak

January 11, 2015 (SSNA) -- With so many people purporting to be leaders these days, how do we recognize a true leader? To answer that question, we must step back and ask: What is it that a leader is really trying to accomplish?

A true leader wants nothing more than to make people stand on their own, as leaders in their own right. Instead of trying to blind us with his or her brilliance, a true leader reflects our own light back to us, so that we may see ourselves anew.

Moses was the quintessential leader. We see in Exodus that he was a shepherd - a rather modest beginning for the man who would speak to God. He kept watch as thousands of sheep wandered the fields. Moses noticed that one sheep was missing and went off to look for it, finding it at a distant brook. When the sheep had finished drinking, Moses lifted it onto his shoulders and carried it back to the flock.

When God saw this, he realized that Moses was a man of reason, empathy and selfless devotion, a man truly worthy to lead His people. After all, no one was watching Moses; he could easily have thought to himself, why be concerned with one sheep when there are thousands?

In our secular society, we tend to think of a leader as a person who is well-connected, who is powerful or charismatic or wealthy. We judge our leaders by what they have. But a true leader should be judged by what he has not -- ego, arrogance, and self-interest.  A true leader sees his work as selfless service toward a higher purpose. As the sages say, “Leadership is not power and dominance; it is servitude” This does not mean that a leader is weak; he derives great strength from his dedication to a purpose that is greater than himself.

Each generation has its Moses, a leader who inspires absolute trust, who is totally dedicated to fulfilling his unique role. He understands and appreciates each person’s role in perfecting this world, and guides him or her accordingly; he rises above any individual perspective to take a global view, seeing how each person and issue fits into the entire scheme of the contemporary world. 

A true leader shakes people from their reverie and tells them, “No, you don’t need to live a life of desperation and confusion. Yes, you do have the ability to find meaning in your life, and the unique skills to fulfill that meaning. You are an important link in a chain of generations past; you have a legacy worth preserving and a future worth fighting for.

A true leader shows us that our world is indeed heading somewhere and that we control its movement. That we need not be at the mercy of personal prejudices or the prevailing political wind. That none of us are subservient to history or nature -- that we are history and nature. That we can rid the world of war and hate and ignorance, and obliterate the borders separating race from race, rich from poor.

Centuries ago, kings and queens ruled the world, but we are today far removed from the very concept of absolute leadership. Indeed, leadership would seem to contradict our democratic tradition, which has taught us not to subordinate our lives to another human being.  But we cannot afford to be so literal-minded: If the ideals of democracy were followed to the extreme, if the public demanded a referendum for even the smallest piece of legislation, society could not function. So our current political makeup is a pragmatic and acceptable compromise, allowing individuals a role in choosing their leaders while holding the leaders responsible to society.

Still, many people have lost faith in contemporary leaders. The solution is not to resign yourself to this sad state of affairs, but to search for and demand a leader of sterling character. The ultimate goal should be to have all the benefits of democracy and the benefits of a visionary leader.

It is important, especially today, to distinguish between leadership and demagoguery. A demagogue may inspire people, but his motives are impure and his expectations unrealistic. It is wise to be a bit skeptical when assessing a leader: Is he truly devoted to his mission or just seeking glory? Is he truly interested in the welfare of others or simply building a flock for his own aggrandizement?

A true leader does not want followers; he wants to teach others how to be leaders. He does not want control; he wants the truth. He does not impose his leadership on others, nor does he take away anyone’s autonomy. He inspires by love, not coercion.  When it comes time to take credit, he makes himself invisible; but he is the first to arrive at the time of need, and he will never shrink away in fear. He is so passionate about your welfare that when you consult him for guidance, it is like coming face to face with yourself for the first time.    

A true leader must be a living example of his teachings. When we see that a leader’s personal life embodies his philosophy, we too are inspired to learn that philosophy. Conversely, if we see that a leader does not live by his own words, we cannot trust him.

Until went we understands why we are being elected by our beloved citizens, henceforth our own voters and the land we vowed to develop will be free and smile back at us….

I have spoken my words and may the gods of the land hear my voice……

Cde. Sirir Gabriel Yiei Rut is a writer and commentator and He is the Chairman of SPLM Youth League Chapter in Egypt he can be simply reach through This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

More Articles...

Page 2 of 147

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.