South Sudan News Agency

Thursday, Nov 27th, 2014

Last update05:33:12 AM GMT

You are here: Opinion

Mr. Salva Kiir: Take ownership of the Nuer genocide!

By: Luk Kuth Dak

September 5, 2014 (SSNA) -- Most South Sudanese at one point or another have experienced the evil of violence during the course of their lives, but the December, the 15th, 2013 undeniable genocide of the an apolitical Nuer people, in the hands of the disgraced President of the republic of South Sudan, Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit will go down in human history as one of the most brutal act of evil, against innocent and unarmed civilians!

Almost a year later, not a single person has been brought to justice for the massacre, which has sicken the world by viewing the gruesome images of the unburied dead in the streets of the capital, Juba and other towns and cities across the country.

Emphatically, Mr. Kiir will never take ownership of the genocide. In fact, he doesn’t even want to talk about it, or show any kind of a fake remorse; instead, he’s barricaded himself with some Nuer worshipers of the likes of Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. Barnaba Marial Benjamin, Health Minister, Shiek Riek Gai Kok, my brother -in-law, Mr. Philip Ruach Chan, and of course, the Jieeng golden boy, Mr. Gordon Buay. On numerous occasions, the later assured the President of his greatness!! “You’re the best leader the world has ever seen,” he was quoted as telling a prepaid hand-picked crowd at Kiir’s arrival at the UN General Assembly in New York. Seriously! I have never thought that Mr. Kiir and “greatness” could ever meet in one sentence.

If the Gallup polls were conducted in South Sudan today, they will indicate that an overwhelming majority of the South Sudanese, particularly among none Dinka, disapprove of Kiir’s performance as President. But since he won the presidential election, chances are that some of those who now disapprove of what he has done voted to put him in office. We all make mistakes, but the burning question is whether we learn from them.

With many Jieeng (Dinka) intellectuals now acting as if it is no time for a none Jieeng to become the leader of our nation, apparently they have learned absolutely nothing from what let to the division of South Sudan in 1983, better known as “Kokora” and, the current disastrous results of choosing a president of South Sudan on the basis of tribal background, instead of individual qualifications, all of which Kirr has none.

More than anyone else in South Sudan, the Jieeng have everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by destroying the nation. They are, after all, the beneficiaries of the nation’s wealth. Under this corrupt regime, the wealth gap between Jieeng and the rest of the country had grown to its widest in favor of Jieeng. So why are they shooting themselves in the foot?

To the majority of the Jieeng intellectuals, it means that criticism of Mr. Kiir is considered to be a sign of being against the Jieeng as a whole, which is a total nonsense. I have been accused of being a “Jieeng hater” for simply calling for a new leadership. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it would not matter to me if the next ten Presidents of South Sudan in a row were Jieeng, if these happened to be the best individuals at the time. But to suggest that Mr. Kiir is irreplaceable after a decade long and counting in office is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of putting life-and-death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for tribal reasons.

Bluntly stated, it is by no means possible that South Sudan will survive the long-run consequences of the disastrous decisions already made by Mr. Kiir, especially the cold-blooded massacre of the Naath people on December, the 15th.

Today, the Naath people are standing all alone in an island of despair. The UN won’t protect them from Kiir’s brutality. The US and the European Union won’t protect them either, instead they clutching arms with the murderer, Mr. Salva Kiir. So the question is who will protect the Naath from the eminent danger of Kiir’s savage regime?

The simple answer is: the Naath themselves.

If the Naath wake up in some morning and find out that some of their people have been murdered by the regime, don’t blame the world, it will be because you earned it.

Luk Kuth Dak is an independent columnist/writer. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Is Dr. Elia Lomuro an oriented adversary of Federal Democratic Republic of South Sudan?

By: Bol Khan Rom

September 30, 2014 (SSNA) -- The present South Sudan’s Minister for Cabinet Affairs, Dr. Martin Elia Lomuro, is an arch enemy of Federal Democratic Republic of South Sudan (FDRSS). He is a motivated opponent of the proposed Reforms, the reforms which shall lead our nation to permanent sustainable peace and development. Dr. Lomuro is purposely deployed to talks against proven and accepted system of governance anonymously approved by majority of South Sudanese people. Speaking to reporters at the closing session of the seventh speakers’ forum on 25 September 2014, Martin Elia Lomuro, said any move to replace the current system of government is unacceptable and must be fought up to the last man. The author read Dr. Martin’s rhetoric statement in Sudan Tribune online news web. Previously, I always do hear him, Elia, very much favors John Luk’s constitution that gave him a ministry, on purpose, in the kitchen Cabinet against the reforms if not against the betterment of the whole nation.

“Our objective in fighting this war is simple and has been clearly stated from day one and it will remain so. Our objective is to maintain the leadership and very unitary system of the current Juba’s Government. This government was democratically elected by the people of this country,” said Lomuro. Does Hon. Elia mean the business? Contrary, the John Locke’s Document Elia purposely supports, in article 4 (2), however, Refers the present Government headed by Benydit Kiir as “Constitutional Government not an elected Government” Is Hon. Minister familiar with this article? Even the drafter, John Luk, disowned it and calls it a repealed constitution.

Dr. Elia further lamented that, calls for Federal Democratic Republic of South Sudan or reforms are carrying tribal agenda. If these calls for a pro-democratic reform government was motivated by a tribal or carrying tribal agenda. Then, why was it anonymously approved countrywide? I am not a member of any SPLM factions; however, I can read, hear and know which faction is struggling for public or South Sudanese people’s interests. Federalism won’t allow the struggling tribe to impose its tribal agenda, if it has any, on Eastern Equatorians or Awielians. That was why, we saw Equatorians in big numbers on the streets anonymously welcoming the proposals. Do Equatorians have tribal agenda? Do Bahr El Gahzalians who went onto streets as well have tribal agenda? Do others Upper Nileians who did the same have also tribal agenda? In Public Administration I studied, all public figures—politicians measure their popularities through political programs they have for public consumption. How the ordinary citizens react or welcome political ideologies from political parties or politicians individually. An ethnic origin of politicians is less consider. Rather political programs of each and every Leader in any country are the ones matter. Can South Sudanese people’s demand brought up by their son and Father be considered tribal? The demand for Federal Democratic and reformed Republic of South Sudan (FDRSS)! I don’t think so.

However, we are all aware that in Africa most of the groups are too venerable to say no and defend their interests. You can find such groups clandestinely and orally support reforms in hearts but soft in action against dictators that impose fatal rules. Those groups do pretend and say “We are peaceful people who choose an amicable solution to the problem”. Though, they are being killed. If the former is the case, then let the world know! Do African’s dictators forgive them—the easily entangled and scared individuals or groups? Definitely, NO! Instead, the dictators do round up helpless citizens they find and brutally tortured them to the end, so that they give up hearts supports for reforms. Do dictators agree to and implement political programs that haven’t an armed threat behind? I doubt. Whatever political programs you orally bring forward and how much words or greater orator you are, all can be nothing to dictators but finally damped underground. They have tried it in the SPLM and we subsequently saw most of them (SPLM’s Leaders) ended up in jail. As we see it now, any attempt to resist the proven popular need for reforms and for FDRSS must be a move to blocks efforts that are being sought both internationally and nationally to restore peace and feasible stability in the country.

Logically speaking, Dr. Lomuro should clearly tell the nation why resistance against reforms and FDRSS is so important to him. Otherwise, he can be seen as a person who is set to preach individual—tribal agenda himself. Instead he should be one of the leaders in negotiations forefront in Ethiopia to push for reforms. For instance, let’s take the case of hard currency being sold in black market in Juba. Can Dr. Lomuro tell me that there is no need for reform inside there, given the tribal policy installed in distributing the Dollars for black market? Imagine, in Juba market nowadays or in Central Bank premise people talk to International fiscal Organizations’ Managers in local language. Yet everybody understands what a fresh villager young boys & girls of 10 years old want. Why only members of particular South Sudanese community have 24hrs access to dollars? Neither in Arabic nor in English they communicate and sell dollars in black market. However, young people from Yambio, Kajo-keji and Kapoita for instance who could fluently communicate best with International people in English have no access at all. What is that happening there? Dr. Martin, as a powerful Minister of Cabinet Affairs, does he know this? If yes, isn’t reforms required, in this particular area also?

Therefore, I think the intention behind Lomuro’s expression isn’t of public interest, but may be of his own party interest. Or he might have been directed, who knows, to speak so! Mr. Thomas Jefferson, rightly put it “The Tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”; unless, government officials remain genuine servants of the people. That all people were created equal “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” had given every person a set of rights that could not be legally alienated, and that among those rights were “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

Hence, Dr. Martin Elia Lomuro should answer aforementioned question of whether or not he is a politically oriented opponent of Federal Democratic Republic of South Sudan (FDRSS). Otherwise I ask the Juba Government in which he is a Cabinet Minister, to let my people—South Sudanese people pursuit their Happiness. The Federal Democratic Peaceful Republic of South Sudan!!

The author is a South Sudanese commentator; he is on This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

IGAD, South Sudan needs Kiir to be a Ceremonial President!

By: Sirir Gabriel Yiei Rut

September 29, 2014 (SSNA) -- Our present constitutional dispensation in South Sudan is that of an Executive Monarch or a powerful president which is modelled on that of the USA. The presidential system of government in South Sudan, USA, Kenya, Nigeria and other countries is a winner-takes-all system which often leaves inadequate room for checks and balances. This model leads to a monosepalous (one head) system where the head of state is also the head of the executive arm of government and this leads to over-concentration of power in the hands of one person.

If we want true democracy and proper corporate governance, then there should be separation of powers, division of labor and decongestion of authority. It has been seen over the years that the presidential system can lead to dictatorship and misgovernance. Some Months ago, the illegitimate president Salva Kiir Mayardit, made a statement that left to him that he is going to remain as president for life.

The president should become a ceremonial head like the Ethiopian president so that the executive arm of government is headed by a Prime Minister who, with his cabinet, will be collectively accountable to parliament and army chief too.

This is the bicephalous (two headed) system or cabinet system which Ghana had in the second republic from 1969 to 1972, with the late Justice Edward Akuffo Addo as Their first ceremonial president and the late Dr K.A.Busia as prime minister. In India, Germany, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, they practice the bicephalous (two-headed) system.

This system brings about division of labour, checks and balances and it promotes continuity in government. Most often, the candidate for the ceremonial head or president is a retired professional or academic who is apolitical or neutral and who is acceptable to all political parties as a father figure and conciliator. Such a figure is a patriarch, statesman and well respected individual. Here, we might think of people in South Sudan who fit this bill as Prof. Peter .A. Nyaba, Sir Joseph Lago, Mr. Abel Alier, Justice Caan Reec Madut, Prof. Moses Machar Kachuol, Ismail Konyi, Prof. Dechand, Dr Ann Itt'o, among many others.

Under the bicephalous system, we can tap or head-hunt professionals with proven track record to assume office of ceremonial president. Such a system will be suitable for an advanced democracy but then South Sudan can amend its current constitution to go back to the cabinet system of our former colonial master, Britain. South Sudan, being a small country, does not need a presidential or monosepalous system which often leads to looting and abuse of power.

Our current experience from 15th Dec-2013 to date informs us that we need to change direction from a presidential system to a cabinet system. The presidential system encourages the ‘spoils system’, cronyism and appointment of incompetent people to populate the corridors of power. It also leads to a lot of insider-trading, corruption and awards of contracts to shady contractors. It may also tend to be more expensive (in terms of corruption) than the cabinet system.

The beauty of the Cabinet System is that the ceremonial President has no powers to reject the cabinet of the Prime Minister and to call for the dissolution of parliament through a vote of no confidence in the cabinet. The polls or general election results are based on simple majority or first-past-the-past and sometimes it leads to greater inclusivity and participation because of coalitions.

The cabinet system brings closer working collaboration between the executive arm and the legislature, as opposed to the current scenario where the executive under the monosepalous presidential system, can bulldoze its way through parliament to enact laws and sign treaties, where the ruling party has the majority in parliament. The presidential prerogative and veto power can also be abused. Of course, some critics may argue against the cabinet system that it suits a highly literate country like Britain. But then who says South Sudanese are not getting literate and sophisticated in their tastes? The collective responsibility of the cabinet system can make ministers work extra hard to avoid a vote of no confidence and it may reduce incidence of corruption, because parliament will be as equally powerful as the executive to call the shots and the judiciary will be neutral to interpret the laws and give judicial reviews.

The cabinet system will impose more discipline on government functionaries as the shadow cabinet or government-in-waiting will be more visible and recognized in parliament than under the winner-takes-all juggernaut presidential system. We should design our political system to suit our bill and suit our national character, without necessarily copying blindly from outside.

It is important to note that for the cabinet system to be stable, the military should be highly professionalized so that they do not cause disruptions in the system of governance. Can we say that our current civil/public services and defense forces as currently constituted, are professional?

Some intellectuals may argue that the cabinet system often leads to conflicts between the ceremonial head and the PM, between the executive and legislature, between insiders and outsiders etc. But then who says constructive conflict is bad? After all, conflict is part of everyday life and we cannot eliminate it in our political life. Conflict may lead to positive changes, encourage transparency and lead to proper husbandry and stewardship of our scarce national resources. It is only dictators, despots, tyrants and non-democrats who defy to be challenged.

I think it is high time we did away with our despotic executive monarch/presidential system, and I concur with ex-vice president Dr. Riek Machar’s call for reform. Our incumbent president, Salva Kiir Mayardit should be commended for his timely action in setting up a constitutional reform committee and I hope they will look closely into the amoral aspect of the presidential system.


In conclusion, I propose that South Sudan should adopt the cabinet system so that the opposition leader will not be kept on the sidelines and excluded from participation in national policy formulation. Under the current presidential dispensation in South Sudan, the Opposition party leaders are nearly excluded from the legislature and marginalized for 9 months, during which time hibernating in the cooler, they might be tempted to issue unparliamentarily statements such as ‘all die be die’ and boom statements. It is indeed frustrating to be sitting on the sidelines without being involved.

I think our national planners in South Sudan have an onerous duty to examine the pros and cons of both the presidential and cabinet systems of governance. We cannot forget here the French writer, Montesquieu, who more than 200 years ago advocated for separation of powers in his book, The Spirit of the Law. Hope a ceremonial president will not become a couch potato! (Laughter).

Sirir Gabriel Yiei Rut is the Acting Chairman of SPLM-Youth League in Egypt-Cairo This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

More Articles...

Page 19 of 609

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.