Seeking Justice in Nimule, South Sudan

By Rachel Ibreck

Opinion.

nIMULE

April 17th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia)-There is no law in South Sudan’, a resident of the town of Nimule, Eastern Equatoria, explained: ‘You see the police cell there is for those who are very poor. You will never see a rich person in that prison for the rest of your life. Trust me, this is true.’ This elder echoed views expressed by many other participants in research for the Justice and Security Research Programme in Nimule that ‘some people are above the law’, protected by their economic status, political allegiance or ethnic identity. In many instances, when crimes are reported or ‘referred up’ from the customary courts, ‘no action is taken’. There are also practical obstacles, including the financial costs: a victim of a crime may need to pay to open the case, to fund transport for police to make the arrest, or even to provide food for the accused once in prison.

And there is fear of retribution, especially if the perpetrator is associated with the security forces or is politically influential. People spoke of occasions when they, or a member of their community, endured further suffering on the floor of a police cell or a beating in the barracks following a complaint. If you ask ordinary citizens about their experiences of the justice system in Nimule, you will hear of cases that never reached the courts, illegal detentions, intimidation, torture and violence.

The justice system in South Sudan is opaque, but we cannot assume that it is simply dysfunctional. Part of the problem is that people experience justice differently depending on where they live and who they are. Justice is fragmented: statutory courts handle criminal cases, and customary courts take civil cases, but the boundaries between them are blurred and in practice most cases are taken to the latter, initially at least. This is complicated further by the fact that there are at least sixty varieties of customary court, presided over by chiefs, making cases involving members of different ethnic groups difficult to adjudicate. The chiefs sometimes notoriously give license to discrimination, criminality and abuse, yet people are ready to declare their respect for these courts, and some chiefs are willing to undertake reforms. We need to know more about the everyday practices of these courts, their judgements and whether and how these processes are evolving. Meanwhile, the formal legal system in South Sudan is at best slow and at worst repressive, understandably there are calls for both judicial and legal reforms, but there have been many recent changes, including a Bill of Rights in the 2011 Transitional Constitution, and occasionally lawyers and individual judges manage to deliver.

By looking at specific cases, we can begin to identify more precisely the ways in which justice serves political or commercial interests, and how it is invoked in endeavors to challenge these.

Importantly, despite the manifest problems with its delivery, justice still resonates as a principle and ideal. When JSRP and Justice Africa researchers visited Nimule in April 2014, women and men voiced their views on the justice system in a series of four discussion groups, each attended by some twenty people, in different parts of the town. Some asked Justice Africa to return to organize a series of workshops on justice to inform them about the law. These were duly organized in August 2014, and were led by South Sudan Women Lawyers’ Association (SSWLA). In their contributions to the workshops, and in interviews, people mainly described social injustice and flaws in the state system of justice. The lawyers acknowledged that many of the laws and institutions they referred to existed mainly on paper. However, they conjured up a vision of justice to be realised in future: ‘I’ve been running after a case for over two years now.

The case was decided in the court and I won it. We went for execution, but a gun was taken out and we were threatened. Still we did not lose hope. The rights are written in the constitution. I will fight until I achieve it. So live with your hope.’

A recent civil forum on justice and reconciliation in South Sudan also reflected this aspiration for justice. The forum brought together 65 lawyers, academics, students, women activists, church leaders and representatives of civil society groups at the University of Juba on 14 April 2014, organized by Justice Africa and SSWLA with support from the JSRP. Their contributions indicated that the justice system is Janus-faced. Impunity is rife, to the extent that the perpetrators of atrocities have been rewarded, while ‘no one talks of reparations’ for the victims. Customary courts are resilient; they function despite conflict, and can serve to ‘listen and mediate’ but they are also seen to be implicated in violence, inequality and abuses, such as bride price inflation, which is associated with cattle raiding, or girl child compensation. Some practices of justice fuel conflict, while others may be resources for peace, yet no one doubts the urgent necessity of reform.

The quest for justice is becoming more vigorous in South Sudan, even as civil space is narrowing. Some human rights groups are uniting around a transitional justice strategy, demanding a hybrid court, with jurisdiction over crimes committed within South Sudan since the conflict broke out on 15 December 2013, as well as institutions to promote truth-telling, reconciliation and healing. As Justice Africa’s policy brief concludes, there is an awareness that: ‘Peace will remain elusive in South Sudan without collective efforts to transform the justice system, uphold basic rights and eradicate corruption and militarism’. One step towards this would be to improve documentation of violence and abuses: participants in the forum agreed that ‘We need to do research, record people’s stories’. Similarly, progress requires a better understanding of how people experience the everyday workings, and failings, of the justice system.

Rachel Ibreck’s research is concerned with the politics of memory and struggles for human rights in Africa. She holds a PhD in Politics and International Relations from the University of Bristol, and has also worked in human rights organizations, including Justice Africa. Within the JSRP, she is contributing to research on experiences of justice in South Sudan.

South Sudan: Why the Chief Justice should resign?

By: Mut Turuk

Chief Justice of South Sudan (photo via Wekipedia/Nyamilepedia)

Chief Justice of South Sudan (photo via Wekipedia/Nyamilepedia)

April 15th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia)-Any observer, being a practitioner lawyer, a concerned South Sudanese or even a judge serving in the Judiciary of South Sudan will agree beyond reasonable doubt that the current Chief Justice Mr. Chan Reech Madut is a wrong person in a wrong place.

And as such, he should resign or being relieved as the head of the Judiciary for failing to protect the in-dependency of the judiciary from political interference as well as corruption and unprofessional ethics. Being a chief justice is a privilege because a person is presumed or expected by the public to exercise have a high degree integrity, impartiality, competence, credibility, good conduct and adhere to professional ethics and conduct.

Many people in South Sudan believe that the Chief Justice is a symbol of corruption, incompetent, and that has been evidenced by the Audit General reports that have implicated him in financial corruption in the Judiciary. He is the sole appointing authority of judges without transparency and clear criteria as to how a person is qualify to be appointed as a judge. And that was evidenced in the his last appointment which involved irregularities and nepotism in which most of those appointed assistant judges hail from his home state of Warrap including his own daughter. Other appointees were appointed by him upon recommendations by his close friends.

Furthermore, it has been alleged by most of the Judiciary staffs that he was seen kissing one of his messengers in his office, donating money to female staffs in the Judiciary, his unauthorized use of the Judiciary’s vehicles by his family members while some judges go to work on foot and vis-a-visa, his involvement in business with businessmen in the country by awarding his partners contracts by single tender without following procurement proceedings of the government, strong rumors of his sexual harassment against many female judges and other female judicial officers. It is also being said that such sexual harassment was a determine factor for many female judges who have been deployed in the head quarter of the Judiciary in Juba as well as in the last appointment of assistant judges. Repeatedly, he was seen coming to the office while drunk. It is also believed that he is the sole signatory to a judicial account which has never been audited before.

Looking at the manner in which he conducts himself, one would wonder how comes such person be the chief justice? Personally, I do not surprise seeing him attending the last political rally of the SPLM on March 5th 2015, because I believe he might be a ruling party member or showing his political alliance to the one who appointed him. How comes that he should not differentiate between what is a national occasion whereby his attendance is necessary and a political party occasion whereby his attendance would compromise his integrity, credibility and impartiality as well as the independency of the Judiciary in the eyes of the public?

In 2012, his unprofessional ethics was evidenced by his interfering in trial proceedings in a case between Pagan Amum v. Arthur Akuen, the plaintiff is the former SPLM Secretary General and the head of the current Former Detainees of the SPLM and the defendant was the former minister of finance Arthur Akuen. During one of the session he entered into a court room and interrupted the presiding judge by directing lawyers himself instead of the presiding judge who felt in a great surprise seeing his boss in the court room without an excuse, to worse degree, he interrupted court proceedings. Such unprofessional ethics and behaviors were widely criticized and strongly condemned in the country among legal fraternity as well as in the region because it is contrary to the rule of law and practice. It was unbelievable for most of us to see the head of the judiciary behaving in that way.

In another occasion, In August 2013, he repeated the same unprofessional ethic and behaviours when Pagan Amum was banned by president Kiir neither to talk to media nor to travel outside Juba on the grounds of alleged corruption in SPLM’s financial affairs. Pagan decided to file a petition in the Supreme Court on the ground that his constitutional rights had been violated by president Kiir’s order. It happened that I was one of the petitioner’s (Mr. Pagan) lawyers.

The Chief Justice had received the petition in the morning himself as his Supreme Court has been operating without rules since it was established. He had to direct other official to record the petition after welcoming Mr. Pagan Amum warmly in his office.

Thereafter, Pagan addressed the media briefly about the petition inside the Judiciary’s compound and suddenly after he left, I and other colleagues remained behind as to attend other cases for our clients, and while we were chatting with some journalists from Aljazeera and other local media, we saw him running from upstairs down toward us, shouting on Aljazeera journalist, “who allowed you to take photos”, “who allowed you to take photos, rubbish” insulting the lady.

The lady was trembling from fear of a strange man who was accompanied by the police and was not dressing in casual in working day that make him not looked like a boss. She asked my colleague in a shaking voice “who is this person? He was replied that “he is the Chief Justice”. My colleague asked her to cool down as the Chief Justice was shouting on us, asking us” who are you? We replied, to him that we are lawyers? He started talking to us in an impolite language that we could not imagine to be for a chief justice with insults. Suddenly, he grabbed the journalist’s camera to remove the tape but he could not make it. Of course, he might not be aware of how to deal with that technology until he ordered his police to confiscate and detain the journalist in the Judiciary.

Later on, we were told that he had received a call from one of the general slamming him on how he should allowed Pagan to address media in the Judiciary’s compound while he knew that the president banned. Since he was appointed as the Chief Justice, he is known of biasness in favor of powerful people particularly if they are involved in litigation before courts. This was evidenced when he interrupted Pagan Amum’s case during the trail. Such move that was interpreted to be in favor of Pagan Amum. Similarly, he the petition filed by Pagan Amum was dismissed on ridiculous and unreasonable grounds simply because president Kiir was respondent.

Thus, it was the same interpretation as he did with the first case.

What a chief justice!

What would the public expect if the Chief Justice does not respect and abide by the law? This question will lead us to the main topic of this article in which he appeared to be the main player. On March 31st 2015, he wrote an official letter addressing to Dr. William Kon Bior, who was the chairman of South Sudan Provisional Advocates’ Admission Committee.

The subject of that letter was the nomination two judges, Dr. James Alala Deng and Ms. Sumaya Saleh Abdalla who are judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively. What brought the surprise in the letter is the ill intention of putting the law aside by him for the purpose of getting an exit strategy for his ruling party (SPLM) after failing to rig the Bar Association elections. Who would be bound by the law in South Sudan if the Chief Justice himself does not respect the law and the oath of office he had taken before the people of South Sudan? Is he aware that the judiciary derives its power from the people of South Sudan? How can the Chief Justice address somebody who is not the president of the Bar Association nominating two learned judges to represent the Judiciary in the Bar Council pursuant to section 6(2)(b) of the Advocacy Act, 2013? A move that is contrary to the provisions of the Advocacy Act itself.

It is known to everybody in the legal fraternity and the public including Dr. William Kon Bior himself that he does not represent the Bar Association in whatsoever capacity. To my surprise that the letter was addressed to him as the president of the Provisional Committee for South Sudan Bar Association. A body that was dissolved by lawyers themselves as well as a similar action was taken by the former Minister of Justice Mr. John Luk Jok dissolving the South Sudan Provisional Advocates Admission Committee which was headed by Dr. William in a ministerial executive order dated on Feb, 22nd 2013 under order No.01/2013. Therefore, how comes the Chief Justice addressed Dr. William Kon Bior as the president of the Bar Association? On which grounds is he the president of the Bar Association as far as the law is concerned?

Laughably, I do astonish from the language used by the Chief Justice in his letter and particularly word “perusal” when citing 6 (2) (b) of the Advocacy Act, 2013. Deceitfully, it seems he has tried to select such word in order to send a signal to lawyers that he had understood the law carefully and that is why he had written that letter. What a silly trick! To “peruse” is to read or examine something, usually in a carful and thorough way or taking time to do it. Having read the provision of the above-mentioned section, I do conclude that he has misdirected himself deliberately for reasons known to him and to all of us. Section 6(2)(b) of the Advocacy Act says among other things talks about the establishment of the Bar Council and especially subsection (b) authorizes the Chief Justice to assign two judges to represent the judiciary in that body.

Hypothetically, if he had perused that section thoroughly and carefully he could have understood that he is only an appointing authority. In other words, he can only appoint or assign two judges who would represent the Judiciary in the Bar Council and not to determine who should be the president of the Bar Association because the president of the Bar Association is the chairperson of the Bar Council by virtue of being the elect president of the Bar. Currently, pursuant to the Advocacy Act, 2013 pending the elections, neither Dr. Samuel James who is the head of the Steering Committee, the legitimate body that represents the will of the advocates in the country can claim to be the president of the Bar Association nor Dr. William Kon Bior who was impeached by lawyers can be imposed by the Chief Justice against the will of the advocates.

Obviously, the whole idea of addressing Dr. William Kon as the president of the Bar Association came as the result of the regime’s pressure on him and its failure to rig advocates’ elections because the majority wanted the legal practice in the country to be independent from politic. This attempt by him to address Dr. William Kon Bior is meant for withdrawing of the legitimacy from the Steering Committee which was formed by lawyers themselves after impeachment of Dr. William Kon and his Secretary General Mr. James Altaib from the Bar Association and thereafter followed by the dissolution of the Advocates’ Admission Committee by the former Minister of Justice John Luk. Subsequently, Dr. William Kon Bior himself has complied with the impeachment as well as the dissolution of the Advocates’ Admission Committee by the former Minister of Justice. If the Chief Justice wants his friend Dr. William Kon Bior to be the president, he should support the free and fair elections of the Bar Association and indeed, he should talk to his ruling party to allow the elections go ahead without grabbing elections ballots so that Dr. William can enjoy uncontested legitimacy that is only extended through elections by the lawyers rather than by the Chief Justice using the National Legislature’s exit strategy.

I strongly urge the two judges Dr. James Alala Deng and Ms. Sumaya Saleh Abdalla as they are well known of having integrity, credibility and impartiality among the legal fraternity and the people of South Sudan in general, to disqualify themselves from the so-called Chan Reech and Dr. William Kon’s Bar Council until free and fair elections are held by lawyers so that they are not used as rubber stamps by the Chief Justice for politically motivated move.

If Dr. William Kon is still fit, a presumption that I doubt, he should wait for elections to be elected as the president of the Bar Association rather than looking for another extension as it has been the case nowadays the Country. It will be a shameful thing for a renowned lawyer like him to seek such illegal ways to climb up after he was impeached by the General Assembly of the Bar Association.

I strongly, believe that the Chief Justice should resign if he has heart for that, despite the fact that that culture is not known within the regime’s doctrines. He should be reminded that anything can be restored but reputation is not restorable particularly when it involves unprofessional ethics and corrupt practices. Whatsoever the case, whether he is going to resign soon or later, fighting against corruption in the Judiciary as well as other government institutions will remain a collective duty of the people of South Sudan until such corrupt individuals are cleared off. Insofar as the South Sudan Bar Association is concerned, the Steering Committee headed by Dr. Samuel James will remain the legitimate body until the elections are held and a new elected president will be the chairperson of the Bar Council pursuant to section 6 of the Advocacy Act, 2013. Explicitly, section 6 of the Advocacy Act, 2013 is black and white and I hope the Chief Justice will try to peruse it thoroughly again and see where he fits in to consider Dr. William Kon Bior as the president of Bar Association. Until the Bar Association’s elections are held, I think the Chief Justice does not need to embarrass himself by placing himself in a direct conflict with the provisions of the law and professional ethics.

Whatever attempts being made by the Chief Justice for reinstating Dr. William Kon without considering all previous actions taken by lawyers and the former Minister of Justice against Dr. William Kon Bior, will remain null and void as far as the law is concerned and it will set a bad precedent in our judicial history in the Country.

The author is a senior South Sudanese lawyer. He can be reached through turukmut@gmail.coM

What Is The Legality Of Extraterritorial Use Of Force Against Non-State Actor By UPDF In South Sudan

By Deng Gai Gatluak

Opinion.

Deng Gai Gatluak....

Deng Gai Gatluak….

April 15th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia)-Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001 that resulted to war on terror, launched by the United States (and most of its allies), states have increasingly used force outside their frontiers against non-state actors.

Examples of this are notably, the Israeli use of force against the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the United States intervention against Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, and Turkey against the Kurdish Workers Party in Iraq. The non-state actors named in the given examples are different with regards to their ideologies, purposes, tactics and capabilities. Armed non-state actors encompass terrorists, rebels, pirates, warlords, mercenaries, separatists, guerrillas, militias and freedoms fighters.

Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors can take many forms: drone attacks, fight against pirates (for example, on Somalia territorial waters) and invasions. Furthermore, the non-state actors against whom the use of force is conducted include not only sub-national actors acting at national level, but also trans-national actors with global agenda like Al-Qaeda. It should also be noted that the collapse of communism and the complete break-down of governments in former Soviet-Union and former Yugoslavia created a fertile ground for non-state actors to flourish. Moreover, the advancement of technology gave these groups to conduct transnational attacks in different ways.

Use of force against non-state actors in the territory of another state is still a subject that needs an in-depth analysis of the concept and principles of the use of force. However, no one can deny the controversy and debate it has brought about in the area of international law. It is clearly stipulated in the UN Charter that military actions carried out against a non-state actor in another state are prohibited by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This article stipulates that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Consequently, any unilateral use of force, unless exceptions as provided by the UN Charter, will result in a breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. In addition, the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua Case held that the ban on the use of force is both a rule of customary international law and jus cogens. States attempt to adopt a broader interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter because it “provides the only escape from the prohibition of use of force”.

Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actor is mostly justified on the grounds of self-defense. This requires a compendious discussion on the legality of self-defense when used by states against non-state actors (within the territory of another state). Article 51 of the UN Charter provides that a state may exercise a right of self-defense against another state.

However, it fails to mention the nature of the party responsible for the attack or action triggering this right to self-defense. The International Court of Justice found that “Article 51 of the Charter thus recognized the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one state against another state.

From this ruling, it can be deduced that a state may not exercise its right to self-defense against another state when there is no evidence of the latter’s involvement in actions perpetrated by non-state actors. In Armed Activities case, the International Court of Justice rejected Uganda’s claim of self-defense on the ground that attacks, while emanating from the territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo, were not directly attributable to this state.

SPLM/SPLA/IO as a Non-state actor acting as de facto regime

There are two opposing doctrines about recognition of governments: the Tobar doctrine or doctrine of legitimacy and the doctrine of the effectiveness. The latter provides that a new government which exercises effective control of a territory with a “prospect of permanency” should be recognized as de jure government. A recognition as de facto government is an acknowledgement by other states about its effectiveness. In 2013, the SPLA/IO took control of Greater Upper Nile and many parts of South Sudan. The SPLM/SPLA/IO received in South Sudan delegations from the United Nations like the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the UN, Francois Losseny Fall and Louis Michel from the European Union.

It may be deduced that the SPLM/SPLA/IO was acting as de facto government alongside a recognized but ineffective Government of the Republic of South Sudan which controlled only the town of Juba and Greater Bahrel Ghazal Region by then. It is relevant to analyzed whether an attack from the SPLA/IO could be attributed to the South Sudan state. The answer is no, because the GOSS had no control over the SPLA/IO. Its actions could not be imputed to the host state. If the attack could not be attributed to the state, no action of self-defense against the non-state actor was possible. The state can be held responsible only for its inability to prevent attacks perpetrated by the non-state actor.

A possible solution for the victim state is to request the consent of the recognized government which is a circumstance precluding the wrongfulness of the act. Another scenario in 2009 is when another non-state actor took power in the capital and most parts of Somalia. Al- Shabaab is considered by Ethiopia and the USA as a terrorist group. There was also a recognized but ineffective TFG which controlled only a small part of Mogadishu.

Attacks committed by Al-Shabaab could not be attributed to the Somali state represented by the recognized government. No action of self defense against the non-state actor is permitted by international law without a substantial state involvement.

In the case where a non-state actor acts as de facto regime, and where there is no de jure government in the state, its acts should be considered as acts of the state. Article 10 of Drafts Articles on State responsibility provided that a conduct of an insurrection group which becomes a new government of a state shall be considered an act of this state. For instance, acts of SPLA/IO would be attributable to South Sudan in absence of another competing faction internationally recognized. A victim state may be entitled to exercise the right of self-defense against the de facto regime.

In Conclusion;the extraterritorial use of force against a non-state actor is prohibited unless it perpetrated a large scale attack with an involvement of the state. If the action of the non-state actor amounted to an armed attack but there is no state attribution for this action, the victim state shall request the cooperation of the host state in order to prevent future attacks.

If the state intervenes forcibly without requesting the assistance of the host state, it fails to meet the test of necessity and its claim of self-defense will not be considered as lawful. In the case of a non-state actor acting as de facto regime in a state, its action will be considered as actions emanating from the state. Therefore, victim state may exercise a right of self-defense against its attacks.

Finally, the military intervention of UPDF (Uganda’s People’s Defense Force) in South Sudan’s post-Independence internal Conflict (Civil War) in its entirety is illegal and should be condemn by the regional bodies and international Community.

The Author, Deng Gai Gatluak is a South Sudanese Young Lawyer living in Nairobi Kenya and Can Be Reach Through denggaigatluak@ymail.com

Why Dr. James Okuk Should Not See the Neurologists! A Response to Journalist Peter Gai Manyuon

By Dr James Okuk- PhD

Dr. James Okuk, a member of SPLM-DC party (Photo: file)

Dr. James Okuk, a member of SPLM-DC party (Photo: file)

April 5th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia)- When faced with choice between two evils, choose none even if one of the choices is a lesser evil in a utilitarian term of “principle of double effects”. This is the bottom line of postulates of Christian morality. Hence, the Democratization and Human Rights Independent Journalist, Mr. Peter Gai Manyuon, is advised to note this about Dr. James Okuk because the biography he provided is purely propagandist and out of anger against for no any substantiated apparent justification.

Mr. Peter would have not looked nonsensical had he remained general without getting specific about the personality and academic qualifications of Dr. Okuk, which he is ignorant about. Also it would have been less stupid had he consulted the Library of University of Nairobi to get the correct title and content of the thesis and be informed whether it was given to South Sudanese intellectuals globally to critique. University of Nairobi is a no-joke academic institution. If it awards a student a PhD degree it means it.

Dr. Okuk was ranked one of the best and youngest of his batch, supervised for four years by Prof. Joseph Nyasani and Associate Prof. Dr. Karori Mbugua who are well known for their intellectual keenness in the area of political philosophy. Three of his colleagues failed to make it in time as they stumbled in defending their theses in front of tough external examiners.

Regarding my relationship with Dr. Lam Akol, I don’t need to waste time on it because it is a blood and lineage link that no human being can take away. Dr. Lam is my paternal uncle from Doleib Hill (Katum Ted as called by Nuer) in Panyikango County of the Royal Shilluk Kingdom in Upper Nile State, and with pride of what he is, both intellectually and politically. Dr. Lam is an honest and genius hardworking astute politician who doesn’t entertain lies in order to cover the truths that need to be known with time.

However, what I write is my own intellectual property with copyright, and what Dr. Lam writes is his. If our writings happen to converge at some instances then you need to treat them as incidents of truth coincidences worth noting. Dr. Lam cannot accept to write an article, leave alone a thesis, for another person. Get this well from me if you have not got the chance to know him very closely.
Any way let me get back to what is at the stake without unnecessary distractions as it is said that small minds find consolation in discussing people while big minds find delight in discussing ideas.

First, Mr. Peter Gai, should know that shame is the destiny of liars and evil-promoting propagandists, not those who have the courage to revere and say the truth even while in the lion mouth.
Secondly, any human life matters because it is a sanctity matter; no laughing and no celebration. That is why lies shouldn’t be tolerated on loss lives of people in South Sudan whether they are Nuer members or non-Nuer ethnicities. The lie on above 20,000 Nuer members killed ‘genocidedly’ in Juba on 15, 16, 17 and 18 December 2013 shouldn’t continue to be tolerated because this is not a laughing matter.
We should be accurate on death counts and know what constitutes ‘genocide’ strictly as defined in ICC Rome Statute and in the UN ocuments. If there are people who thrive or want to gain power on dead bodies in South Sudan, I think it is time to tell them ‘enough is enough’ against this evil tactical practice.

Thirdly, we don’t need to crack our heads on this matter because we can come up with some basic understanding based on simple logical calculus. It could go like this:

1) Check the Number of Nuer Population in Juba before 15 December 2013.
2) Check the number of Nuer members who took refuge in UNMISS camps (Jebel and Airport) on 16, 17 and 18 December 2013 in Juba but don’t include the non-Nuer members who took refuge there as well.

3) Subtract the latter (2) numbers from the former population

4) Subtract the number of the Nuer members who managed to escape from Juba via UNMISS camps or through other routes.

5) Add the number of the Nuer members who are still camping in UNMISS at Jebel in Juba now to those who went back to their homes and to those who have managed to escape from Juba to other safer places inside or abroad.

6) Subtract the comprehensive addition (5) from the Nuer population in Juba before 15 December 2013 (1) and you can get to a conclusion that the actual number of Nuer members who targetedly got killed in Juba will not be above 20,000 as it has been propagated by SPLM/A-IO and their sympathizers.

Fourthly, what is known, though not presently said, is that the biggest death in Nuer tribe came from the very Nuer politicians and liars (i.e., politikach in Nuer Language) themselves who mobilised the White Army and other Nuer sectors to die in masses in front lines of the current senseless war of power greed between the cursed SPLM leaders?

The Nuer tremendous loss to young men in front lines in and around, Bor, Malakal, Poktap, Nasir, Ayod, Bentiu, etc, is very painful but it is the consequence of taking up arms against a constitutional government. The same goes to the Dinka, Shilluk and other Sudanese who were killed by the Nuer members in the course of the current war.
That is is why the bashing of both sides (government and rebels) in the current war in South Sudan is correctly justifiable.

Yes, any war criminal on humanity whether he hails from Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk or any tribe in South Sudan should face the force of criminal law (nationally or internationally) in reparation to the innocent victims but not soldiers or armed groups in front lines. That is, rebels and other war inciters and violence pursuers should never be treated as victims because they are equally the selfish perpetrators who have harmed the Republic of South Sudan in the situation it is today.

Regarding the fact of who have been occupying lands of other people in South Sudan, we don’t need lectures but practical examples on this matter. It was the Nuer who have been occupying Tonga Nyijwad (Pangak as they renamed it), Doleib Hill, Obel, Ashabinil, Wic Liel (Wic Mabor as they renamed it), Adhithiang, Warjwok, etc of the Shilluk Kingdom since the time the Nuer militias allied themselves with Jellaba.

Thy even wrote to Upper Nile Governor without any shame to allow them to have their county names and chiefs stationed within the Shilluk Kingdom. On the other hand, the Dinka tried to annex Atar, Obang, Wic Pig, Anakdiar, Wic Uluth, Nyigiir (Bilthiang as they renamed it), Thangrial, Melut, etc but didn’t occupy most of the claimed annexes as the Nuer did.

Bur thanks to Kiir-Riek current war of power that has flashed the Nuer out of the Shilluk lands. It will not be an easy matter for them to reoccupy those lands again. The Dinkas of Upper Nile have been good neighbours of Shilluk and they will dialogue it out in a peaceful manner to resolve the conflicts on the claimed lands. There will not be any intention of genocide between them. The Nuer needs to learn the value of dialogue in the civilized world. Violence will not help them!

Finally, you would have better left the response to Mr. Stephen Par Kuol because we know each others. But for your information, he has not been an Ambassador yet, perhaps in future if things went well with him. The fact that he kept quiet is an indicator that he got cornered on not telling the truth as it should have been told. He know his bias and it is understandable to some of us.

Dear Mr. Peter Gai, know that I don’t claim to be a lecturer in Juba University. I have been lecturing there actually and graduated two batches, so far so good. Take time to go around and you will be amazed of my students in the real world who will tell you how they appreciate my nationalistic contribution in teaching them in an excellent manner. Some of the finalists whose research projects I supervised hail from Nuer tribe and they will admit to you how I directed them to write objective research papers using academic methodology.

This is enough to tell you that I am already working and contributing concretely and positively for the well being of the Republic of South Sudan. Why should a worker be under pressure of seeking for a work? Illogical, isn’t it? Some of us respect law because it is safer to do so. That is why we cannot join Dr. Riek’s rebellion or form one even when the SPLM leadership behaves badly. We believe in non-violence approach in resolving conflicts. You will one day come back to where we stand and you will then understand it better.

Neurologists have no use to truth-tellers and sincere intellectuals. It will be waste of money to see them, but if you think you need to because of the anger and lies that came out in your thoughts against my article, you may try. Perhaps some of us who are the willing are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. After all, stay well!

Dr. James Okuk is lecturer and public analyst in the area of politics. He lives in Juba and can be reached at okukjimy@hotmail.com

Women, Violence and the AU Commission of Inquiry Report: The Truth About the Lies!

By Anyieth D’Awol

Opinion

A South Sudanese man protecting his children from an internal conflict(Photo: file)

A South Sudanese man protecting his children from an internal conflict(Photo: file)

March 30th, 2015(Nyamilepedia)- Women are the pride of our families and societies,’ we were told. ‘Many cows will be paid for you’. It is said with pride – the way it has always been and the way it must be. The intention is for the cultural systems to link families and communities together and ensured a girl is married into a family that will value her as much hers. It is said that the culture is unchangeable and where it has transformed, it is blamed on war but still, it must be respected. Rape, sexual harassment, forced and early marriage and exploitation have become so common that what we have been told about how special we are must be a lie. The reality is, today a girl is monetized before marriage and treated like property after it. In times of conflict, being considered precious by our tribes only makes us targets, a means to inflict pain on the perceived other. In the end, it is everyone who loses. Men, women and the children we bear, our cultures and the country we all share.

As a human rights activist in South Sudan since 2005, I have heard countless accounts of inter-community violence, human loss and sexual violence. Cruelty has become the accepted culture and the only remedies are tolerance or violence. They were called remnants of war and it’s effects on culture and that time will heal all. Of course, the issues never faded and time did not heal. Undeniably, it is ignoring the violence that is costing South Sudan its future, Africa its regional stability and the world its newest nation.

During the second war(1983-2005) between South Sudanese and the government of Sudan, women were kept from the front lines. Instead, it was decreed that they were to have children to replace the millions being killed as a result of the war. This created vulnerabilities for women as the duty to procreate was now part of the war efforts. Women were killed and many suffered rapes at the hands of both enemies and their own communities. This mentality carried on after the war. Throughout the relative peace between 2005 and 2013, sexual violence only increased in frequency and intensity.

‘I want to go home’ said Sarah,a 13-year old girl, as she stared through the bushes and trees towards her father’s home. Sarah’s neighbor had just raped her when she got home from school while her mother and father were out. After hearing her ordeal, I walked over to talk to her mother. ‘This is how it is and how it was for me too.’ She said, crying helplessly. When her father had arrived home, he beat Sarah for being raped and dragged her to the neighbor’s house. He demanded a settlement for her dowry. Sarah’s feelings and her justice were not a consideration.

This was one of my first sexual violence cases in South Sudan in early 2006. In many of our cultures, raping a girl would be considered a legitimate way to marry. For Sarah, that was the start of her marriage and the rest of her life. I do not know what became of her,how many children she has, but hers is the story of many women.The truth is, the cultures are depraved because the central values are lost. Women, culturally held dear, are degraded, in order to uphold the same culture. The humiliation results in women reconciling to their fate, running away or killing themselves – the way it has always been, the way it must be. This is the same logic applied to the crisis facing the nation. Those who created the conditions and executed the war, guided by personal needs and grievances rather than the values of leadership, are the ones that can resolve it, exclusively.

When the political disputes between the President and the former Vice President erupted on 15 December 2013, the violence between the military quickly assumed ethnic overtones and spread across the country within days. Targeted killing of Nuer citizens in Juba started a wave of revenge killings of citizens in Bor, Malakal, Bentiu and elsewhere. This current conflict, described as senseless even by the warring sides, does not spare women or girls – they have been specifically targeted. Killings and rapes are repaid with killings and rapes. Sexual violence has been inflicted on a scale unseen even by the brutal standards of previous wars. Victims range in age from young girls to elderly women, some in their 80s. Many stories tell of women given the option between rape and death. Women who refused to be raped were penetrated with sticks, guns and other objects and bled to death. Those who chose rape were gang raped, many not surviving the brutality. Pregnant women had their babies ripped out of them.

Knowledge that justice will never come motivates the revenge killings. Perpetrators of violence are acting to destroy everything,even our elders and our babies, our history and our future. The brutality inflicted ensures the pain is deeper, lasts longer and is never forgotten. The question is:are the issues at the root of this conflict even being addressed?

The answer is no. The culture of violence and abuse is brushed off as a by-product of bigger problems, rather than the problem. Indeed, fear and threat of violence is what makes the powerful, powerful. The need and urgency to address the violence is treated as inopportune and that accountability will cause more violence. We are persuaded that accountability is less important than peace. But, what is peace when there is so much violence? And what is a peace that does not address all this violence?

From my experience, time alone cannot heal all, especially that which is repeated. During the latter part of 2014, many of us held onto the hope that the AUCISS report, completed in October 2014, would be released. It would reveal the full scale of what our people have suffered over the last year and name those responsible. Signed agreements between the warring parties promised an inclusive process to address the root causes, ensure justice and accountability and guarantee those responsible would be excluded from any future government. In late January 2015, Africa’s leaders decided that the report was untimely because the report might derail a peace agreement and postponed the consideration and release of the African Union’s Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) report.

The March 5 deadline for the warring parties to sign the peace deal came and went and we do not have peace, nor reasonable prospects for it and the violence simply continues. African leaders took a huge gamble that the parties would sign a peace deal. It is questionable that either party has the will or the power to bring peace to South Sudan, put it on the path to prosperity and reconcile the people. Signing a peace deal for fear of the truth will not bring us the peace we need. Rather, confronting the truth will be the first steps towards forging the peace we must have if this nation is to emerge from this dark period.

On March 5, a draft of the AUCISS was leaked. The African Union’s response, on March 16, stated ‘categorically that the so-called ‘report’ … is not that of the Commission of Inquiry.’ The claim of ignorance is degrading to those who died, those that continue to suffer and those who spoke to the Commission. It is clear the document is unfinished but people have been quoted, others named and incidents described. In light of its content and what we already know, the decision to indefinitely postpone the consideration and release, is shocking. But the problems we face are clear and the opportunities to rectify them exist.

With honesty and a chance of a future that is different from what we have had, we may start to live by the values that actually matter and end the violence. Nearly four years ago, the people of South Sudan celebrated independence peacefully and united with extraordinary joy. That is the nation we want. The prospect of a real future has been our most tested route to silencing the guns. The final and official AUCISS report should be released if the intention is to end the war and the culture of violence. From that point, we may find our path to a more hopeful future.

Anyieth D’Awol is a human rights activist and Founder and Director of the ROOTS Project, a civil society organization based in Juba, South Sudan

Dr James Okuk Should See Neurologist!

By Peter Gai Manyuon,

Peter Gai Manyuon, Chief Editor/Nyamilepedia

Peter Gai Manyuon, Chief Editor/Nyamilepedia

March 26th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia)- Dr James Okuk received his PhD from the University of Nairobi in December 2009, where his thesis was “Justice and Poverty Reduction in South Sudan”, a research that was criticized by many South Sudanese intellectuals, globally, due to the fact that his work lacks scholarly substance for public consumption as a PhD thesis, internationally and particularly for the people of South Sudan.

Dr James Okuk has been a bodyguard of Dr Lam Akol since his freshman year until the time he became a PhD holder. Most of his work was facilitated, and perhaps written by Dr. Lam Akol himself, an evidence that has contributed so much to his worshiping of Dr. Lam.

Okuk has been a small boy of Dr Lam Akol since Lam broke away from the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) and formed his own party, the SPLM for Democratic Change that has now turned into SPLM for Dictatorship Celebration . When Dr Lam Akol went to exile,  Okuk became so critical to the government of South Sudan that he tossed up his dear life for political gamble leading to his arrest and torture as he shown too much love for his master.

Okuk was arrested and charged for criticizing the monster Salva Kiir on Media,  a man he latter turned to adore for committing genocides against the Nuer ethnic group. What a shame to these political opportunists? Was it really necessary for Okuk to fight for Dr. Lam Akol but not for his Chollo, whose land has been alienated by the corrupt Bandits of Salva Kiir? Today, Okuk is living under the tents of dictatorship, celebrating the massacres of the Naath Nation, but how sure is our fake doctor of philosophy that the next genocides will not be committed against the Chollo (may Naath forbids)?

When Salva Kiir forgave Dr. Lam for committing a rare crime of demanding Democratic Change, a crime that Dr. Riek Machar and his colleagues are now committing, he saved himself of one sleepless critic, James Okuk. Okuk is now born again in dictatorship and ready to mingle with dictators since his master is serving his house arrest in Juba. It begs a question if any South Sudanese intellectual would still regards Okuk as an independent thinker at this point. What category of people can we classify Okuk in South Sudan?

Well, after reading his article on Sudan Tribune website, I struggled to contextualize the content of his article. I took my time to read his narrations up to the last dot, however, I never gotten a gist of his intellectual analysis, if I may call it so, but rather entertained lies and rollicking phrases that lack intellectual dynamism with hopes to prove a point, which he never did. In conclusion, the only motivation of writing such article was not to justify in response to Amb. Stephen Par Kuol, but to appease the monster for a possible job opening and recognition in the future. What a disgrace? When will the error of Salva Kiir rewarding jobs to betrayers and incompetents end in South Sudan? We can and will never build a viable state on lies, Okuk must learn!

Why responding to James Okuk this way?

Hon. Stephen Par Kuol presented an educative piece on 23th of March 2015 entitled “The fallacies of bashing both sides in South Sudan Conflict”, and in summary, Amb. Par discussed what he refers as “both sides narrative”, in which the regional bloc, IGAD, AU and the international community tends to blame the two sides equally and fail to give credits when it is needed. Amb. Par also put records straight on many important elements of Peace Talks that are being misrepresented in Juba to corrupt the reasoning faculty of intellectuals like James Okuk. Stephen Par correctly elaborate on the opposition’s key demands such as the proposal of amalgamating and recruiting forces from least represented minority tribes to form a viable national army that represent the faces of 64 tribes in South Sudan, unlike the current Nuer and Dinka dominated army. Amb Par also illustrated the formula of wealth sharing between states and the national government, something that is lacking in Salva Kiir’s world that divides wealth between corrupt individuals of which over 90% comes from one tribe. All these proposal would benefit the likes of Dr. Okuk than Amb. Stephen Par, himself, who once served in prominent positions, if James Okuk is not reducing himself for the sake of his own stomach only.

The immediate response from James Okuk, who claimed to have been a political analyst and a lecturer at the University of Juba- South Sudan, on 24th of March 2015, which he entitled “Justifying the Fallacy of bashing both sides in South Sudan Conflicts: A response to Stephen Par Kuol’s article” , did not clearly address the critical points that were raised by Amb. Stephen Par but instead Okuk was more interest to air his personal problems such as how he escaped from Mia Saba, how his house was looted and destroyed by the same thugs he is now praising. Okuk went ahead to oppose the two warring parties claiming that army amalgamation or integration will not resolve South Sudan crisis. Okuk believes that the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement is the only solution and therefore Joseph Langu should be consulted.

Good enough Okuk did not explain the 1972 army proposal, perhaps due to lack of details. Well, what the PhD fail to understand is that the 1972 army arrangement is exactly what was adopted in CPA and now aimed to readopted through SPLM-IO proposal but of course with slight modification. In 1972 the anyanya retained its armies and only agreed to 1:1 ratio deployment in contested zones with hope to separate the armies if the South broke away, as Anyanya fought for Separation.

In other confused narratives, Okuk acknowledged that indeed targeted killings took place but he denied the catastrophe being refer as “genocide” and as well denied that those who got killed were from different tribes of South Sudan, not Nuer civilians alone. What a great lie? Critically, Okuk was more interested in “equality narratives” that all tribes were equally massacred and therefore all should be equally considered. The Nuer would wish this really happened, in fact this is the question that the Nuer are asking, why was it only the Nuer that were targeted? And Bona Malwal would response: “because the Nuer are the problem to Dinka’s supremacy and domination”.

Does Okuk know the definition of the word “Genocide” or is PhD is yet to cover a lecture on that? To remind James Okuk once again, genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group or it can be defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. In fact, if we don’t refer what happened in Juba as genocide, what other word would be suitable to define the recent killings of thousands of Nuer civil population in houses due to their ethnicity?

Dr James Okuk might have been under pressure of job search when writing the article. He might have been forced to write in order for him to be looked as Juba Intellectual by Kiir’s political sycophants, political orphans and thieves that may recruit him.

If not desperation, Dr James Okuk must see a Neurologist to examine this adverse mental disorder that has distort our good critics in a forth night. Where on earth will you find a PhD graduate talking like a mad person or a child of three years, if not in South Sudan where some people claim to have read books while their psychological blackboards are completely empty.

Absolutely, after reading the article I decided to doubt the intellectuality and thinking capacity of Dr James Okuk in Juba. Obviously, I came to know James Okuk recently in the Republic of South Sudan. Okuk has been writing objectively before the crisis of South Sudan emerged on the 15th of December 2013 whereby Nuer were massacred in thousands in Juba. Surely most of the people globally are aware of the number of civilians who were mercilessly murdered for their ethnicity. As individual, I have no claim on this and may not be worried of what Okuk thinks because it has been proven by AU, UN, UNMISS and the international community.

Who is Okuk to deny? If the whole world has admitted and the government of terrorists of Salva Kiir has accepted, then who is Dr Okuk to talk nonsense?

More so, all South Sudanese people have admitted that people were killed in Juba by some group of “village boys” that were instructed by the top leadership of the government of Salva Kiir.

Who is James Okuk to deny the massacre of the Nuer Civilians? Is Dr James Okuk mind safe from disorder or something is disturbing Okuk?

In conclusion, primitiveness is about eighty percent (80%) in the Republic of South Sudan, people sometimes think negatively about others or when someone lack something to eat, they begin to think for new avenues for survival. Very disappointing and disgraceful scenario! God of heaven should help South Sudanese this time!

The author is an Independent Journalist and Columnist who has written extensively on issues of Democratization Processes and Human Rights in South Sudan. He can be reached at southsudanjournalist@gmail.com.


The statements, comments, or opinions published by Nyamilepedia are solely those of their respective authors, which do not necessarily represent the views held by the moderators of Nyamilepedia. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the writer(s), and not the staff and the management of Nyamilepedia.

Nyamilepdeia reserves the right to moderate, publish or delete a post without warning or consultation with the author(s). To publish your article, contact our editorial team at nyamilepedia@gmail.com

Nuer Soldiers in Kiir’s Government Continue to get Executed by Dinka!

By Pel K. Chol,

Opinion

Lul Ruai Koang celebrating with Gordon Buay, a Salva Kiir loyalist in Juba, South Sudan(Photo: supplied)

Lul Ruai Koang celebrating with Gordon Buay, a Salva Kiir loyalist in Juba, South Sudan(Photo: supplied)

March 10th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia)- The Genocide of the Nuer is not only confined to the civilians who have nothing to do with the internal party rift of the SPLA which triggered the conflict. But it is still spreading to soldiers even though the conflict which started as a massacre of Nuer is entering into its second year. The Dinka are still unable to separate Nuer soldiers who put the political rivalry between the tribal President Kiir and Dr. Riek behind them and thought they are serving their nation.

It actually did not turn out to be the case as Nuer soldiers who continue to serve their master, Salva Kiir, who has brought unbearable pain in the Nuer society, continue to die needlessly.

On 8th March, 2015, two genocidal government soldiers from the Nuer ethnic group of Upper Nile state were intentionally killed by a soldier from the Dinka ethnic group of Bar el Ghazel where President Kiir hails from.

The perpetrator was aiming to randomly kill all the six innocent Nuer soldiers just because they were Nuer. But to their luck, four escaped and two were unlucky being crushed to death by a tank driven by a soldier from the Dinka tribe.

The incident happened in the Maban country of Upper Nile state. Some of the Nuer soldiers who survived the attack said that the motive was found to be an order from a general who also happened to be from the Dinka tribe. He ordered the Dinka soldier to carry out the attack against his Nuer comrades.

The dead soldiers were both from Jikany Nuer of Gaajack who thought they were serving the interest of Kiir to kill their Nuer fellows but to their detrimental they cannot avoid or erase their ethnicity which ultimately haunted them.

This is not the first time Nuer soldiers in the genocidal and tribal government were targeted. In one of the barracks in Juba, many Nuer soldiers who ran to UNMISS compounds were lured out to that barrack tore-join the army four months after the genocide.

These group was later killed in their hundreds and the tribal government concealed the crime indicating that the dispute was a pay issue. Ostensively they were indiscriminately killed for just for being Nuer, the same strategy Kiir’s private army used in the three days of December Nuer ordeal in 2013.

The killing of Nuer by Dinka whether be a soldier or a civilian is an ongoing process. Whenever the Dinka suffers casualties in battles now being fought throughout South Sudan, they turn to their Nuer colleges who serves in the genocidal government for revenge just because they are Nuer.

The massacre of the Nuer students and army recruits in Mapel in Northern Bar el Ghazel state is a perfect example. It was started by a Dinka woman whose husband was killed in Upper Nile. Upon seeing a Nuer civilian in the Market predominantly inhabited by the Dinka, she screamed like hell and that prompted her relatives to go after the Nuer and killed him.

The scuffle continue to where Nuer recruits were staying inside Mapel. A lot of them who could not believe that such a thing could happen were cold bloodily killed.

As the peace negotiation has completely failed, it is highly likely that any Nuer in every location in South Sudan controlled by Dinkas will certainly be a victim. It is advisable that Nuer should leave for UNMISS compounds or safer places under the control of the SPLA in Opposition.

It is advisable that you do not become hesitant about making such a decision because no matter how hard you try to please Kiir, you will always be a target. If Dinkas could kill Nuer who fight alongside them in their determination to kill or finish other Nuer who want to get justice done for the Genocide in Juba, who else could they spare? You answer for yourself.

Tension Is High In Juba City To Over Throw President Kiir if He Agrees to Sign Peace with Opposition!

South Sudanese president Salva Kiir (L) shakes hands with rebel leader and former vice-president Riek Machar after signing an agreement at the end of talks ...(file by Nyamilepedia)

South Sudanese president Salva Kiir (L) shakes hands with rebel leader and former vice-president Riek Machar after signing an agreement at the end of talks …(file by Nyamilepedia)

March 5th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia) — According to the latest reports obtained by Nyamilepedia, the government of South Sudan Officials is rifted by the proposed decisions by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and International Community to impose sanctions on both sides of the conflict.

In an interview this morning with an insider in Capital Juba, the government of Salva Kiir is divided into two groups; one group is headed by the Chief of General Staff Paul Malong Awan and the other group is headed by President Kiir.

Since on Wednesday 4th night up today Thursday, there is high deployment of troops by Malong Awan in the Capital City as there is heavy deployment near UNMISS Camps in Juba.

According to an insider, Chief of Staff Malong Awan and Dinka Elders are opposing the signing of Peace Agreement in Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia.

On the other hand, President Kiir and some of his Cabinets are of the view to bring peace to South Sudan by agreeing with the term and conditions suggested by Sudan People Liberation Movement – in Opposition.

In the meeting conducted in Pilpham last night around 12:AM-2:AM, Generals are divided over the agenda of Paul Malong Awan to take over the government if President Salva Kiir agrees to work with the opposition.

Meanwhile on other reports investigated by Nyamilepedia, some officers are not happy with the IDPs in the United Nations Mission Camps in South Sudan.  In an interview with an insider within SPLA-Juba faction who talked to Nyamilepedia on phone suggest that civilians not to come out since the tension is high in Juba the Capital of South Sudan.

LOU NUER COMMUNITY IN UGANDA CONDEMN THE DECLARATION MADE BY GEN. LUL RUAI KOANG!!

Press Release

Lul Ruai Koang, the defected rebel brigadier general(Photo: file)

Lul Ruai Koang, the defected rebel brigadier general(Photo: file)

Feb 20th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia) — We the Lou –Nuer community in Uganda condemn Lul Ruach’s declaration, in an emergency meeting convened in Kampala by over 200 Lou Nuer members which comprises of youth, women , elders and intellectuals.

We call upon the general public in particular the lou Nuer community to treat this declaration as an individual interest driven by selfish motive.

The self claim movement has no base in the Lou Nuer land, and this is to assure the entire South Sudanese especially those loyal to the leadership of SPLM/A-IO under the leadership of Dr. Riek Machar Teny.

We condemn the movement that Lul has claimed to have form a South Sudanese Resistance SSRM/A which was declared on 18thFebruary 2015 which he formed to pave his way to Juba defunct regime said the Chairman of Lou Nuer community in Uganda Juma Wectuor Both.

We the Lou Nuer community in Uganda disagree with the baseless reasons which has constituted Lul declaration, what happened in Juba in 2013 Dec,15th was a planned genocide by the government of Salva Kiir Mayardit.

We want to inform the entire public that Lul does not have any body on ground that would support the cheap declaration he has made. We will fight Kiir leadership till the last man is left to defend the Lou Nuer land no matter how long it will take.

We will never succumb to the decision that Lul has made, the claim to have Bieh state is already in the declared 21 states federalism as the system of governance.

We want to inform the entire public that we Lou Community in Uganda shall stand together in solidarity with our people who are fighting for the cause of our people who were massacred by Juba regime.

We are appreciate to the leadership of Lou Nuer on ground for their firm stand in condemning the declaration and the baseless movement that Gen. Lul Ruai has formed.

We are still as Lou forever and we will never allow any form resistance army from Lou Nuer Land apart from the Movement under Dr.Riek Machar‘s leadership.

We Lou Nuer Community in Uganda will never and shall never be part of the decision that Lul has made and we condemn the statement he has released in the strongest term possible.

Mr.Juma Wechtuor Both the chairperson of Lou Nuer Community added that, we as Lou Nuer Community are still committed to the leadership of SPLM/A-IO under the leadership of Dr.Riek Machar Teny (PhD).

Signed by; Chairperson
Juma Wectuor Both

LOU NUER COMMUNITY IN KENYA CONDEMNED THE OUTRAGED DECLARATION OF DEFECTION BY BRIG. GEN. LUL RUAI KOANG IN THE EXPENSES OF OUR COMMUNITY!!

PRESS STATEMENT

Lul Ruai Koang received by David Yau Yau, the leader of defected militia, in Juba, South Sudan today on 19 Feb, 2015(Photo: supplied)

Lul Ruai Koang received by David Yau Yau, the leader of defected militia, in Juba, South Sudan today on 19 Feb, 2015(Photo: supplied)

February 20th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia) — We, the Lou Nuer community in Kenya are surprised, shocked by the outraged defection of General Lul Ruai dated 18th February 2015 of which he claimed to be representing the interest of the entire Lou Nuer Community.

Contrary to his words, we want to assure the general public that his propaganda is not true and does not reflect our support either in Diaspora or in Greater Lou Nuer land. His defection is pure personal and does not hold any communal support.

We strongly condemned this selfish declaration made by self-made general who in our views was motivated by his lust for financial gain.

We also want to make it clear to all South Sudanese and the world at large that the mighty white Army does not support the selfish move by General Lul Ruai. Therefore, we want to reinstate the fact that his claims for primary support in Lou land are untrue and do not hold any fact.

This is to affirm that the three commissioners of Lou Nuer Counties, Chiefs of General Staffs, Major General Simon Gatwech Dual do not support his claims and shall thwart any attempt by any force or individual who might want to execute the content of this puppet-Defection.

In the spirit of our unwavering unity, we the entire population of Lou Nuer are still and shall continue to pay our allegiance to the leadership of SPLM/A under Dr. Riek Machar Teny.

Finally, we want to make it clear that Lou Nuer will not tolerate any absurd decision from individual community member that might eventually reward the genocidal dictatorial regime under Salva Kiir in Juba.

It should also be noted clearly that Gen. Lul had defected alone and shall continue to sail alone. Every person is entitled to personal opinion, but we wanted to assure the international community and the regional body that Lul Ruai’s personal decision wouldn’t have an impact on Lou Nuer Community and SPLM/A/IO in general.

Signed By:
NyoatJock ,
Chairperson for Lou-Nuer Community in Kenya

Lou-Nuer Community in Uganda describes Lul Ruai defection to Government as Nonsensical!!!

Lul Ruai Koang, the defected rebel brigadier general(Photo: file)

Lul Ruai Koang, the defected rebel brigadier general(Photo: file)

Feb 19th, 2015 (Nyamilepedia) -In a press conference conducted Thursday in Kampala by Lou-Nuer group of elders and intellectuals they described Lul Ruai Koang defection as “self interest of an Individual” not the general view of the entire population of the Lou-Nuer.

The meeting was attained by different Universities Students and elders from the three Countries of Lou-Nuer Akobo, Wuror County and Nyirol respectively. Over Two hundred youth and elders denounced Lul Ruai decision as nonsense that does not need people to talk about since it is one man ideology.

According to an interview carried out by Nyamilepedia Editorial Team on the ground, Mr. Yien Chan’s one of the Elders in the Conference said the decision taken by Lul is self interest and he condemned the statement in strong term that Lul Ruach forgotten the killing of innocents people in early December 2013.
Mr. Chan added that it’s his own decision not as Lou Society in General.
He called upon the Greater Lou-Nuer Community to be strong enough to fight for the freedom of the people of South Sudan.
Mr. Chan added that, we the Lou Nuer people in Kampala are still firmly together with Lou Nuer back home of which we are indeed together with our Loyal White Army under the leadership of Dr Riek Machar and General Gatwech Dual.

Meanwhile, Mama Elizabeth Nyaruot Biel, as well condemn Mr.Lul Ruach’s statement and as well urged Lou Nuer and to gives warning to any person backing up or behind this movement under Lul Ruach Koang. Mama Nyabiel added that, the Lou-Nuer Community is still supporting SPLM-IO strongly and we will never let devil to enter to our territory the blessed Land –Lou Nuer.

In the same gathering as well Mr. Mok Dei Gual, also condemn the decision taken by Lul Ruach and described it’s as worst decision ever and he referred Mr. Lul Ruach as the betrayer and we shouldn’t entertain any resistance army against Lou. Mr. Mok said he though Lul Ruach was a good person just due to his analysis by then but he wonder monies are playing their roles in South Sudan.

South Sudan: Kiir’s Constitutional Dilemma

By: Mut Turuk,

Opinion

President Salva Kiir Mayardit holding the Constitution in 2011

President Salva Kiir Mayardit holding the Constitution in 2011

February 16th, 2015(Nyamilepedia) — It seems that President Kiir has not predicted the consequences of his fabricated coup that has led into killing of innocent people as well as the widespread destruction in the Country. The whole motivation of that fabricated coup was to eliminate his entire SPLM rivals prior to the general elections in 2015 and to revenge against Nuer ethnic group on the grounds of his long term grudges against Nuer people since liberation struggle era. The strongest evidence was repetition of 1991 split in several times in his speeches prior to December 15, 2013.

Circumstantially, it is clear that such premeditated and fabricated coup was prepared and executed with accomplice of some neighboring countries and that proves their previous knowledge about such plan. The failure of President Kiir to predict the consequences of his war against his own people has led the Country into a widespread popular resistance due to the killing of innocent Nuer citizens in Juba in the first week of the fight as well as into complicated constitutional implications mostly, the elections which was due in 2015 in accordance with the South Sudan Transitional Constitution, 2011 has become impossible to be held, a prerequisite mandatory population census to determine the number of electoral constituencies for that general elections under section 194 of the Constitution has not been conducted.

Another aspect of President Kiir’s failure is lack of political will to restore peace and security through the ongoing IGAD led peace process in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. As the result, the regime in Juba has run short of time to hold the general elections in addition to that the war has exhausted all its reserve money as oil production has reduced. Furthermore, the huge numbers of South Sudanese people who are joining the armed opposition group under leadership of Dr. Machar including people from President Kiir’s home state as well as from other Bhar elgazal states. For instance, joining of Maj. Gen. Khamis Abadellatib who was one of Kiir’s closest assistant and who hails from Rumbek State which is mainly a Dinka dominated state.
Kiir’s gross violations of the Constitution:

All these messing up by the regime in Juba is an eventual result of Kiir’s previous violations of the same constitution which he is now claiming to be the first defender of it.

Particularly, President Kiir had violated our Constitution in several occasions, most importantly, removal of elected governors of Unity and Rumbek State respectively without holding by-elections within sixty days was a gross violation to the Constitution and this apply to the case of Jongelei State when the elected governor Koul Mayang Juuk was relieved and reappointed as Minister for Defence and Veteran Affairs, a position which he has retained until now replacing him with Gen. John Kong Nyoun as caretaker without holding by-election within sixty days is also another gross violation of the Constitution. Repeatedly, inter alia, President Kiir had issued a controversial court order sitting as a High Court judge on 25th July, 2013 in his capacity as the Chairman of the SPLM party, banning his former SPLM Secretary General Pagan Amum for travelling outside Juba and prohibiting him from talking to media.

More seriously, recruiting tribal militia outside the official Army channels which led into a serious misunderstanding between him and Gen. James Hoth his former Chief of General Staff before the later was fired. Such militia was later on used for what is known as house-to-house search killing in Juba against Nuer ethnic group under President Kiir direct supervision and command. The recent violation was relieving of his current Chief of General Staff Gen. Paul Malong Awan from governorship of Northern Bhar elgazal State and subsequently, Mr. Kuel Aguer was appointed as care taker governor without holding by-election within sixty days and that is one of the latest violations of the Constitution by President Kiir pursuant to Article 101 (s) of the Constitution.

Such gross violations were committed by President Kiir in a day light. To summarize this, if not because of the SPLM bush mentality that is governing the entire country such violations including violation of oaths of office of the President under Article 99 of the Constitution could have been sufficient grounds for Kiir’s administration to be impeached long time ago under Article 103(2) if the Country had strong institutions.

Constitutional threshold to amend the Constitution:
After failure of Kiir’s regime to hold the general elections due to the above mentioned reasons and the intensity of war on other hand, the regime has called off the elections on 13 February 2015 with a resolution of the Council of Ministers to amend the Constitution for the purpose of extending the term of Kiir legitimacy and the National Legislature to 2017. The central question is whether there is possibility or quorum to meet the constitutional threshold to amend the Constitution within the National Legislature? If not possible, what will be the way forward to save President Kiir from being illegitimate President by the July 10, 2015?
For us to answer such question, one would refer to the applicable law in this case, which is the South Sudan Transitional Constitution, 2011. Pursuant to Article 199, and I quote “ This Constitution shall not be amended unless the proposed amendment is approved by two-third of all members of each House of the National Legislature sitting separately and only after introduction of the draft amendment at least one month prior to the deliberations” end of the quotation. To make a legally analysis of this provision, it has to be as following ingredients of the same Article:

Firstly: “This Constitution shall not be amended”;
The intention of the legislator for putting this provision into the Constitution is to make it difficult if not impossible for any person or group of people with majority in the National Legislature to amend the Constitution without following the restricted procedures stated in the Constitution. In other words, such provision was meant to protect the Constitution itself from being violated by government of any president with dictatorship tendencies like President Kiir.

Secondly: Exception, “unless the proposed amendment is approved by two-third of all members of each House of the National Legislature sitting separately”. The most important question here is whether the two Houses in this crisis have maintained their entire members? If no, how will the regime meet the threshold to amend the Constitution even if it is possible to get two-third of members? Of course, the entire members of the two Houses are not there now, hence; did the Kiir’s regime hold any by-elections for those vacancies due to the absence of those members? Factually, some members of two Houses who mainly hail from constituencies whose citizens and particularly Nuer ethnic group were targeted in Juba have abandoned their positions in the National Legislature except few of them who have decided to retain their positions for personal interests.

Nevertheless, the majority of those MPs have left and joined the armed opposition and later they were joined by a good number of members from different constituencies across the Country. The important question is whether they were replaced or not? Procedurally, if a vacancy occurs on the grounds mentioned in accordance with Article 63 of the Constitution, and particularly sub-article (d) which the Speakers of two Houses have applied to dismiss all members who have absented themselves on the grounds of the current crisis. In such case, three mandatory procedural steps need to be fulfilled (1) pursuant to Article 64 (1) of the Constitution, “when the vacancy occurs in respect of seat in the National Assembly or the Council of States, the Speaker of appropriate House, shall notify the National Elections Commission within ten days from occurrence of that vacancy”.

The questions is did the two Houses notified the National Elections Commissions within ten days or not? If yes, whether by-elections were held to replace those members? (2) And I quote under sub-Article 64 (2) “A by-election to fill the vacancy shall be held by the National Elections Commission within sixty days following the occurrence of the vacancy” if not? How are they going to be replaced or how have they been replaced, if yes? As a matter of facts in this matter, President Kiir’s regime has failed to implement its constitutional mandate under Article 64 of the Constitution. (3) It is worth mentioning that, pursuant to Article 64(3) and I quote “No by-elections to fill a vacancy shall be held within the three months prior to the next general elections”. Meaningfully, the vacancies of those members who joined the armed opposition or abandoned their position under any grounds pursuant to Article 63(d) of the Constitution should have been filled as stated in the Constitution before three months prior to the general elections.

Hence, the two Houses will remain without all members until the next general elections are held and consequently, it will affect any amendment of the Constitution in the National Legislature, merely because the National Elections Commission is not allowed under Article 64 (3) to hold any by-election within three months prior to the next general elections. And under Article 199 of the Constitution, it will remain a big challenge to the Government to get two-third of ALL MEMBERS of each House of the National Legislature sitting separately and not two-third of the presence members in that particular session.

Thirdly: “and only after introduction of the draft amendment at least one month prior to deliberations”.

In addition to the previous procedure, the intended draft amendment has to be distributed to all members of the National Legislature before deliberations start on that proposed amendment. The intention of the legislator here is to give an adequate time to all members to study such proposed amendment points so that they are able to preparing their arguments ahead of time and also to avoid rushing with amendments that may cause anarchy and political unrest in the Country as well as the protection of the Constitution itself from any shortcuts to amend it.

In conclusion; It is worth mentioning that the Government in Juba is in a real constitutional crisis which was not predicted by its think tanks. Should Kiir’s regime insist to amend the Constitution without meeting the constitutional threshold that capacitate it to amend or initiate such proposed amendment in accordance with Article 199 read together with Article 64 of the Constitution, such move will remain unconstitutional and whatsoever the result for extension of Government legitimacy will remain unconstitutional and it will be added to President Kiir’s records of gross violations of the Constitution.

It is also worth mentioning that such move can be challenged before the Supreme Court which is mandated by the Constitution to adjudicate on the constitutionality of laws by either set aside or strike down law or provisions that are inconsistent or repugnant with the Constitution. I believe it can be achieved if our Supreme Court has recovered from the sickness of SPLM political interference into the judiciary affairs which we have all witnessed beside some procedural challenges that the Court faces.

Alternatively, the only option which is left for the government in Juba to extend its legitimacy is to take peace talks in Addis Ababa seriously to save itself from being an illegitimate government by July 10, 2015 and most importantly to restore peace and security in the entire Country as a primary responsibility for any responsible government towards its citizens. Otherwise, the Vice President will constitutionally be eligible assume the office of the President in accordance with Article 102(2) of the Constitution pending the elections within sixty days.

*The author is a senior South Sudanese lawyer and a Human Right Activist. He can be reached through email: turukmut@gmail.com.