Fellow South Sudanese, on behalf of United South Sudan Party (USSP), I wish you merry Christmas and a very happy New Year.
I hope that the Year 2010 brings us real peace and independence. Independence will not come easily or automatically, though, as some would like to think. South Sudan must take the right steps and the right actions in the remaining period leading up to the referendum. It is still possible that the South could lose out totally if it does not seriously and meticulously push for a complete implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Any changes to the CPA now, as some anti-CPA forces are suggesting, will totally undermine and nullify the CPA and the South will automatically be back to square one. That will benefit only the North and not the South. So, Southerners, watch out! Don’t be deceived! Let us all insist in one voice that the original CPA remains and must be implemented to the letter. I am sure the South is not naïve to be bribed or duped into rejecting the very independence it has fought for, for many decades, unless something is fundamentally wrong. South Sudanese, you can rest assured that you will all, without exception, be much, much better without the North. Any difficulties you are facing now are temporary and will fade away under a proper, better and more capable South Sudanese leadership. A more reputable and visionary South Sudanese leadership will be able to lead the South out of the existing deplorable state of affairs.
The present tribalism, corruption, mismanagement and lack of good governance have, understandably, prompted some of you to think you would be better off under the North. That is a serious illusion, not worth contemplating for even a second. There is nothing at all good in being under the North. We have been there all our lives and have gained nothing apart from the status of second class citizenship. Come on, South Sudan! Be confident and believe in yourself and not in the North. Don’t you ever think that the North will do anything to your advantage. He who wants to enslave you will never advise you to be free! You must be wary of any advice he pretends to offer you! That is common-sense wisdom.
So, South Sudan, be consistent and determined in your push for independence. Don’t despair. Instead, focus on how to achieve your aspiration.
God Bless you all. Long Live USSP.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Badi
Deputy Leader, USSP
[PDF version]
The Party for INDEPENDENCE · FREEDOM · JUSTICE · EQUALITY for the citizens of South Sudan
Friday, 25 December 2009
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Summary of USSP Leader’s Recent Talk on Miraya FM
The Leader of United South Sudan Party, Clement Mbugoniwia, spoke Tue, 15 September, with United Nations’ Miraya FM at their studios in Juba, South Sudan. Below is a brief summary of their discussion [a full transcript and/or audio may be published if available]:
The talk focused on the key objectives of USSP, namely, the independence of South Sudan; the unity of South Sudanese people in an independent South Sudan devoid of tribalism and corruption; and the recognition of individuals’ efforts to contribute constructively to nation building. He discussed at length why South Sudanese were currently disillusioned and divided because the government is discriminatory and corrupt.
He criticised the idea of forming coalitions between the SPLM and the Umma Party, on the one hand, and the Popular Congress Party, on the other. Both leaders of the aforementioned parties [Sadiq Al-Mahdi of Umma and Hassan El-Turabi] visited Juba recently and held talks with the SPLM. “In my view, the intention is to enable these parties to come to power in the forthcoming elections so that they could re-negotiate the CPA,” said Mr Mbugoniwia. He said even the census before the elections has not been a success because, according to him, the SPLM mismanaged the conduct of the census and, as such, is now not able to reach an agreement on the population [of South Sudan] as well as its geographical constituencies. He suggested that they [the SPLM] include all political forces to help resolve the crisis.
The USSP Leader further warned against politicians who take money [bribe] from the enemy and still believe that they can represent the aspirations of the people of South Sudan freely without hindrance, which is not the case because such funding is given for a purpose. He also warned that
“South Sudanese need to be vigilant and careful of politicians who play double games by inconsistently saying one thing here in South Sudan and, when in other parts of Sudan or the world, say different things.”
The atrocities committed by the Ugandan LRA rebels were also discussed as a failure of the government to keep up to its role of protecting its citizens and their properties. He concluded that nowhere in the world has any government allowed the protection of its international borders to be left in the hands of the local population, as is the case in Western Equatoria State, for instance, where local people are told to defend themselves, given that the areas in question lie along international borders [Uganda, DRC, and CAR].
Notes:
LRA = Lord’s Resistance Army
DRC = The Democratic Republic of the Congo
CAR = Central African Republic
The talk focused on the key objectives of USSP, namely, the independence of South Sudan; the unity of South Sudanese people in an independent South Sudan devoid of tribalism and corruption; and the recognition of individuals’ efforts to contribute constructively to nation building. He discussed at length why South Sudanese were currently disillusioned and divided because the government is discriminatory and corrupt.
He criticised the idea of forming coalitions between the SPLM and the Umma Party, on the one hand, and the Popular Congress Party, on the other. Both leaders of the aforementioned parties [Sadiq Al-Mahdi of Umma and Hassan El-Turabi] visited Juba recently and held talks with the SPLM. “In my view, the intention is to enable these parties to come to power in the forthcoming elections so that they could re-negotiate the CPA,” said Mr Mbugoniwia. He said even the census before the elections has not been a success because, according to him, the SPLM mismanaged the conduct of the census and, as such, is now not able to reach an agreement on the population [of South Sudan] as well as its geographical constituencies. He suggested that they [the SPLM] include all political forces to help resolve the crisis.
The USSP Leader further warned against politicians who take money [bribe] from the enemy and still believe that they can represent the aspirations of the people of South Sudan freely without hindrance, which is not the case because such funding is given for a purpose. He also warned that
“South Sudanese need to be vigilant and careful of politicians who play double games by inconsistently saying one thing here in South Sudan and, when in other parts of Sudan or the world, say different things.”
The atrocities committed by the Ugandan LRA rebels were also discussed as a failure of the government to keep up to its role of protecting its citizens and their properties. He concluded that nowhere in the world has any government allowed the protection of its international borders to be left in the hands of the local population, as is the case in Western Equatoria State, for instance, where local people are told to defend themselves, given that the areas in question lie along international borders [Uganda, DRC, and CAR].
Notes:
LRA = Lord’s Resistance Army
DRC = The Democratic Republic of the Congo
CAR = Central African Republic
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
National Elections 2010—Advice to South Sudanese Electorate
United South Sudan Party is the party for independence and all South Sudanese who want to vote for independence in 2011 need to vote USSP in the 2010 elections to ensure that they achieve their aim. Because USSP is totally committed to independence, it is the best party to prepare South Sudan for the referendum. ... South Sudan should be very clear in what it does from now on. If a party claims to be for independence, it must be clearly seen in their actions and behaviour which must be open and public. ... Southerners should not vote for politicians just because they are their tribesmen and/or -women. They must assess and evaluate politicians carefully. ... Some Southern politicians have accepted bribes from the enemy and have been heard saying: “You take the money from the enemy and just do what you want to do.” That is a very cheap lie which is an insult to the intelligence of the South Sudanese people. Do not vote for them! Also, do not allow [such] politicians to bribe you for your votes. Politicians who offer bribes to the electorate are the politicians with a wrong agenda. Beware!
You, the South Sudanese people, have the power over politicians through your votes!
Vote USSP for independence!
USSP is clean, untainted and led by a new brand of South Sudanese politicians, capable of handling the intricacies of the 21st century to defend the interests of South Sudan, protect citizens, give opportunities to all South Sudanese regardless of their background, fight tribalism mercilessly and bring true progress to South Sudan, which all will be proud of!
Long Live USSP!
God Bless South Sudan!
Brian Badi
Deputy Leader, USSP
Download entire Elections Advice [PDF] ...
You, the South Sudanese people, have the power over politicians through your votes!
Vote USSP for independence!
USSP is clean, untainted and led by a new brand of South Sudanese politicians, capable of handling the intricacies of the 21st century to defend the interests of South Sudan, protect citizens, give opportunities to all South Sudanese regardless of their background, fight tribalism mercilessly and bring true progress to South Sudan, which all will be proud of!
Long Live USSP!
God Bless South Sudan!
Brian Badi
Deputy Leader, USSP
Download entire Elections Advice [PDF] ...
Friday, 4 September 2009
USSP Condemns Javier Solana’s Imposition of Unity on South Sudan
Sudan Tribune of 3 September 2009, reported European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, as declaring in Cairo, Egypt, on 2 September, 2009, that “… It is very important to have that country united,” referring to Sudan.
United South Sudan Party (USSP) joins Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in condemning, in the strongest possible terms, Mr Solana’s proposal for a one solution (unity) for Sudan, a solution which has been tried many times since the independence of Sudan in 1956 and has failed all along. Does Mr Solana think that South Sudan’s struggle for freedom and independence since the eve of Sudan’s independence in 1956, as a result of which an estimated 3 million people have lost their lives, as something to be reversed just because of his personal and inconsiderate wishes? Mr Solana’s stand shows that, because he lives a comfortable and dignified life under independence and freedom, he does not actually care how those of us in places such as South Sudan suffer from oppression, humiliation, dehumanisation and indignity. Mr Solana, who is a leader in a democratic system, thinks democratic rights are an exclusive prerogative of only certain types of human beings like himself and his friends in Northern Sudan and Egypt. What right does Mr Solana have of undoing what has been done through a great deal of effort by many international bodies and governments and which has culminated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)? Organisations such as IGAD and governments such as the United States of America, United Kingdom, Norway and others that have been genuinely impartial, worked tirelessly to try and find a just solution to the irreconcilable differences between South Sudan and Northern Sudan and that is why we have the CPA today which empowers the oppressed people of South Sudan to exercise their democratic right of free choice. Here, Mr Solana, who is supposed to uphold democracy, is, in fact, trying to deny South Sudan of that very democratic right. What a double standard?
Any peace-loving nations of the world should pay no heed to what Mr Solana is advocating because his suggestion is the surest way to plunge South Sudan into another round of civil war and further loss of human lives. The surest way to sustain the current fragile peace and make it permanent is to support the total and transparent implementation of the CPA and to allow South Sudanese to make their free choice.
Another thing Mr Solana needs to know is that much of the insecurity in South Sudan is actually created by Northern Sudan. Incidents of Khartoum-backed Janjaweed who make incursions into South Sudan to loot, burn villages and kidnap women and children, is well documented. It is common knowledge in South Sudan, and Mr Solana may carry out his own research to establish the facts for himself, that Khartoum has all along supported the Ugandan rebels, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), who are presently causing insecurity and havoc in South Sudan. Khartoum has also been arming militia in South Sudan. Khartoum has time and again used the tactic of ‘divide and rule’ in South Sudan to cause conflict among South Sudanese in order to further its own agenda. This means that, once Khartoum’s influence has been cut off, South Sudan will settle down much more harmoniously than at present. So, the case for the independence of South Sudan is more compelling than any alternative arrangement. However, what is more acceptable is to let the democratic process of allowing the people of South Sudan to choose for themselves what they want, instead of Mr Solana imposing an unpopular solution on them because that approach reminds us of colonialism!
USSP wants to assure concerned individuals, organisations and nations that South Sudan will be a viable nation under a proper leadership. The present poor image which hangs over South Sudan is just because of an unelected poor leadership. Things will be much, much better under a democratically elected competent South Sudanese leadership. Therefore, South Sudan should not be denied its right.
Brian Badi
Deputy Leader
United South Sudan Party
Printable PDF version ...
United South Sudan Party (USSP) joins Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in condemning, in the strongest possible terms, Mr Solana’s proposal for a one solution (unity) for Sudan, a solution which has been tried many times since the independence of Sudan in 1956 and has failed all along. Does Mr Solana think that South Sudan’s struggle for freedom and independence since the eve of Sudan’s independence in 1956, as a result of which an estimated 3 million people have lost their lives, as something to be reversed just because of his personal and inconsiderate wishes? Mr Solana’s stand shows that, because he lives a comfortable and dignified life under independence and freedom, he does not actually care how those of us in places such as South Sudan suffer from oppression, humiliation, dehumanisation and indignity. Mr Solana, who is a leader in a democratic system, thinks democratic rights are an exclusive prerogative of only certain types of human beings like himself and his friends in Northern Sudan and Egypt. What right does Mr Solana have of undoing what has been done through a great deal of effort by many international bodies and governments and which has culminated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)? Organisations such as IGAD and governments such as the United States of America, United Kingdom, Norway and others that have been genuinely impartial, worked tirelessly to try and find a just solution to the irreconcilable differences between South Sudan and Northern Sudan and that is why we have the CPA today which empowers the oppressed people of South Sudan to exercise their democratic right of free choice. Here, Mr Solana, who is supposed to uphold democracy, is, in fact, trying to deny South Sudan of that very democratic right. What a double standard?
Any peace-loving nations of the world should pay no heed to what Mr Solana is advocating because his suggestion is the surest way to plunge South Sudan into another round of civil war and further loss of human lives. The surest way to sustain the current fragile peace and make it permanent is to support the total and transparent implementation of the CPA and to allow South Sudanese to make their free choice.
Another thing Mr Solana needs to know is that much of the insecurity in South Sudan is actually created by Northern Sudan. Incidents of Khartoum-backed Janjaweed who make incursions into South Sudan to loot, burn villages and kidnap women and children, is well documented. It is common knowledge in South Sudan, and Mr Solana may carry out his own research to establish the facts for himself, that Khartoum has all along supported the Ugandan rebels, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), who are presently causing insecurity and havoc in South Sudan. Khartoum has also been arming militia in South Sudan. Khartoum has time and again used the tactic of ‘divide and rule’ in South Sudan to cause conflict among South Sudanese in order to further its own agenda. This means that, once Khartoum’s influence has been cut off, South Sudan will settle down much more harmoniously than at present. So, the case for the independence of South Sudan is more compelling than any alternative arrangement. However, what is more acceptable is to let the democratic process of allowing the people of South Sudan to choose for themselves what they want, instead of Mr Solana imposing an unpopular solution on them because that approach reminds us of colonialism!
USSP wants to assure concerned individuals, organisations and nations that South Sudan will be a viable nation under a proper leadership. The present poor image which hangs over South Sudan is just because of an unelected poor leadership. Things will be much, much better under a democratically elected competent South Sudanese leadership. Therefore, South Sudan should not be denied its right.
Brian Badi
Deputy Leader
United South Sudan Party
Printable PDF version ...
Friday, 28 August 2009
Disunity and Tribalism in South Sudan
Disunity among South Sudanese makes outsiders think that South Sudan cannot stand as a nation and needs to remain in a united Sudan,” argues Brian Badi, USSP Deputy Leader. “I want to reiterate that this conclusion is false. South Sudan is capable of standing as a nation, given the right leadership.”
“The main cause of disunity in South Sudan is tribalism. Tribalism catapults the wrong people to key positions where they mess up things for everybody. Opportunities become restricted to the members of the privileged tribe and their misbehaviour is not checked. That, obviously, causes resentment. Most people and the rest of the tribes begin to feel that the government does not belong to them. To make things worse, the government turns a “blind eye” and does nothing about it. By condoning tribalism, the government is, in fact, encouraging it.”
“The main cause of disunity in South Sudan is tribalism. Tribalism catapults the wrong people to key positions where they mess up things for everybody. Opportunities become restricted to the members of the privileged tribe and their misbehaviour is not checked. That, obviously, causes resentment. Most people and the rest of the tribes begin to feel that the government does not belong to them. To make things worse, the government turns a “blind eye” and does nothing about it. By condoning tribalism, the government is, in fact, encouraging it.”
You may download the entire printable article [PDF] here ...
South Sudan and the Elusive Unity
“Can the badly needed unity among the South
Sudanese be brought about by mere talking?”
Sudanese be brought about by mere talking?”
asks USSP Secretary–General Dr Justin Ramba
South Sudanese have in many cases complained of lack of unity within their ranks. However, not many have questioned why unity, that magic word, remains ever elusive to South Sudanese. Its achievement has remained one of the greatest challenges to South Sudanese. So, would it not be a wise thing to find out why people tend to live in disunity when it should have been better for them the other way round? It is high time we realised that unity does not just come about as mere human wish. It is one of those things that you actually have to work for as opposed to only talking about it and, may be, hoping one morning to wake up and find the people united. Many have so far used it no different to any of the many empty slogans raised by governments who feel immune to opposition-tabled reforms. Centuries have passed since man recognised the central fact that the unity of the people, in fact, simply lies in the confidence and trust they have amongst themselves. If so, it means that to build unity, we actually need first to build confidence and trust among ourselves before we ever expect to be a united people.
Friday, 21 August 2009
Signed “action plan” on CPA significant but not enough
After Wednesday’s signing of an “action plan” by partners aimed at ensuring that key elements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement were fully implemented, BBC’s Network Africa talked with USSP Deputy Leader, Brian Badi, in their London studios, asking him if he thought this action plan was a significant step forward for the CPA.
Mr Badi: “I think it is. It’s a big step because it puts a new impetus into the process. The Sudanese do need some kind of encouragement and I think this encourages them both—the North and the South. And not only that, but from our experience, Khartoum works better under pressure. And if there’s no pressure, they will actually not even implement these things.”
BBC: “So you feel reassured that through the action plan the elements of the CPA will be implemented.”
Mr Badi: “Well, that is not enough, but that is just the beginning. And I think that I would really call upon the international community to keep [up] this pressure. This is step one. Step two is that they must make sure that the people on the ground are able to function, to work well, especially when it comes to the time of elections. They must make sure that there is security for ... the politicians and all the parties that would like to talk freely in elections. Otherwise it’ll just be a farce.”
BBC: “You mention the elections, [and] there’s also the issue of the referendum. Of all the elements in the CPA, are there some that you think won’t be implemented?”
Mr Badi: “Well, the question of the North-South border has not been concluded yet, because we must know where the border of South Sudan is... and then that will help us towards the elections. First of all, you know that the question of census was disputed between the SPLM and the NCP. The South is saying that the eight million [population of South Sudan] is not true, in fact the census were not carried out correctly, so there’s a disagreement over that. Although very recently, the leader of the South Sudan Government was saying well they would maybe accept this. But as far as I’m concerned, if the South is to go [independent], whether there are eight million of us they want to say, or whether there are more than that, all of them saying ... if fifty percent of them say they want their South, they should go.”
BBC: “So a national plan has been signed. What would you like to see now in order to ensure peace in Sudan?”
Mr Badi: “One is security of all the people—of all the people in the South. Just last week one MP, one leader of the NCP in Yambio was assassinated in her own house, a single mum. Now how did that come [about]? It needs to be investigated. And if this is, as most Southerners seem to think that it might be a political assassination, then we wouldn’t want such things to happen during the elections, otherwise the elections will not be fair. And so we would want ... really we are asking the international community, not just the action plan today and they turn their backs and go away, we want them to be standing by, all the time, because otherwise without them things would not go very well.”
Here’s an audio clip from the BBC Network Africa Web site
Mr Badi: “I think it is. It’s a big step because it puts a new impetus into the process. The Sudanese do need some kind of encouragement and I think this encourages them both—the North and the South. And not only that, but from our experience, Khartoum works better under pressure. And if there’s no pressure, they will actually not even implement these things.”
BBC: “So you feel reassured that through the action plan the elements of the CPA will be implemented.”
Mr Badi: “Well, that is not enough, but that is just the beginning. And I think that I would really call upon the international community to keep [up] this pressure. This is step one. Step two is that they must make sure that the people on the ground are able to function, to work well, especially when it comes to the time of elections. They must make sure that there is security for ... the politicians and all the parties that would like to talk freely in elections. Otherwise it’ll just be a farce.”
BBC: “You mention the elections, [and] there’s also the issue of the referendum. Of all the elements in the CPA, are there some that you think won’t be implemented?”
Mr Badi: “Well, the question of the North-South border has not been concluded yet, because we must know where the border of South Sudan is... and then that will help us towards the elections. First of all, you know that the question of census was disputed between the SPLM and the NCP. The South is saying that the eight million [population of South Sudan] is not true, in fact the census were not carried out correctly, so there’s a disagreement over that. Although very recently, the leader of the South Sudan Government was saying well they would maybe accept this. But as far as I’m concerned, if the South is to go [independent], whether there are eight million of us they want to say, or whether there are more than that, all of them saying ... if fifty percent of them say they want their South, they should go.”
BBC: “So a national plan has been signed. What would you like to see now in order to ensure peace in Sudan?”
Mr Badi: “One is security of all the people—of all the people in the South. Just last week one MP, one leader of the NCP in Yambio was assassinated in her own house, a single mum. Now how did that come [about]? It needs to be investigated. And if this is, as most Southerners seem to think that it might be a political assassination, then we wouldn’t want such things to happen during the elections, otherwise the elections will not be fair. And so we would want ... really we are asking the international community, not just the action plan today and they turn their backs and go away, we want them to be standing by, all the time, because otherwise without them things would not go very well.”
Here’s an audio clip from the BBC Network Africa Web site
[© BBC—accessed 2009-08-20]
Security Will Be USSP’s Top Priority
In the wake of insecurity in South Sudan perpetrated by elements such as the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), it is no wonder that “Insecurity has been a major problem in South Sudan since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)”, as USSP Deputy Leader, Brian Badi, writes. “Majority of law abiding citizens and civilians are living in fear. Many people get killed, harassed and intimidated by perpetrators who are never brought to justice. That encourages the atrocities to continue. Many people have had their land seized by force, very often, under gun-point. That is not what South Sudanese had expected to happen in their country after the civil war. They had expected to live in a country that would protect them and enable them to go about their lawful businesses without hindrance, a country that would treat them as equal citizens and offer them equal opportunities. This situation naturally alienates most citizens who feel the government does not belong to them. That is not a good feeling for people, who have a right to be in the country, to have. They feel betrayed, although they may not say anything because they are too scared to speak out. This is obviously a gross failure of the system instituted after the civil war.”
The sources of insecurity in South Sudan are clear and may be divided into five categories:
1. LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) of Uganda
2. Ambororo/Janjaweed—armed Arabs on horseback from the North
3. Armed groups (militia)
4. Individuals possessing illegal weapons and/or firearms
5. Soldiers who take the law into their own hands and use official arms to commit crime because: (a) they do not clearly understand their own national role and obligation to citizens and the civilian population; and (b) they are not paid salaries.
You may Download the entire article here...
The sources of insecurity in South Sudan are clear and may be divided into five categories:
1. LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) of Uganda
2. Ambororo/Janjaweed—armed Arabs on horseback from the North
3. Armed groups (militia)
4. Individuals possessing illegal weapons and/or firearms
5. Soldiers who take the law into their own hands and use official arms to commit crime because: (a) they do not clearly understand their own national role and obligation to citizens and the civilian population; and (b) they are not paid salaries.
You may Download the entire article here...
[Archive] BBC talks to USSP Leader on the LRA attacks
13 Aug 2009 (Yambio)
The notorious Lord’s Resistance Army have repeatedly been attacking areas of Western Equatoria State in South Sudan, bordering the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic, for the past few weeks. BBC Focus on Africa talked to USSP Leader, Clement Mbugoniwia, on the ground in the state capital Yambio, where he said only last week the LRA attacked and burned vehicles carrying medicines. And yesterday they carried out yet another surprise attack at about 5 p.m. in Ezo, a town only a few kilometres from Yambio, where about 200 of them attacked, burned houses and ransacked the Catholic Church where people had taken refuge. Several people are missing, including fifteen children still unaccounted for. Three people have been reported killed, including two civilians and an LRA soldier. Almost all nearby villagers have been displaced to the town.
Asked about the role of the security forces, why they haven’t managed to contain the situation, Mr Mbugoniwia said the LRA, who happen to target mainly civilians, seem to know much of Western Equatoria and use tactics to avoid the security forces, including Ugandan armed forces present in the area. This afternoon all NGOs, both international and local, have been evacuated. Human tragedy is anticipated, including the lack of food and medicines.
Listen to an audio clip [© BBC—accessed 2009-08-14] from the BBC Focus on Africa Web site.
The notorious Lord’s Resistance Army have repeatedly been attacking areas of Western Equatoria State in South Sudan, bordering the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic, for the past few weeks. BBC Focus on Africa talked to USSP Leader, Clement Mbugoniwia, on the ground in the state capital Yambio, where he said only last week the LRA attacked and burned vehicles carrying medicines. And yesterday they carried out yet another surprise attack at about 5 p.m. in Ezo, a town only a few kilometres from Yambio, where about 200 of them attacked, burned houses and ransacked the Catholic Church where people had taken refuge. Several people are missing, including fifteen children still unaccounted for. Three people have been reported killed, including two civilians and an LRA soldier. Almost all nearby villagers have been displaced to the town.
Asked about the role of the security forces, why they haven’t managed to contain the situation, Mr Mbugoniwia said the LRA, who happen to target mainly civilians, seem to know much of Western Equatoria and use tactics to avoid the security forces, including Ugandan armed forces present in the area. This afternoon all NGOs, both international and local, have been evacuated. Human tragedy is anticipated, including the lack of food and medicines.
Listen to an audio clip [© BBC—accessed 2009-08-14] from the BBC Focus on Africa Web site.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
[Archive] Referendum 2011
RReferendum is contingent on fulfilling conditions laid down by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). For example, the demarcation of the North-South border, election of a government in the South and census in the South, to mention, but a few. Everyone knows what happened over the census whose results the SPLM itself has disputed. So, unless those conditions are fulfilled, it will be futile to hope that referendum is going to happen automatically”, writes USSP’s Deputy Leader, Brian Badi.
Read more [pdf] ...
Read more [pdf] ...
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
[Archive] SRS: “USSP Official Criticizes GOSS Security Policy”
5 August 2009 — (London)
The deputy leader of the United South Sudan Party, Brian Badi, is calling on the Government of Southern Sudan to contain insecurity and prepare southern Sudanese for the next elections and the referendum.
Speaking to Sudan Radio Service by phone from London on Wednesday, Badi described the situation as he saw it in southern Sudan.
[Brian Badi]: “As far as security is concerned, I think I would categorize the causes of insecurity in southern Sudan into five categories, A, is the LRA, the Ugandan rebels. B, is the Ambororo, the Janjaweed or people on horseback who come from the north. C, is the armed groups or militias in the south. D, I would say are the individuals possessing illegal arms or weapons, individuals roaming about in southern Sudan with illegal weapon[s] in their hands. E, is the soldiers who take the law into their own hands and use their guns to commit crimes. Because, one, they misunderstand their own national role and their obligation to the citizens and the civil population. Two, because they are not paid salaries and of course if you don’t pay people salaries, you don’t give them their dues, how do you expect them to live and how do [you] expect their families to survive? These make them take the law into their own hands and of course they go about robbing people in the villages, looting and raping etc.”
Badi said the Government of Southern Sudan should start asking itself what it has achieved in the last four years.
[Brian Badi]: “The Government of Southern Sudan has been in power for four years, four years is a long period. It is actually the full length of the government and if a government has not performed in four years then it can ask itself—or the citizens have a right to ask—what have they been doing? They have always been giving lame excuses that South Sudan has just come out of war. The war ended a long, long time ago and they have been in power for four years. That is a long enough period for them to have made substantial improvements.”
That was the deputy leader for the United South Sudan Party, Brian Badi, speaking to Sudan Radio Service in London on Wednesday.
Source:
http://www.sudanradio.org/viewArticle.php?id=2603 [accessed 2009-08-06]
Sudan Radio Service
PO BOX 4392-00100
Nairobi Kenya
Monday, 17 August 2009
[Archive] BBC Interviews USSP Deputy Leader on Violence in Akobo
Date: 04 Aug 2009
In the wake of the latest violence between the Murle and Luo Nuer ethnic groups in the Akobo area of South Sudan where at least 185 lives were lost, and given that Sudan is only months away from general elections and a referendum in 2011, BBC Network Africa asked USSP’s Deputy Leader Brian Badi in their London studios what this instability meant and whether he was surprised by the latest violence.
Mr Badi responded that one of the reasons for the violence was that arms were recklessly left “awash” in the land in the hands of unauthorised people, and uncollected by the authorities. (It’s unfortunate to note that there seem to be indications that these groups carrying illegal arms are apparently being heavily armed by elements within the same system that is supposed to disarm and protect them in the first place!)
The other reason was that some people felt that they were unfairly treated by the injustice inherent in the present “system“—i.e. both the Government of Southern Sudan and the Government of National Unity. Security in the South, in particular, hasn’t been taken seriously by the GOSS. There are groups that keep illegal arms and readily take the law into their own hands by victimising others.
Asked what he believed was the way forward, Mr Badi said what was needed was a very strong and fair government in the South—a government of the people by the people; a caring government that treats all South Sudanese as equals without preference.
Listen to an MP3 audio clip of the USSP portion of the interview.
You may also listen to the entire audio on the BBC’s Web site here [© BBC—accessed 2009-08-04], or BBC Network Africa.
In the wake of the latest violence between the Murle and Luo Nuer ethnic groups in the Akobo area of South Sudan where at least 185 lives were lost, and given that Sudan is only months away from general elections and a referendum in 2011, BBC Network Africa asked USSP’s Deputy Leader Brian Badi in their London studios what this instability meant and whether he was surprised by the latest violence.
Mr Badi responded that one of the reasons for the violence was that arms were recklessly left “awash” in the land in the hands of unauthorised people, and uncollected by the authorities. (It’s unfortunate to note that there seem to be indications that these groups carrying illegal arms are apparently being heavily armed by elements within the same system that is supposed to disarm and protect them in the first place!)
The other reason was that some people felt that they were unfairly treated by the injustice inherent in the present “system“—i.e. both the Government of Southern Sudan and the Government of National Unity. Security in the South, in particular, hasn’t been taken seriously by the GOSS. There are groups that keep illegal arms and readily take the law into their own hands by victimising others.
Asked what he believed was the way forward, Mr Badi said what was needed was a very strong and fair government in the South—a government of the people by the people; a caring government that treats all South Sudanese as equals without preference.
Listen to an MP3 audio clip of the USSP portion of the interview.
You may also listen to the entire audio on the BBC’s Web site here [© BBC—accessed 2009-08-04], or BBC Network Africa.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Darfur: Open response to Sudan's Foreign Ministry spokesperson
We all understand that you are just carrying out your official duty and you are not necessarily the policy maker,” writes Dr Justin Ambago Ramba, USSP Secretary General, addressing the Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Ali Al-Sadiq. [This is in response to the Sudan Government's criticism of the reference made by U.S. President Obama to the Darfur crisis as “genocide” and cited by Sudan Tribune's article of 7 June 2009—accessed by USSP on 08-Jun-2009.] “It is clear that you have to fight for [Sudan's President] Al Bashir as long as he pays you,” Dr Ramba continues, “but for the poor Sudanese masses that are languishing under your totalitarian regime the perception is different.
We are all aware that it was only last month (May 2009) that Sudan was forced to adopt a new criminal law that added war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide into its penal code. This clearly shows that, until then, your Islamic government in Khartoum and its proxy agents were killing with complete impunity first in the South, then the Nuba Mountains and now in Darfur. Amr Moussa [Secretary-General of the League of Arab States] is a friend of the Arabs of Sudan, but still he was quick to realize the dangerous situation posed by your Jihadist laws. You said that the Sudanese laws now criminalize what is taking place in Darfur and that the laws do not need an amendment by including the Rome Statute [of the International Criminal Court] which the Sudanese Government is not a signatory to. The truth is that the amended Sudanese laws can still criminalize what is taking place in Darfur, yet it cannot be applied back-dated to address the crimes for which President Al Bashir, Ahmad Harun [former Minister of State for the Interior] and Ali Kushayb [alleged leader of the Janjaweed militia] are indicted. It is only the Rome Statute which can bring to book the above fugitives for the crimes they committed in Darfur in the period 2003–2004.
Your government is not also happy with the position of COMESA [Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa], which requests the UN Security Council to suspend Al Bashir’s arrest warrant for a year, as you consider it recognition of the ICC. This as well has been the Arab League’s position as declared in [the 2009] Doha [Summit], yet you are not satisfied with both simply because you have guilty conscience. However, you and your arrogant government in Khartoum must understand that the so-called friends of the Sudan—be they in the Arab world, the regional African countries or sympathetic individuals all over the world—will only come to your help using the law and not otherwise. And they can only say and do what is allowed by the UN which recognizes the ICC to which the UN Security Council referred the Darfur issue.”
We are all aware that it was only last month (May 2009) that Sudan was forced to adopt a new criminal law that added war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide into its penal code. This clearly shows that, until then, your Islamic government in Khartoum and its proxy agents were killing with complete impunity first in the South, then the Nuba Mountains and now in Darfur. Amr Moussa [Secretary-General of the League of Arab States] is a friend of the Arabs of Sudan, but still he was quick to realize the dangerous situation posed by your Jihadist laws. You said that the Sudanese laws now criminalize what is taking place in Darfur and that the laws do not need an amendment by including the Rome Statute [of the International Criminal Court] which the Sudanese Government is not a signatory to. The truth is that the amended Sudanese laws can still criminalize what is taking place in Darfur, yet it cannot be applied back-dated to address the crimes for which President Al Bashir, Ahmad Harun [former Minister of State for the Interior] and Ali Kushayb [alleged leader of the Janjaweed militia] are indicted. It is only the Rome Statute which can bring to book the above fugitives for the crimes they committed in Darfur in the period 2003–2004.
Your government is not also happy with the position of COMESA [Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa], which requests the UN Security Council to suspend Al Bashir’s arrest warrant for a year, as you consider it recognition of the ICC. This as well has been the Arab League’s position as declared in [the 2009] Doha [Summit], yet you are not satisfied with both simply because you have guilty conscience. However, you and your arrogant government in Khartoum must understand that the so-called friends of the Sudan—be they in the Arab world, the regional African countries or sympathetic individuals all over the world—will only come to your help using the law and not otherwise. And they can only say and do what is allowed by the UN which recognizes the ICC to which the UN Security Council referred the Darfur issue.”
Monday, 8 June 2009
[Commentary] South Sudan cabinet extends SSLA term
We are actually in a middle of a terrible mess. And it is obvious that the whole CPA is being implemented in a way that is [contrary] to both the spirit and the letter,” comments Dr Justin Ambago Ramba, USSP Secretary General, on Sudan Tribune's website report of 6 June 2009 that “Cabinet extends southern Sudan parliament term” [accessed by USSP on 06-Jun-2009].
“Every article in this truce has been systematically violated by the peace partners. As we can clearly see that the Article 65 of the Southern Sudan Constitution puts it that the elections were supposed to be held not later than the end of the fourth year of the Interim Period, however, the National Electoral Board decided to delay it to February 2010.
Furthermore as we are now left with only 8 months to go, given the huge part of the agreement unfulfilled, the border demarcations, the voters' registration, the freedom laws, and above all the census results, which remains an impeding block, I personally remain quite pessimistic to any elections taking place in coming February.
The governments can comfortably go on extending their terms in office, while we wait for democracy to come from the sky above.
And with the referendum law taken hostage by the ruling Islamists of the NCP, South Sudanese need to put in more efforts both internally and internationally lest 2011 come and go while we still languish under the riverine Arabs.”
“Every article in this truce has been systematically violated by the peace partners. As we can clearly see that the Article 65 of the Southern Sudan Constitution puts it that the elections were supposed to be held not later than the end of the fourth year of the Interim Period, however, the National Electoral Board decided to delay it to February 2010.
Furthermore as we are now left with only 8 months to go, given the huge part of the agreement unfulfilled, the border demarcations, the voters' registration, the freedom laws, and above all the census results, which remains an impeding block, I personally remain quite pessimistic to any elections taking place in coming February.
The governments can comfortably go on extending their terms in office, while we wait for democracy to come from the sky above.
And with the referendum law taken hostage by the ruling Islamists of the NCP, South Sudanese need to put in more efforts both internally and internationally lest 2011 come and go while we still languish under the riverine Arabs.”
[Commentary] UN Special Rapporteur's concerns over Sudan human rights
The UN Human Rights rapporteur has not said anything new that the people of South Sudan aren’t aware of,” writes USSP's Secretary General, Dr Justin Ambago Ramba, in a commentary to the statement issued by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan [Dr Sima Samar] as reported by Sudan Tribune [accessed by USSP on 06-Jun-2009]. “And even the solutions she is suggesting are (all) not different to what Southerners worldwide have been time and time again suggesting to our deaf GoSS,” he continues.
“What the international community do not want to say is that, besides the reported catastrophes, insecurities, sufferings and miseries facing the people in South Sudan, there also exists a poor level of governance. A government that is insensitive to the sufferings of its people. It is a government that is deaf, dump, mute, and blind.
Because by giving advice to such an incompetent government, is just waste of resources as none of the advices will ever be taken seriously.
This is true because all those things suggested by the UN rapporteur have already been suggested to the GoSS by their own citizens, unless of course this time it is coming from a foreigner.
And if this be the case, then the UN should better send us a “mental decolonizer”, rather than a rapporteur, so that we can have trust in ourselves.”
Dr Samar's full statement may be viewed here [accessed by USSP on 08-Jun-2009].
“What the international community do not want to say is that, besides the reported catastrophes, insecurities, sufferings and miseries facing the people in South Sudan, there also exists a poor level of governance. A government that is insensitive to the sufferings of its people. It is a government that is deaf, dump, mute, and blind.
Because by giving advice to such an incompetent government, is just waste of resources as none of the advices will ever be taken seriously.
This is true because all those things suggested by the UN rapporteur have already been suggested to the GoSS by their own citizens, unless of course this time it is coming from a foreigner.
And if this be the case, then the UN should better send us a “mental decolonizer”, rather than a rapporteur, so that we can have trust in ourselves.”
Dr Samar's full statement may be viewed here [accessed by USSP on 08-Jun-2009].
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Open Letter to H.E. Salva Kiir Mayardit on the Malakal, LRA and Land Crises
The alleged wanton attacks on Anakdiar, Abanim, Obang and Atar (Collo areas); the land-grabbing in Ma'di land and Acholi land; and the continued LRA attacks and the brutal killings of civilians in Western Equatoria State
Your Excellency,
Please allow me, first and foremost, to extend on my own behalf and on behalf of my party, United South Sudan Party (USSP), our deep sympathy and condolences to the families of the Collo (Shilluk) who lost their loved ones in Collo land in the hands of certain alleged Dinka elements, following the alleged wanton attacks on the villages of Anakdiar, Abanim, Obang and Atar on 10 January 2009, in which 16 people were reported murdered according to a letter written by some local Members of Parliament, addressed to the Governor of Malakal [Upper Nile State] on 15 January 2009. …
(Download printable PDF version of the full letter …)
Your Excellency,
Please allow me, first and foremost, to extend on my own behalf and on behalf of my party, United South Sudan Party (USSP), our deep sympathy and condolences to the families of the Collo (Shilluk) who lost their loved ones in Collo land in the hands of certain alleged Dinka elements, following the alleged wanton attacks on the villages of Anakdiar, Abanim, Obang and Atar on 10 January 2009, in which 16 people were reported murdered according to a letter written by some local Members of Parliament, addressed to the Governor of Malakal [Upper Nile State] on 15 January 2009. …
(Download printable PDF version of the full letter …)
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
The SPLM's Unclear Vision and the Inability to Manage South Sudan in the Post-War CPA
Who is telling the truth? Is the SPLM a Unionist Party or a Separatist Party?
(Download article [PDF] …)
According to an article published by Sudan Tribune on 15 February 2008 (CAIRO), Sudanese First Vice-President and Chairman of the SPLM, Salva Kiir Mayardit, stated that the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) is a unionist party and all the Sudanese had to work for it. This statement came during a talk show on the Egyptian CHANNEL I television, in which the Sudanese First Vice President said: "… the SPLM's agenda is unity and all of us have to accept and work for unity." This position is in line with the well-known and established vision of the SPLM which has all along called for a "New Sudan" which, in fact, is a united Sudan. On 24 December 2008, however, while addressing a youthful congregation of South Sudanese at the SSLA premises in Juba to mark the fourth Christmas season after the signing the CPA on 9 January 2005, the Speaker of the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA), Honourable James Wani Igga, stated that "… the SPLM is committed to the separation of South Sudan from the North." Now, there is a clear dichotomy in these two statements from the same ruling party. Who are we to believe? One of them must be telling a lie, because the two positions—the unity of Sudan on the one hand and the independence of South Sudan on the other—are not mutually compatible. Can the people of South Sudan allow themselves to be lied to continuously?
While United South Sudan Party (USSP) respects the views of the proponents of "New Sudan", we strongly believe that the perpetuated conflicts between the South and the North have been due to the forced unity between the North and the South. Otherwise why has there been war all these years since 1955 if unity was that good? Furthermore, the problems of South Sudan have been equally misrepresented as only being centred on the issues of power sharing and wealth sharing. The main issue, though, is: What is the national identity of the people of South Sudan? Yes, power sharing and wealth sharing have been major issues in Sudan with certain ministerial portfolios—seen to be of less importance and, thus, less influence—being specifically designated to South Sudanese as a means of window dressing. Such ministries include the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Forestry and Animal Resources and the Ministry of Communications and Roads. According to Khartoum, South Sudanese are not supposed to handle Ministries such as Finance, Education and Defence, not to mention the Office of the President of the Republic.
CPA lacking on national identity
Although USSP considers the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) as an important contribution made towards resolving the problems of Sudan since 1956, it falls short of the key issue of the national identity of the black Africans in Sudan. In this respect, we consider the complete and full implementation of the CPA to be paramount to sustainable peace in Sudan.
With regard to the conflict between the North and South, we are aware that, as long as the South remains in unity with the North, a unity which is never genuine, there will continue to be war and destruction to both natural and human resources. This is because of Khartoum's deliberate policy of systematic attacks on the culture, civilisation, history, language, religion and customs of the African peoples of Sudan, including Darfur. If the SPLM is for unity as stated by its Chairman, then this is the SPLM's constitutional right for which we have full respect. However, telling the people one thing in one location, and another in a different location, undermines the credibility of the SPLM as a consistent organisation and a trustworthy ruling party in the South.
Given the history of the conflicts between the North and the South, USSP is of the opinion that any consideration of unity between the North and South without regard to the option of separation means the perpetuation of a forced unity with the resultant perpetuation of the suffering of the people of South Sudan without peace, shelter or the provision of basic services, which are taken for granted in many other parts of the world. That is why USSP is committed to the vision of an independent sovereign South Sudan rather than a united "New Sudan". An independent South Sudan will resolve the question of identity and help the region and the rest of the world to benefit from the huge unused natural resources that South Sudan is blessed with.
Is the SPLM truly for "sovereign" South?
In the speech of the SSLA Speaker mentioned earlier, he emphasised the commitment of the SPLM to secure a sovereign state of South Sudan. He further said: "… the SPLM/A didn't go to the bush simply to waste time but rather have concrete plans to liberate South Sudanese from years of being discriminated against, and being oppressed and marginalised by successive regimes in Khartoum." It is interesting to hear the third man in the hierarchy of the SPLM Party stating that the SPLM is committed to the independence of South Sudan when his leader is saying the Party is committed to the unity of Sudan. While this statement [in favour of an independent South Sudan] is welcomed by USSP, we would like to point out that the conduct of the SPLM-led Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) does not correspond with the vision of a separate, independent South, but the promotion of the vision of unity under the name of "New Sudan".
During the protracted civil war waged by the SPLM/A against successive Khartoum regimes for more than two decades, in which more than 2.5 million people died and many more were displaced and forced into exile, the late SPLM/A leader Dr John Garang de Mabior maintained that he was fighting for the creation of a "New Sudan" where there would be freedom of religion (i.e. the separation of religion and state), respect for human rights, justice and the equitable distribution of wealth and power sharing. It is this ideal that gave birth to the current CPA in which the problem of South Sudan has been relegated to power sharing and wealth sharing, as Khartoum would like people to believe that South Sudanese have no case other than to aspire for positions and money.
If Hon. Wani Igga's statement here is to be believed, why is it then that some members of his government are abusing their power and thereby depriving the very people he claimed the SPLM was committed to "liberate"? South Sudanese, under GOSS, are being denied basic services such as clean drinking water, food, shelter, roads, medicines, schools, and, equally importantly, the very army, who did the physical fights and sacrificed with their own blood during the war, are being denied their rights and entitlements.
It is widely reported that some senior government officials from GOSS are constantly diverting public funds into their own pockets, employing their own relatives and friends in government posts that such employees cannot handle. And some of the officials also grab land belonging to private citizens, thereby causing conflict and insecurity. Senior government ministries are dominated by a particular ethnic group, and yet Hon. Wani Igga talks of liberating the "marginalised people". What kind of liberation from marginalisation is this? Is this the sort of country we aspire to create? Now, the SPLM and GOSS are clearly marginalising the South Sudanese people all the more!
USSP would like to ask: Does liberation from the Arabs mean that some South Sudanese are now entitled to seize land belonging to others, use public funds for their own private use instead of using such funds for the public good? What about employing their own relatives and friends? These practices, in our view, are certainly against the CPA and a clear breach of the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan. It is a unionist agenda that sends out a message that South Sudan is not ready to manage itself effectively and will, consequently, not survive. Is this not the true spoiler of peace and the aspiration of the people of South Sudan for their sovereign land? Mismanagement by GOSS is, undoubtedly, the spoiler of peace. So, Hon. Wani Igga need not go any further to identify who the true enemy of the South Sudanese people is!
"Stamping of buttocks" …
According to Sudan Tribune, "… the head of 'Juba Parliament' [the SSLA] noted that the CPA has a lot of enemies including [South Sudanese] who are out to destroy the CPA at any cost while some [are] letting their buttocks be stamped simply to betray the aspiration of the people of South Sudan". He cautioned that "the SPLM will never allow spoilers to carry out their sinister [motives] by purporting to be supporters of [the] SPLM/A during the forthcoming national elections scheduled for next year." He went on to say that ". there are many individuals, including some Southern political parties, who have failed to understand [the] role of [the] SPLM towards next year's national elections and also the forthcoming 2011 referendum, [by] alleging that [the] SPLM is neither for separation nor unity." He underlined that the SPLM/A that fought for 21 years will never surrender at the last minute by not establishing a "sovereign state" [in South Sudan] come the 2011 referendum.
Indeed there may be some South Sudanese who may have let their buttocks be stamped as a sell out in order to gain government positions and money. Such are the kinds of people who send out the wrong message that plays to justify the perceived view held by Khartoum that South Sudanese have no case but need positions and money. This consequently betrays the cause of the South Sudanese people; USSP condemns this kind of practice as it undermines the aspiration of the people of South Sudan for their own sovereign state. The people of South Sudan are yet to receive the dividends of peace which are currently being squandered by few people in Juba. One would have expected the South Sudanese Parliament to hold those responsible to account, but where is the accountability that the SSLA is supposed to provide so that justice may prevail? At the moment, it seems the dividends of peace are only for few individuals, something which happens to contradict Hon. Wani Igga's statements.
Hon. Wani Igga's statement that some South Sudanese political parties do not know what the role of SPLM is in the forthcoming elections and referendum seems to be in place, since there is no single, consistent and unequivocal position for the SPLM Party. At one time, it stands for the unity of Sudan, while at another it advocates for the independence of South Sudan. These changing positions are not only confusing to some South Sudanese political parties but more so to the entire people of South Sudan.
It goes without saying that the SPLM is a partner in the CPA, and its role, and that of all the Agreement's stakeholders, is to ensure its complete implementation. However, talking about spoilers of the CPA, Hon. Wani Igga need not go any further than to assess the last four years' performance of GOSS headed by the SPLM as the ruling party. If corruption is uprooted by GOSS and those implicated punished according to law; if the rule of law is allowed to govern and that nepotism, favouritism, tribalism and the abuses of power are dealt with severely and justly; if land grabbing is stopped and those involved are punished; then the question of others being the spoilers may be justified.
USSP would like to assert that South Sudanese are very capable of governing themselves, but the right people need to be in the right places. Only then can genuine peace, freedom, development and prosperity be achieved for every South Sudanese. Our message to Hon. Wani Igga—and the SPLM and GOSS—is that the institution of good governance needs to be strengthened and that Parliament, and especially the Speaker, must needs be impartial so as to be able to put national interests first and, hence, be able to defend the aspirations of the South Sudanese people. The role of the Speaker is not to take sides but to ensure that there is a balanced approach in the House in order to ensure fair and healthy debates and fair conclusions.
Clement Mbugoniwia
Leader, United South Sudan Party
(Download article [PDF] …)
According to an article published by Sudan Tribune on 15 February 2008 (CAIRO), Sudanese First Vice-President and Chairman of the SPLM, Salva Kiir Mayardit, stated that the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) is a unionist party and all the Sudanese had to work for it. This statement came during a talk show on the Egyptian CHANNEL I television, in which the Sudanese First Vice President said: "… the SPLM's agenda is unity and all of us have to accept and work for unity." This position is in line with the well-known and established vision of the SPLM which has all along called for a "New Sudan" which, in fact, is a united Sudan. On 24 December 2008, however, while addressing a youthful congregation of South Sudanese at the SSLA premises in Juba to mark the fourth Christmas season after the signing the CPA on 9 January 2005, the Speaker of the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA), Honourable James Wani Igga, stated that "… the SPLM is committed to the separation of South Sudan from the North." Now, there is a clear dichotomy in these two statements from the same ruling party. Who are we to believe? One of them must be telling a lie, because the two positions—the unity of Sudan on the one hand and the independence of South Sudan on the other—are not mutually compatible. Can the people of South Sudan allow themselves to be lied to continuously?
While United South Sudan Party (USSP) respects the views of the proponents of "New Sudan", we strongly believe that the perpetuated conflicts between the South and the North have been due to the forced unity between the North and the South. Otherwise why has there been war all these years since 1955 if unity was that good? Furthermore, the problems of South Sudan have been equally misrepresented as only being centred on the issues of power sharing and wealth sharing. The main issue, though, is: What is the national identity of the people of South Sudan? Yes, power sharing and wealth sharing have been major issues in Sudan with certain ministerial portfolios—seen to be of less importance and, thus, less influence—being specifically designated to South Sudanese as a means of window dressing. Such ministries include the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Forestry and Animal Resources and the Ministry of Communications and Roads. According to Khartoum, South Sudanese are not supposed to handle Ministries such as Finance, Education and Defence, not to mention the Office of the President of the Republic.
CPA lacking on national identity
Although USSP considers the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) as an important contribution made towards resolving the problems of Sudan since 1956, it falls short of the key issue of the national identity of the black Africans in Sudan. In this respect, we consider the complete and full implementation of the CPA to be paramount to sustainable peace in Sudan.
With regard to the conflict between the North and South, we are aware that, as long as the South remains in unity with the North, a unity which is never genuine, there will continue to be war and destruction to both natural and human resources. This is because of Khartoum's deliberate policy of systematic attacks on the culture, civilisation, history, language, religion and customs of the African peoples of Sudan, including Darfur. If the SPLM is for unity as stated by its Chairman, then this is the SPLM's constitutional right for which we have full respect. However, telling the people one thing in one location, and another in a different location, undermines the credibility of the SPLM as a consistent organisation and a trustworthy ruling party in the South.
Given the history of the conflicts between the North and the South, USSP is of the opinion that any consideration of unity between the North and South without regard to the option of separation means the perpetuation of a forced unity with the resultant perpetuation of the suffering of the people of South Sudan without peace, shelter or the provision of basic services, which are taken for granted in many other parts of the world. That is why USSP is committed to the vision of an independent sovereign South Sudan rather than a united "New Sudan". An independent South Sudan will resolve the question of identity and help the region and the rest of the world to benefit from the huge unused natural resources that South Sudan is blessed with.
Is the SPLM truly for "sovereign" South?
In the speech of the SSLA Speaker mentioned earlier, he emphasised the commitment of the SPLM to secure a sovereign state of South Sudan. He further said: "… the SPLM/A didn't go to the bush simply to waste time but rather have concrete plans to liberate South Sudanese from years of being discriminated against, and being oppressed and marginalised by successive regimes in Khartoum." It is interesting to hear the third man in the hierarchy of the SPLM Party stating that the SPLM is committed to the independence of South Sudan when his leader is saying the Party is committed to the unity of Sudan. While this statement [in favour of an independent South Sudan] is welcomed by USSP, we would like to point out that the conduct of the SPLM-led Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) does not correspond with the vision of a separate, independent South, but the promotion of the vision of unity under the name of "New Sudan".
During the protracted civil war waged by the SPLM/A against successive Khartoum regimes for more than two decades, in which more than 2.5 million people died and many more were displaced and forced into exile, the late SPLM/A leader Dr John Garang de Mabior maintained that he was fighting for the creation of a "New Sudan" where there would be freedom of religion (i.e. the separation of religion and state), respect for human rights, justice and the equitable distribution of wealth and power sharing. It is this ideal that gave birth to the current CPA in which the problem of South Sudan has been relegated to power sharing and wealth sharing, as Khartoum would like people to believe that South Sudanese have no case other than to aspire for positions and money.
If Hon. Wani Igga's statement here is to be believed, why is it then that some members of his government are abusing their power and thereby depriving the very people he claimed the SPLM was committed to "liberate"? South Sudanese, under GOSS, are being denied basic services such as clean drinking water, food, shelter, roads, medicines, schools, and, equally importantly, the very army, who did the physical fights and sacrificed with their own blood during the war, are being denied their rights and entitlements.
It is widely reported that some senior government officials from GOSS are constantly diverting public funds into their own pockets, employing their own relatives and friends in government posts that such employees cannot handle. And some of the officials also grab land belonging to private citizens, thereby causing conflict and insecurity. Senior government ministries are dominated by a particular ethnic group, and yet Hon. Wani Igga talks of liberating the "marginalised people". What kind of liberation from marginalisation is this? Is this the sort of country we aspire to create? Now, the SPLM and GOSS are clearly marginalising the South Sudanese people all the more!
USSP would like to ask: Does liberation from the Arabs mean that some South Sudanese are now entitled to seize land belonging to others, use public funds for their own private use instead of using such funds for the public good? What about employing their own relatives and friends? These practices, in our view, are certainly against the CPA and a clear breach of the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan. It is a unionist agenda that sends out a message that South Sudan is not ready to manage itself effectively and will, consequently, not survive. Is this not the true spoiler of peace and the aspiration of the people of South Sudan for their sovereign land? Mismanagement by GOSS is, undoubtedly, the spoiler of peace. So, Hon. Wani Igga need not go any further to identify who the true enemy of the South Sudanese people is!
"Stamping of buttocks" …
According to Sudan Tribune, "… the head of 'Juba Parliament' [the SSLA] noted that the CPA has a lot of enemies including [South Sudanese] who are out to destroy the CPA at any cost while some [are] letting their buttocks be stamped simply to betray the aspiration of the people of South Sudan". He cautioned that "the SPLM will never allow spoilers to carry out their sinister [motives] by purporting to be supporters of [the] SPLM/A during the forthcoming national elections scheduled for next year." He went on to say that ". there are many individuals, including some Southern political parties, who have failed to understand [the] role of [the] SPLM towards next year's national elections and also the forthcoming 2011 referendum, [by] alleging that [the] SPLM is neither for separation nor unity." He underlined that the SPLM/A that fought for 21 years will never surrender at the last minute by not establishing a "sovereign state" [in South Sudan] come the 2011 referendum.
Indeed there may be some South Sudanese who may have let their buttocks be stamped as a sell out in order to gain government positions and money. Such are the kinds of people who send out the wrong message that plays to justify the perceived view held by Khartoum that South Sudanese have no case but need positions and money. This consequently betrays the cause of the South Sudanese people; USSP condemns this kind of practice as it undermines the aspiration of the people of South Sudan for their own sovereign state. The people of South Sudan are yet to receive the dividends of peace which are currently being squandered by few people in Juba. One would have expected the South Sudanese Parliament to hold those responsible to account, but where is the accountability that the SSLA is supposed to provide so that justice may prevail? At the moment, it seems the dividends of peace are only for few individuals, something which happens to contradict Hon. Wani Igga's statements.
Hon. Wani Igga's statement that some South Sudanese political parties do not know what the role of SPLM is in the forthcoming elections and referendum seems to be in place, since there is no single, consistent and unequivocal position for the SPLM Party. At one time, it stands for the unity of Sudan, while at another it advocates for the independence of South Sudan. These changing positions are not only confusing to some South Sudanese political parties but more so to the entire people of South Sudan.
It goes without saying that the SPLM is a partner in the CPA, and its role, and that of all the Agreement's stakeholders, is to ensure its complete implementation. However, talking about spoilers of the CPA, Hon. Wani Igga need not go any further than to assess the last four years' performance of GOSS headed by the SPLM as the ruling party. If corruption is uprooted by GOSS and those implicated punished according to law; if the rule of law is allowed to govern and that nepotism, favouritism, tribalism and the abuses of power are dealt with severely and justly; if land grabbing is stopped and those involved are punished; then the question of others being the spoilers may be justified.
USSP would like to assert that South Sudanese are very capable of governing themselves, but the right people need to be in the right places. Only then can genuine peace, freedom, development and prosperity be achieved for every South Sudanese. Our message to Hon. Wani Igga—and the SPLM and GOSS—is that the institution of good governance needs to be strengthened and that Parliament, and especially the Speaker, must needs be impartial so as to be able to put national interests first and, hence, be able to defend the aspirations of the South Sudanese people. The role of the Speaker is not to take sides but to ensure that there is a balanced approach in the House in order to ensure fair and healthy debates and fair conclusions.
Clement Mbugoniwia
Leader, United South Sudan Party
Monday, 5 January 2009
Corruption, Embezzlement and Land Dispute in South Sudan
Some South Sudanese leaders see nothing wrong with these. “What hope is there for South Sudan?” USSP poses a question.
(Download PDF version . . .)
Fellow South Sudanese,
It is common knowledge that the rate of corruption and embezzlement in South Sudan is unmatched anywhere in the world. It is even worse when leaders who are supposed to stamp this evil out do not themselves see anything wrong with it! When addressing a group of South Sudanese in London on Tuesday, 30 December 2008, a well-placed SPLM leader said: “What is wrong if someone takes [from public funds] £50,000 [GBP]? What is £50,000? …,” the SPLM official asked, meaning that £50,000 is little money and does not deserve being asked about. Does anyone expect such leaders to fight corruption? Certainly not! We need a different type of leadership that considers corruption to be a big problem and has the determination and courage to stamp it out. Otherwise, there is no hope for South Sudan. Only recently, the Ministry of Regional Co-operation of the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) released a statement in an attempt to refute an earlier allegation appearing on the Internet from a purported “news outlet” called IRS [received by Sudan Tribune, et al.]. It had been alleged by IRS that Stephen Madut Baak, identified as an “advisor” to GOSS President Salva Kiir Mayardit, had been detained at London’s Heathrow Airport in the possession of 3 million in undeclared U.S. dollar cash notes. According to the GOSS Ministry, Mr Baak was instead carrying 137,000 and 200,000 in U.S. dollar notes and UK pound sterling notes respectively. The Ministry stated that the GBP 200,000 was a loan to him from GOSS and the USD 137,000 was given to him by the same GOSS for setting up a diplomatic office in London. How can a government grant such a huge amount of money to an individual as a loan? What is the guarantee that this individual will pay the money back? Secondly, how can money for setting up a diplomatic office be carried physically in cash and not transferred officially through the bank? Is this not money laundering? If the money was for a genuine national service, it should have been transferred through the right and legal way, not taken in a stealth manner.
It must be made clear to irresponsible leaders that there are many intolerable things that corruption and embezzlement of public funds do to undermine the development of South Sudan. In the first place, they remove all confidence in South Sudan as a well-functioning nation. Therefore, it discourages donors from donating funds to South Sudan. What do such leaders think is the basic reason for the money pledged in Oslo in 2005 by international donors not being released to South Sudan? No donor will ever give money to anybody if they are sure that such money is likely to be diverted from the projects they are earmarked for and into individual pockets of greedy leaders. That is a fact and is undeniable. So, all those officials who are busy stealing public funds from South Sudan’s coffers are actually the ones depriving South Sudan of goodwill and delaying the development of South Sudan and, hence, perpetuating the suffering of the people of South Sudan. How can such leaders then pose as the liberators of the people? Who are they deceiving? The people of South Sudan are more intelligent than these leaders may think.
Secondly, corruption and embezzlement of public funds makes anyone conclude that South Sudanese are not capable of ruling themselves. That plays directly into the hands of those opposed to the independence of South Sudan. So, by engaging in corruption and embezzlement, these leaders who do not see anything wrong with these evils are actually the ones against the independence of South Sudan, whatever they might say on the surface for public consumption. The people of South Sudan need to be aware of that. Honourable leaders do not lie to their people. They tell the truth, however bitter that truth may be. Otherwise, the people will not trust them. And, for those leaders who are aware of the lies being fed to the people of South Sudan, but who choose to protect their jobs by turning a blind eye and say nothing to protect the interests of the people, they are in effect acquiescing with the embezzlers and saboteurs of South Sudan’s independence. They, too, cannot be considered genuine.
Corruption by government officials, seizing land by force and the resultant community conflicts are doing innumerable disservice to South Sudan. This is directly responsible for discouraging foreign investment from coming to South Sudan, except, perhaps, Chinese investment, which can locate anywhere in trouble spots. However, Chinese private investment may not be immune to the possibility of loss due to insecurity. Foreign investment requires a safe environment in which to operate freely. The necessary conducive environment can only be created by a government of vision that is genuinely interested in the progress of the nation as a whole, not just the well being of a few privileged individuals who are members of a particular “club”.
As for land dispute, one wonders why land dispute is rampant after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) when it was not the case after the signing of the Addis Ababa Peace Accord in 1972. We are all aware that the CPA period is not the first time South Sudan has emerged after a bitter civil war. The first was when peace was signed to end the Anyanya I civil war in 1972. During that war, South Sudanese were also displaced both internally and externally in foreign countries. Yet, when the displaced people returned to South Sudan, everyone returned straight to their ancestral villages and things normalised naturally with little effort. This time, after the signing of the CPA, some displaced communities, having acquired power through the state machinery, are using their privileged position to oppress other less advantaged communities and settle permanently on their land. That is the problem. The only solution to this is a strong and fair government that will encourage every community to return to their original villages and the land dispute and tribal conflicts will naturally fade away, and effort can then be directed to development. Any action short of this suggestion will not end the land dispute currently being experienced throughout South Sudan, and is likely to culminate in serious tribal conflicts, further jeopardising peace and discouraging foreign investment.
Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba
Secretary General,
United South Sudan Party
(Download PDF version . . .)
Fellow South Sudanese,
It is common knowledge that the rate of corruption and embezzlement in South Sudan is unmatched anywhere in the world. It is even worse when leaders who are supposed to stamp this evil out do not themselves see anything wrong with it! When addressing a group of South Sudanese in London on Tuesday, 30 December 2008, a well-placed SPLM leader said: “What is wrong if someone takes [from public funds] £50,000 [GBP]? What is £50,000? …,” the SPLM official asked, meaning that £50,000 is little money and does not deserve being asked about. Does anyone expect such leaders to fight corruption? Certainly not! We need a different type of leadership that considers corruption to be a big problem and has the determination and courage to stamp it out. Otherwise, there is no hope for South Sudan. Only recently, the Ministry of Regional Co-operation of the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) released a statement in an attempt to refute an earlier allegation appearing on the Internet from a purported “news outlet” called IRS [received by Sudan Tribune, et al.]. It had been alleged by IRS that Stephen Madut Baak, identified as an “advisor” to GOSS President Salva Kiir Mayardit, had been detained at London’s Heathrow Airport in the possession of 3 million in undeclared U.S. dollar cash notes. According to the GOSS Ministry, Mr Baak was instead carrying 137,000 and 200,000 in U.S. dollar notes and UK pound sterling notes respectively. The Ministry stated that the GBP 200,000 was a loan to him from GOSS and the USD 137,000 was given to him by the same GOSS for setting up a diplomatic office in London. How can a government grant such a huge amount of money to an individual as a loan? What is the guarantee that this individual will pay the money back? Secondly, how can money for setting up a diplomatic office be carried physically in cash and not transferred officially through the bank? Is this not money laundering? If the money was for a genuine national service, it should have been transferred through the right and legal way, not taken in a stealth manner.
It must be made clear to irresponsible leaders that there are many intolerable things that corruption and embezzlement of public funds do to undermine the development of South Sudan. In the first place, they remove all confidence in South Sudan as a well-functioning nation. Therefore, it discourages donors from donating funds to South Sudan. What do such leaders think is the basic reason for the money pledged in Oslo in 2005 by international donors not being released to South Sudan? No donor will ever give money to anybody if they are sure that such money is likely to be diverted from the projects they are earmarked for and into individual pockets of greedy leaders. That is a fact and is undeniable. So, all those officials who are busy stealing public funds from South Sudan’s coffers are actually the ones depriving South Sudan of goodwill and delaying the development of South Sudan and, hence, perpetuating the suffering of the people of South Sudan. How can such leaders then pose as the liberators of the people? Who are they deceiving? The people of South Sudan are more intelligent than these leaders may think.
Secondly, corruption and embezzlement of public funds makes anyone conclude that South Sudanese are not capable of ruling themselves. That plays directly into the hands of those opposed to the independence of South Sudan. So, by engaging in corruption and embezzlement, these leaders who do not see anything wrong with these evils are actually the ones against the independence of South Sudan, whatever they might say on the surface for public consumption. The people of South Sudan need to be aware of that. Honourable leaders do not lie to their people. They tell the truth, however bitter that truth may be. Otherwise, the people will not trust them. And, for those leaders who are aware of the lies being fed to the people of South Sudan, but who choose to protect their jobs by turning a blind eye and say nothing to protect the interests of the people, they are in effect acquiescing with the embezzlers and saboteurs of South Sudan’s independence. They, too, cannot be considered genuine.
Corruption by government officials, seizing land by force and the resultant community conflicts are doing innumerable disservice to South Sudan. This is directly responsible for discouraging foreign investment from coming to South Sudan, except, perhaps, Chinese investment, which can locate anywhere in trouble spots. However, Chinese private investment may not be immune to the possibility of loss due to insecurity. Foreign investment requires a safe environment in which to operate freely. The necessary conducive environment can only be created by a government of vision that is genuinely interested in the progress of the nation as a whole, not just the well being of a few privileged individuals who are members of a particular “club”.
As for land dispute, one wonders why land dispute is rampant after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) when it was not the case after the signing of the Addis Ababa Peace Accord in 1972. We are all aware that the CPA period is not the first time South Sudan has emerged after a bitter civil war. The first was when peace was signed to end the Anyanya I civil war in 1972. During that war, South Sudanese were also displaced both internally and externally in foreign countries. Yet, when the displaced people returned to South Sudan, everyone returned straight to their ancestral villages and things normalised naturally with little effort. This time, after the signing of the CPA, some displaced communities, having acquired power through the state machinery, are using their privileged position to oppress other less advantaged communities and settle permanently on their land. That is the problem. The only solution to this is a strong and fair government that will encourage every community to return to their original villages and the land dispute and tribal conflicts will naturally fade away, and effort can then be directed to development. Any action short of this suggestion will not end the land dispute currently being experienced throughout South Sudan, and is likely to culminate in serious tribal conflicts, further jeopardising peace and discouraging foreign investment.
Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba
Secretary General,
United South Sudan Party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)