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

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