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