[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.

[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] ...

[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

[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.

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.”

[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.”

[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].

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 …)

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

USSP Leader’s Christmas and New Year Message to the South Sudanese People

23 December 2008

Fellow South Sudanese,

On behalf of United South Sudan Party (USSP), it gives me pleasure to wish you a very Happy Christmas and a prosperous and peaceful New Year. This is the fourth Christmas of peace time after almost 22 years of brutal direct and indirect violence—violence that has claimed more than 2.5 million lives of our fellow citizens. These fallen brothers and sisters died in the name of the struggle for freedom, justice and opportunity for all.

Yet, four years into the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), most of our people have still not experienced peace or its dividend. Violence has continued to rule in some areas due to the availability of lawless armed groups that operate . . . (download PDF for more . . .)

BBC Interview 26-Nov-2008: USSP Leader Highlights Major Obstacles to Elections

BBC’s Network Africa held an interview with USSP’s Leader Clement Mbugoniwia in their London studios which was aired Wednesday morning, 26 November 2008. The demarcation of the North-South border and the release of census results featured as key elements for the success of the proposed elections in 2009. Asked if he was optimistic if elections would still take place, Mr Mbugoniwia highlighted a number of key issues to consider before the elections:

• Census. There's no specific population number for South Sudan. Khartoum claims that the South has 3 million people, whereas before the war the South’s population was 8 million. Malthus's Theory of Population even posits that any population happens to almost double every couple of decades or so, suggesting that South Sudan’s population should by now be ca. 16 million, even despite the ravages of war, given that human reproduction does not cease. The sheer inaccessibility of most areas of the South, coupled with the lack of facilities and logistics, has led to about 70% of the population not being counted.
• Insecurity is another major obstacle to conducting the elections. There is so much arms in the hands of lawless bandits such as the LRA and the Janjaweed, who masquerade in the guise of the so-called "Ambororo" frequently terrorising citizens, especially women and children, in areas such as Western Equatoria State.
• There are delays with regard to the formation of the Electoral Commission and the enactment of the Electoral Laws.
• Much of the South is inaccessible due to lack of proper roads. Mr Mbugoniwia cited an example where he spent five days to cover a distance of only 59 miles in Tambura County in Western Equatoria State.
  
  
  (Photo: Mr Mbugoniwia in blue t-shirt with shovel)

Listen to a clip of the interview 26-Nov-2008... © BBC Network Africa.

Download USSP Leader's speech...

19 November 2008

Speech by USSP Leader, Clement Juma Mbugoniwia
at a Political Rally in Malakal, the State Capital of Upper Nile State, During an Official Visit to the State

Greetings and thank you all for your time and warm reception!

By way of introduction, my name is Clement Juma Mbugoniwia. I hail from Tambura County in Western Equatoria State. Like many South Sudanese, I am one of the victims of the last twenty two years of civil war that has claimed the lives of more than 3 million fellow citizens in South Sudan. As a result of the war, I took refuge in exile where I have continued with other fellow South Sudanese to play our part in the liberation struggle for the freedom of our nation. I am a lawyer by profession.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank every one of you here for having come to participate in this political rally on the eve of my first visit to Malakal. It is a pleasure for me to be here with you this evening. I am aware of the fact that the people of Greater Malakal are politically conscious. They rejected and resisted the invasion of foreign aggression more than a century ago in the form of the Nuer uprising for freedom, the Shilluk resistance and the role of the Mac which is equally acknowledged. Therefore, I am not here to propose anything new but to assert the importance and necessity of continuing with the struggle for an independent sovereign state as the only viable alternative to sustainable peace, prosperity and the maintenance of our national identity as a people. I am here to confirm that freedom requires sacrifice. The sacrifice that is demanded of us all is not greater or less than the sacrifice that millions of our fellow brothers and sisters have made throughout generations, sometimes with their own blood, land and resources, and I thank each one of those men and women for that.

United South Sudan Party was formed in 2005 out of the need to work for the vision of an independent South Sudan — a South Sudan that is based on true democratic principles, the rule of law and respect for human rights and civil liberties; a South Sudan where tribalism, nepotism and favouritism have no place; a South Sudan that provides opportunities for all regardless of their background; a South Sudan that does not tolerate corruption and the abuse of power; a South Sudan that is inclusive of its diversity; and a South Sudan where discrimination on the basis of tribe is made a criminal offence punishable by law.

As a party, we in USSP believe that the aspiration of the people of South Sudan for an independent homeland comes first before any other vision or policy. The fact that Sudan has been at war with itself for several decades justifies that Sudan has never been one nor will it afford to be one at any given time. Even the British who ruled Sudan before the 1956 independence acknowledged that South Sudan was a different nation and, thus, they introduced what was then known as the ‘Closed District Act’ to administer the South separately. Historically, the Sudan was not an Arab country, as claimed by the minority Arab rulers in Khartoum, but a land of the blacks who inhabited the Sudan. The fact that Sudan has now become referred to as an Arab country without the consent of the majority black Africans justifies the reasons for the protracted wars and the destruction. Now, whether we like it or not, we are technically Arabs as Sudan is officially an Arab country. Unless the South accepts the status quo as third class citizens, war will continue to haunt the people of South Sudan. It is a war that is imposed on the South because of its identity and land. In other words, the North is committed to its policy of Arabisation and Islamisation of Africa, and South Sudan is a gateway. It is for this reason that Khartoum has never honoured any agreement that seems to give the South some recognition as an entity, nor will it respect the CPA which even calls for making unity attractive.

Brothers and sisters, we have been at war even before the creation of “Sudanisation” and have wasted many lives. So, why do we insist on something that does not work and has caused us millions of lives and suffering? How long do we want to suffer? USSP believes that there is an opportunity to get out of the bondage of domination, and so I urge the people of Malakal to support the vision of an independent South Sudan as the only viable option for permanent peace. South Sudan cannot afford another civil war. So, I argue that if there is another war imposed on the South from Khartoum, let it be a war between two nation states.

We have no doubt that the CPA is an important contribution made since 1956 in an attempt to solve the problems facing Sudan to help build what is called the “New Sudan”, a New Sudan that is indeed a united Sudan. The question is why is Khartoum not implementing some key provisions of the CPA?
As you already know, the CPA represents a vision of self-determination which in itself is neither separation nor unity, but what is clear is that the CPA presents a vision of continued unity and, thus, it places emphasis on making unity attractive. It does not resolve the crucial issue of identity and so, technically, we are all Arabs. To me our main problem is not power sharing or wealth sharing. The main problem is our national identity that is being assimilated and the gradual occupation of our land. Power sharing and wealth sharing is secondary and so we must not misrepresent our case. We are not fighting just for power sharing and wealth but we are fighting to maintain our very existence as a nation. That is why USSP stands for the total independence of South Sudan. The delays in the demarcation of borders, the issue of census and the important question of ethnicity and religion were deliberately omitted to justify the claim that Sudan is an Arab country. If South Sudan chooses to ignore the history of how Sudan has become an Arab country, then the South has reason to be surprised as to why all the successive peace agreements between the South and the North have been abrogated and that the CPA may also follow suit.

The CPA creates institutions to accommodate more South Sudanese. As far as the northern elites are concerned, the problem of South Sudan is relegated to power and money. Do we really need all those huge institutions with so many constitutional post holders? No wonder the annual budget of South Sudan consumes 80% for wages and salaries. How many constitutional post holders do we need at this early stage? We are spending too much money to pay for wages and for people who are not doing the jobs that they are being paid to do. It is not only the question of over-employment of unclassified staff but we need to reconsider the number of constitutional post holders we have in South Sudan under the CPA. How much does it cost the average South Sudanese?

USSP believes that a small but efficient government is what is needed at this time so that government is able to save more money for frontline basic services such as health, schools, roads and bridges, clean drinking water, sanitation, food security, security of the person, etc. The Government of Southern Sudan must develop measures that ensure good governance, transparency and accountability so that the little money we get is spent for the public good. These are priorities USSP would like to see being taken care of by our GOSS.

There are also other important issues such as census, demarcation of borders and preparations for the forthcoming elections. Security is a major threat as we have foreign fighters operating in our territories with impunity. The government has full responsibility for the predatory attacks on our people and therefore the security of people living under its control must be taken seriously. We urge the full implementation of the CPA in order to sustain peace and stability before the elections. Brothers and sisters, we all have a duty towards our country to ensure that we get what we want in the forthcoming elections and the referendum in 2011.

Thank you very much for listening.


Clement Juma Mbugoniwia
Leader, United South Sudan Party

USSP Position on the South-South Dialogue Held in Juba 8—13 November 2008

Download position paper...

24 November 2008

The formation of the so-called “Leadership Forum” in South Sudan is a death warrant to the opposition parties.

The South-South Dialogue between the SPLM and the Alliance of Southern Sudanese Political Parties was held in November in Juba, the capital of the semi-autonomous South Sudan, where many problems were highlighted and proposed solutions put forward by the participants. While some of the resolutions of the Dialogue may be acceptable, it must be stressed that not all the resolutions can be swallowed without questioning their bitter taste—not least the resolution to form the so-called “Leadership Forum”, to be chaired by SPLM with the membership of all the other South Sudanese political parties.

USSP believe that any inter-party co-operation should not be at the expense of maintaining a strong opposition for the sake of fostering and exercising democracy in the South's new-born government. There is no doubt that it is healthy for all the political parties operating in South Sudan to come together from time to time—as an entity—to discuss major challenges to the national interests of South Sudan, and, indeed, more South-South dialogues are needed to consolidate a common stand on common issues. Given the importance of South Sudanese political formations coming together to discuss matters of common concern, it is important to note that future South-South dialogues should not be confined to political parties alone but should also include other stakeholders such as chiefs, religious leaders and those directly or indirectly affected by the acts of war in South Sudan. This will help to solidify the unity of the South Sudanese people towards common goals. With the latest political developments which have resulted from the South-South Dialogue, we are all left in a lot of political concern as all the South Sudanese political parties are now opting to join the SPLM directly or indirectly by joining the SPLM-led Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS), mostly for personal and financial gains, thus compromising their supposed opposition role.

The idea of a “Leadership Forum” consisting of all South Sudanese political parties aimed to follow up the resolutions of the South-South Dialogue is not in itself a bad idea, provided that the chairmanship of the Forum rotates among all the other political parties so as to ensure good intent and transparency. The fact that the SPLM as a ruling party in South Sudan will now chair the “Leadership Forum” to the exclusion of other political parties indicates that the SPLM has issued a death warrant to the opposition parties and is thereby intent to drag South Sudan into a totalitarian system of governance where opposition does not exist. USSP believe that such a move is not healthy for a speedy democratic transformation in South Sudan. Politics in a democratic setting is an exercise of competition, just like the sport of football or basketball or any other sport where there is competition between two or more teams, even though all of the participants may strongly believe in the overall maintenance and promotion of the sport itself. This is indeed true of politics where political parties compete based on their programmes and still believe in maintaining good political practices, the provision of quality services to the citizens, as well as observing their national interests and welfare. You cannot promote sports if you have only one team. Whatsoever activities the team may get engaged in will only amount to no more than routine training, and without any real outside tournaments, this team will remain unchallenged and will become carried away with a false sense of perfection, only to be realised when the spectators and the fans start boycotting the team and the sport because of boredom and lack of creativity.

The current policies of the NCP and the SPLM to swallow within their ranks all the other political parties are really unhealthy. This can be considered typical of African politics where multi-party systems are usually not tolerated by those in power. African leaders easily become little gods, because we the masses allow them to become such little gods. Sadly, we also breed the most opportunistic opposition leaders in the world who are easily wavered by the ruling parties in return for posts, money, or other personal favours. The present government of South Sudan headed by President Salva Kiir Mayardit has time and time again come under attack from the other political parties and the South Sudanese citizens for its poor performance, but now as these political parties have joined hands with the SPLM and the GOSS, then obviously their role as active opposition has been compromised if not completely eroded. At this juncture, it would be perfectly understandable to rule out any opposition to the many malpractices of the GOSS and the South Sudanese citizens would have been let down by the Alliance of South Sudanese Political Parties (ASSPP) once their leaderships join the proposed “Leadership Forum” to be chaired by SPLM.


Clement Juma Mbugoniwia
Leader, United South Sudan Party

USSP is NOT PARTY to the “Alliance of South Sudan Political Parties”

Download press release...

◊ PRESS RELEASE ◊

We refer to the Sudan Tribune articles of 29 and 30 June 2008 (published online on 30 June and 1 July 2008 respectively) which stated that “Eight Southern Sudanese political parties [had] established a new alliance...” The names of the Southern Sudanese political parties listed in the articles included United South Sudan Party (USSP).

We, the leadership of USSP, would like to make it categorically clear that United South Sudan Party (USSP) is not party to the said alliance. USSP sent a delegation to attend the Juba conference of South Sudanese political parties, “Building Consensus on What Unites”, only to listen to the views of other parties in South Sudan and to present USSP’s views and stance on important national issues such as Peace, Democracy, Unity among South Sudanese people and the 2011 Referendum, but not to join in an alliance. We see exchanging views with other parties as a healthy and democratic activity. The terms of reference of the USSP delegation sent to the conference in Juba was limited to presenting USSP’s views on the aforementioned specific topics. The USSP delegation did not, therefore, have the mandate to sign or commit USSP to any alliance. Any agreement that the USSP delegation may have been lured into is totally null and void. To join in any alliance with other parties, whose aims and objectives and strategies are different from USSP’s, would be contrary to the USSP Constitution and vision. USSP welcomes open debate with other parties, and indeed with all South Sudanese on important South Sudanese issues, but not to join in an alliance with anybody.

Therefore, USSP reiterates categorically, and in no uncertain terms, that it is not party to the said alliance, its aims and any agreement that led to its formation. USSP believes that it can co-operate with other parties on matters of common interest to South Sudan, but as an independent party and not in an alliance. To co-operate does not necessarily have to be in an alliance. Yours truly

Clement Mbugoniwia

Party Leader

USSP Leader Meets Western Equatoria State Officials

While on a visit to Yambio, the state capital of Western Equatoria State, the leader of United South Sudan Party, Mr Clement Mbugoniwia, has held a series of meetings this week with key Western Equatoria State officials, including the Deputy Governor, Col. Joseph Ngere Paciko, and a number of ministers. He has also met with the Speaker of the State Assembly, Mr Richard Noti MP. In addition, he will be meeting the Paramount Chief of Yambio County, Mr Wilson Hassen Peni, on Friday.

© USSP

Why are South Sudanese scattered all over the Sudanese political spectra when they have the South’s independence to vote for in 2011?

By Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba, M.D.

Download article...

The South Sudanese political position throughout history has been a most bewildering and confusing one. The traditional political parties in the North have been founded on the Islamic faith as a continuum of the Arabs’ non-ending dream to establish a great nation of Islam in the Sudanese belt of the African continent.

In the above vision, the South Sudanese have all throughout been left out in the cold either because of their strong African identity (incompatible with the state-declared pan-Arabism) or for the simple fact that they are perceived to be second-class citizens by their Arab fellows from the North. In the past, all the Northern political parties were automatically identified as national parties though they offered no hope of progress to the South. To the Northern mindset, it is they (Northerners) to think, plan and run the entire country, while the South must have whatsoever remains which usually is not much.

However, the South Sudanese in their struggle for a fair share and equal treatment in the Sudanese nation were all over the place. There were those who used to think that the South would stop to exist the moment it faced the North or even simply initiated any form of resistance to its arabization policies. So it was not a surprise in those days to see a good number of South Sudanese with memberships in all the Northern sectarian parties of the Umma, Khatimiya, the Sudanese Communist Party, the Ba’ath Pan-Arab Party, the Sudanese Socialist Union (SSU) and, lately, the National Islamic Front—even in its rivalling groups (the National Congress Party of President Bashir and the People’s Congress of Sheik al-Turabi), and worse still the so-called National Democratic Alliance, which is practically nothing but a scrub yard for all those failed policies of the traditional ruling triads of the historical cunning Shaigyiya, the arrogant Danagla and the most notorious and stubborn Jaalei’yin, who would want to dominate the Sudanese political arena using any tickets and the latest being the “New Sudan” delusion.

All these traditional Sudanese political parties in their struggles to get to the seat of power in Khartoum have seriously sought two strategies against any Southern opposition to their rule. Firstly, they have sought the destruction of the emergence of tough and secessionist leaderships in the South by making sure that all the potential leaders are brought into some sort of collusions with the different political parties. These dubious collusions have provided ways to the North through their Southern agents to keep track and effectively sabotage any anti-unity elements and organisations that are rapidly developing everywhere in the South and amongst the South Sudanese communities in the Diaspora up to these days. Based on this strategy, most of these parties have gone in length to establish Southern secretariats in the various Arab-controlled political parties and institutions with the basic aim of actually dealing blows to the South’s aspirations for an independent nation. Secondly, the North has developed in the South a generation of corrupt leaderships who have become addicts to institutionalised corruption and bribery. This second strategy has worked well in paralysing the emergence of real patriotic leaderships in the South, armed with genuine political abilities to unify the Southern masses in the fight against the widespread tribalism which is now devouring our nation of South Sudan.

Up until now South Sudanese find it hard to resist the repeated temptations of joining the Sudanese unity-oriented policies that continue to surface up, without critically analysing how vulnerable the South remains in such a setting which has always favoured the Arab and Islamic superiority over the indigenous African cultures and beliefs. You just need to hear the sporadic calls for unity of the entire Sudan, which some prefer to call the “New Sudan” in some SPLM circles, and you will know that the Northern Arabs are still in control of some Southern minds.

South Sudanese are to count on themselves in shaping their destiny and not what is happening elsewhere. It is because the SPLM has been conceived basically by power-hungry individuals, now even before properly securing their grip on the South they are already salivating to extend their rule over to Darfur and Eastern Sudan.

Is the philosophy of the emancipation of the marginalised people of the Sudan really justified to overrule the blood-documented rights of the South Sudanese to live in an independent nation of their own? This is not fair as far as our struggle to establish an independent state is concerned, because it is really not up to particular politicians to redefine the real problems and troubles which the people of South Sudan have undergone. It is enough that 2 million and more have died just within a period of two decades and more than 4 million displaced and scattered all over the globe. If a South Sudanese sees that he or she has a good chance of winning the leadership of the entire Sudan, this individual’s aspirations should not in any way allow the aspirant to redefine the goals of the South Sudanese struggles which started since time immemorial. I think if there are people, particularly in the South, who feel that they have a moral role to play in Darfur and the other parts of Sudan in their struggles against the Khartoum government, they can go on but without compromising the legitimate right of the South Sudanese people to aspire for an independent nation of their own.

Leave the Northerners to rule themselves under their Islamic system for which they have always fought against us including the Darfuris. They will know how to sort out that house and we should never fool ourselves anymore about the delusions of a united, secular Sudan, which is not in any part of the political histories of the various governments which existed in the North (never was it secular in the Darfur sultanates, nor the Funj kingdoms). These were Muslims ruled by the Qur’an, please leave them to themselves and let us think of how we can develop the South, rather than waste our efforts all over the place.

To those who think that the South can further destabilise the North in an attempt to weaken the NIF/NCP grip on the desert capital of Khartoum, you need to be ready for more military confrontations than negotiations. What that signifies is that the more people in the North who rebel against the centre, the more wars need to be fought. And can these wars not be better fought when the South is a strong, independent state, if there be a need? Though the lack of development has been sighted many times as the main reason for the repeated uprisings in the South, it seems many of these uprisings have really been driven by our wish to run our own affairs. Yet now we are hearing of some Southern Sudanese breeds who would want even to stay with the traditional enemy if only they could succeed in deceiving us to believe their power-motivated last minute change of heart.

[Archive] Letter on Abyei Crisis

Rt Hon Gordon Brown (MP)
Prime Minister
Her Majesty's Government
United Kingdom

Wednesday, 28th May 2008

Concern About the Deteriorating Situation in Abyei, South Sudan

United South Sudan Party (USSP) is a South Sudanese political party formed after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 between the Government of Sudan (GOS) and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement (SPLM). One of the fundamental aims of USSP is to represent the true aspirations of the majority of the people of South Sudan for an independent country as a means to securing permanent peace in the region, peace which is based on what the people actually want. We, in USSP, would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to your government and others we have not mentioned here that contributed tremendously to the peace effort in South Sudan by securing the CPA. We hope that you will continue to support the CPA by ensuring that all its protocols are implemented fully to achieve its aims and objectives.

We are very concerned that fighting has been intensifying in Abyei with the Government of Sudan being excessively heavy handed and bombing innocent civilians in the area. Reports coming out of the area indicate that the town of Abyei itself has been reduced to rubble by the Government of Sudan. This is a direct violation of the peace agreement (CPA) which you all helped to put in place. We believe, therefore, that you will not let the situation to deteriorate any further. A strong pressure must be brought to bear on the Government of Sudan to stop the wanton destruction it is causing to life in the area. The attitude of the Government of Sudan has all along been very clear in the way it is dragging its feet over the case of the border between South Sudan and Northern Sudan and the destiny of Abyei. We believe that you will agree with us that this action of the GOS should not be allowed to continue and must be condemned in the strongest terms possible.

What we have indicated above about the attitude and arrogance of the GOS is clear from the following pieces of evidence and examples:

The GOS has deliberately not implemented one of the key protocols of the CPA which is the demarcation of the border between the South and the North in accordance with the timetable stipulated by the CPA. The GOS and the National Congress Party (NCP), the senior partner to the CPA, are unwilling to demarcate the border, choosing to first displace the indigenous people of Abyei and move the North-South border southwards to engulf the oil fields of South Sudan to be geographically counted as part of Northern Sudan. The International Community, especially the parties that helped to bring about the CPA such as the government of the United Kingdom, need to be aware of this dirty trick of the NCP and GOS.

The National Congress Party (NCP) and the Government of Sudan (GOS) are also in breach of the CPA by not withdrawing Northern Sudanese troops from South Sudan as stipulated and scheduled by the CPA. The presence of these troops in the South beyond the timetable stipulated by the CPA is largely to blame for the renewed hostilities in the Abyei area between the SPLA (Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army) and Government troops. It can be safely assumed that this is the desired aim of the NCP and GOS to give themselves an excuse to ruthlessly destroy the South as can be witnessed in the current renewed fighting in Abyei. Without intervention by the International Community and the partners to the CPA, this renewed fighting is most likely to plunge the whole region back into full-scale war! This fear has also been expressed by the SPLM's Secretary-General, Pagan Amum, when he stated in news conference in Khartoum that "we are on the brink of war as we speak". [Reuters May 26, 2008]

In addition to Reuters, the fighting in the South Sudanese oil-rich area of Abyei has been reported by a number of other media sources and eye witnesses in South Sudan. It will not be difficult for the International Community to establish the facts for themselves. Such facts will need to be established independently of Sudan Government sources which are well known for concealing facts. There have been reports of between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians having been displaced from Abyei as a result of attacks by the Government of Sudan. According to a Sudan Armed Forces spokesperson speaking on Omdurman TV, at least 24 government troops have been killed in the fighting and more than 50 injured. This report did not disclose the number of civilian casualties who might have been caught up in the fighting but, we believe, the civilian casualties may be much higher than troops.

As a result of the displacement of thousands of families from Abyei area, there is a serious need for humanitarian assistance to the displaced people so as to avoid the escalation of further human catastrophe.

United South Sudan Party (USSP) hereby urges you, the main partners to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the International Community in general, to condemn the action of the Sudan National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudanese Government in the strongest terms ever so as to stop them from taking the country back to war and destroying human lives in South Sudan. We also urge your immediate intervention to stop these violations of the CPA and device a mechanism to strengthen the UN peace-keeping operations in South Sudan so as to enable them to keep peace more effectively with the ability to detect any future violations of this kind.


Thank you very much.

Clement Mbugoniwia
Leader, United South Sudan Party (USSP)

CC:
- The Rt Hon David Cameron (MP) -- Leader, Conservative Party
- The Rt Hon Nick Clegg (MP) -- Leader, Liberal Democrats
- Hon David Drew (MP) -- Chair, Associate Parliamentary Group on Sudan
- United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS)
- Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD)

PRESS STATEMENT: The Decision By the GOSS to Defer Census in South Sudan and GONU's Reversal of the Decision

Monday, 14 April 2008

Only about a couple of days ago the SPLM-led Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) had considered it necessary to postpone the South Sudan portion of tonight's [15 April 2008] census until towards the end of the year, as "... it would not achieve the objectives for which it was intended," according to GOSS Information Minister Gabriel Changson Chang. In addition to the key questions of ethnicity and religion, which have for some reason been omitted from the census questionnaire, there are clearly a number of other key pending issues that are yet to be addressed, such as the demarcation of the North-South border and repatriation of over 2 million South Sudanese IDPs [internally displaced persons] in the North and also those in neighbouring countries. But the GOSS has now apparently reneged on their postponement decision or was it perhaps a case of "arm-twisting" that they have been forced into agreeing to a unilateral reversal of their decision by Omar Hassan al-Bashir, President of the Republic—as reported in the media—that the census has now been rescheduled to go ahead on 22 April 2008!

We in the United South Sudan Party (USSP) believe that the GOSS decision and reaction―though legitimate―have come rather too little, too late!

1. If the GOSS was part of the census planning process right from the beginning, why did they not build in safeguards for South Sudan, given that they had several months to prepare? On the issue of ethnicity and religion, for example, reports cite UN overseers as claiming that "... compromise has already been reached over religion and ethnicity". Have the GOSS been part of reaching such a compromise?


2. If the GOSS believe that the issues of ethinicity, religion and repatriation are crucial and legitimate—as they certainly are—how come they do not pursue the issues very determinedly and have already given in so easily to the position of the Government in Khartoum? Are they really capable of standing up firmly for what is right for South Sudan?

3. Why were the GOSS not very prompt and serious about repatriation as soon as they came to power after signing the CPA if, as stated by Minister Chang, "... there is undue influence in Khartoum in preventing the IDPs from coming back to the South"? Even those who signed the Addis Ababa Peace Accord in 1972 were much faster in dealing with repatriation than the GOSS. The SPLM's Deputy Secretary General, Yasir Arman's statement on repatriation that "... there were some concerns but the two sides [GOSS and GONU] agreed on ways to expedite the return of South Sudanese IDPs to their homes..." does not seem to hold much water. How realistic is such repatriation before next week's rescheduled census as opposed to the last three years?
The GOSS seem to be bogged down with less important matters [e.g. corruption, nepotism and tribalism] than the things that really matter politically for South Sudan. In that case, the vision of the GOSS is questionable.

4. Khartoum is raising the question of money already spent on preparation for census. But money spent by the GOSS on wrong ways of doing things will always be wasted! That is why political decisions need to be transparent and well debated widely before implementation to avoid backtracking by certain quarters or dissatisfaction by others, resulting in financial wastage.

All the above matters raise the issue of the credibility of the GOSS. They do not seem to do the right thing at the right time. How can the people of South Sudan be entirely confident of the leadership of the GOSS? In three years, it is apparent that the GOSS haven't proven themselves capable!


Clement Juma Mbugoniwia
Leader, USSP

© United South Sudan Party

USSP's Condolences on the Demise of WES Governor H.E. Samuel Abujohn Kabashi

On behalf of the United South Sudan Party (USSP), I wish to convey our deepest sympathy to the immediate family members, relatives and friends on the untimely demise of one of our great leaders and freedom fighters, H.E. Governor Samuel Abujohn Kabashi, Governor of Western Equatoria State. Similarly, we express our condolences to the Government of Southern Sudan, the citizens of South Sudan in general and the citizens of Western Equatoria State in particular.

May the Almighty God console all family members and rest his soul in eternal peace.

In sorrow,

Clement Mbugoniwia
USSP Leader