South Sudan News Agency

By Wani Tombe Lako

Dear Dr Barnaba Marial;

May 20, 2013 (SSNA) -- The birth of the Republic of South Sudan (RoSS); ought to have heralded in the flourishing of communitarian and prudential politics. Communitarian in the sense that; the RoSS is the comprehensive territorial and socio-cultural and political crucible in which, all of us, in South Sudan; in our myriads of tribes and customs belong; and where, we would love to be buried in; with the glory of belonging. Prudential in the sense  that; the RoSS ought to be guided by polity, politics, and policies, which are all aimed at achieving positive cumulative and comprehensive as well as integrated results, in which; harmful effects are greatly minimised in the interest of us all in the RoSS. I strongly believe that, we, in the RoSS, are politically mature to the extent that; we are very conscious of what we actually want in a government which is in power in the RoSS. I do not think that, we, in the RoSS, need some political baby-sitting, especially on issues that touch our everyday lives.  

We in the RoSS do not need political monitors; to daily monitor our political behaviours, including our political allegiances, vis-à-vis political parties. We are politically mature to the extent that, we know what is best for us as individuals and as members of various religious, social, professional and political groups. It is extremely misleading, to portray us, the discerning peoples of the RoSS, as needing some political lectures; by some political manipulators, on the highways and byways, of belonging to the RoSS. It is also fitting to strongly argue that; we, in the RoSS, know our duties; rights; obligations; and privileges. Therefore, for constructively communitarian politics to flourish in the RoSS; our freedoms of consciences must be respected and honoured by all those saddled with the responsibilities of managing the RoSS. The government of the RoSS must protect us from some political groups which appear to believe that, they alone monopolise the political freedom of association.

In the free and sovereign RoSS, while there is nothing like absolute freedom anywhere in the whole wide world, the relative freedom allowable by societal laws and rules of law in the RoSS, for the human society to function effectively and efficiently herein, there ought not to be others in the RoSS, who illegally arrogate to themselves, some authority to regulate the context within which, we must associate with, or become members of various political parties in the country. This regulatory and oversight powers assumed by those others, and to control the political development in South Sudan, verge on political ownership of our political consciences. We reject being considered as political and intellectual property of some self-serving political groups. These are the kinds of individuals who like to entrench the culture which appears to mean that; the only claim to political representation in South Sudan is predicated on the barrel of the AK47.

Dear Dr Barnaba Marial;

I strongly believe that; all citizens of the RoSS are free to belong to any political party in the country, as long as these political parties operate within socio-political and legal norms of the RoSS. It is unconstitutional to victimise some of us, who refused to belong to some armed groups; but yet; would like to voice our opinion in a peaceful fashion, through writing, as being pro-South Sudanese enemies, and thus, we have no right to live, work, and share in the general welfare and happiness of our brethrens and sisters, in the RoSS. Prudential leadership ought not to be premised on the argument that; some South Sudanese are more nationalistic than others; and thus, those more nationalistic South Sudanese are deemed as being peoples of the leadership; and those others are the enemies of the said leadership. These kinds of political taxonomies are dangerous precedents, and they do not serve the comprehensive interests of the RoSS and its honourable peoples.  

The prudential leadership meant here is that type of leadership which has the human capacity to joyfully celebrate the multiplicity of tribes and cultures in the RoSS, and thus, embrace all sons and daughters of the RoSS in their totalities. Any leadership which does not have the capacity to embrace all of us as its peoples, without any discrimination and exclusionist tendencies; must not be allowed by us the peoples, to be our leadership. It is an anathema and sinful for us to murder ourselves just because, we belong to different political parties. Communitarian politics demand that; the essence of politics is the welfare of the community; in this case; all of us in the RoSS. We, the peoples of the RoSS, ought to celebrate multi-parties system of governance, because, it is the only guarantee against party-political tyrannies. On the other hand; our tolerance of one another, within the remit of various political parties, is indicative of a mature polity, which we aspire to achieve. 

As long as various political parties have no ill feelings or harmful agenda against the peoples of South Sudan; these political parties ought not to be vilified by the very sons and daughters of the RoSS.  Allegiance to political parties, just like respect at the individual level, must be earned. You cannot coerce highly educated people to follow you even if you will murder them in the process, should they disagree with you. Many highly educated South Sudanese have lost their lives because they dare question some political logic of some political parties during this tortured short history of the RoSS.

For example; some of us must not be vilified for refusing to belong or follow political parties that are instruments of tribalism, nepotism, ethnic control and degradation of human dignity. On the other hand; we must not follow political parties whose leaders appear to be politically unstable to the extent that, their objectives in life appear to be leadership positions at all costs. We must not allow ourselves to become political pawns in the hands of those who want to have all their political eggs and eat them at same time.

Political times in this great country of the RoSS are changing, and we must be free to join any political party as long as it is not based on tribal, sectarian and dubious socio-cultural ideology. It is obvious to all enlightened minds and eyes that, current quest for peace and stability in the RoSS is being premised on the Unity, Independence, Sovereignty, and Integrity of this nation. That being the case, it is right and fitting that, this unity, independence, sovereignty and integrity must be sealed by all of us working together. Nobody is going to privatise the RoSS politically, so that, he alone has the political access card. We do not need any more bloodshed in the country. All South Sudanese of goodwill must come together in one solid march towards love and stability with themselves; and with all international neighbours; because; our peace and harmony as well as socio-economic development, within the RoSS, depend on peaceful coexistence among ourselves, and with our neighbours from all geographical directions of this nation.

In conclusion Dr Barnaba Marial;

The time has come for us in the RoSS to make precise cost-benefit-analysis in terms of all economic sectors; and in terms of all substantive and philosophical paradigms. The carnage being inflicted upon various communities in the RoSS; in the name of political disagreements; and therefore declarations of military confrontations to resolve hitherto civil and political misunderstandings are costing us in the RoSS too much. From the outset; there are no military issues to be resolved by any nation within national political parlance.

There are always political issues. Therefore; political issues must always find their rightful resolution places on negotiation tables. The rest are clear writings on the political walls; which any political and military baby can read and understand. We are sick and tired of wars. We refuse to be dragged into unnecessary wars against ourselves, and against neighbours with whom we should be consolidating other beneficial relationships instead of killing ourselves; for no good reasons whatsoever. We want our government to be asking itself questions like:-

I can go on infinitum in terms of issues which the peoples of the RoSS want their government to be involved in, and concerned with.

The author is Professor of Social and Rural Development and Lecturer in Laws. He can be contacted via This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

By: Kuach Y. Tutkuay

May 15, 2013 (SSNA) -- South Sudan as a young nation that has just attained her independent seems to be following a path once followed by Kenyans in their post independent politics. The author wants to bring this to the eyes of the citizens in order for them to avoid the pitfalls made by Kenyans. From the current Kenyan politic, South Sudan should learn how hurtful tribal politics is and how it can derail the process of nation building. As the saying goes, “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” should Kenyan meat be a South Sudanese poison or South Sudanese meat a Kenyan poison. Let’s cast a quick glance at the Kenyan politic of ethnicity and juxtapose it to our own.

In Kenya, Kikuyu are the majority and they are the one possessing the riches of the nation. KANU was dominated by Kikuyu except for some few junior politicians among which include a young skilled secretary of the party Tom Mboya, a Luo by ethnicity who used all his talents in managing the party regardless of manipulation by the Kikuyu. In 1961 election, there was a split in KANU; those who felt oppressed left the party. Ronald Ngala, Masinde Muliro formed KADU, and James Gichuru remains the chairman of KANU. When Jomo Kenyatta was released from prison, James Gichuru handed over the chairmanship to his fellow tribe man. They campaigned for other Bantu and it became a Bantu against Nilotes. Oginga Odinga, R. Ngala and M. Muliro, regardless of the outline clear objectives of their party, agreed to join KANU again after defection for the sake of liberating the nation. Kenya came under one party KANU. This led to the attainment of independent in 1963. Jomo Kenyatta, a Kikuyu man became the first President of the Republic of Kenya and Jaramongi Odinga Oginga, a Luo man was made the vice president, a tacit of equality manifested itself but feebly died down.

Once in power Kenyatta swerved from radical nationalism to conservative bourgeois politics. The plantations formerly owned by white settlers were broken up and given to farmers, with the Kikuyu the favored recipients, along with their allies the Embu and the Meru. By 1978 most of the country's wealth and power was in the hands of the organization which grouped these three tribes: the Gikuyu-Embu-Meru Association (GEMA), together comprising 30% of the population of Kenya. At the same time the Kikuyu, with Kenyatta's support, spread beyond their traditional territorial homelands and repossessed lands "stolen by the whites" - even when these had previously belonged to other groups. The government of the United Kingdom donated billions of pounds to buy the land from the white settlers and redistribute it to the all Kenyans, but instead, Kenyatta distributed this land to Kikuyu and his closest friends.The other groups, a 70% majority, were outraged, setting up long-term ethnic animosities—the seed of tribalism was planted—and Kenyan began to develop tribal attitude and national oneness diminished.

The minority party, the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU), representing a coalition of small tribes that had feared dominance by larger ones, dissolved itself voluntarily in 1964 and former members joined KANU. KANU was the only party 1964-1966 when a faction broke away as the Kenya People's Union (KPU). It was led by Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, a former vice president and Luo elder. KPU advocated a more "scientific" route to socialism—criticizing the slow progress in land redistribution and employment opportunities—as well as a realignment of foreign policy in favor of the Soviet Union. In June 1969 Tom Mboya, a Luo member of the government considered a potential successor to Kenyatta, was assassinated. Hostility between Kikuyu and Luo was heightened, and after riots broke out in Luo country KPU was banned by the Kenyatta’s government. The government used a variety of political and economic measures to harass the KPU and its prospective and actual members. KPU branches were unable to register, KPU meetings were prevented, and civil servants and politicians suffered severe economic and political consequences for joining the KPU. Kenya thereby became a one-party state under KANU.

Ignoring his suppression of the opposition and continued factionalism within KANU the imposition of one-party rule allowed Mzee ("Old Man") Kenyatta, who had led the country since independence, claimed he achieved "political stability." Underlying social tensions were evident, however. Kenya's very rapid population growth rate and considerable rural to urban migration were in large part responsible for high unemployment and disorder in the cities. There also was much resentment by blacks at the privileged economic position in the country of Asians and Europeans.

At Kenyatta's death (August 22, 1978), Vice President Daniel arap Moi became interim President. On October 14, Moi became President formally after he was elected head of KANU and designated its sole nominee. In June 1982, the National Assembly amended the constitution, making Kenya officially a one-party state. On August 1 members of the Kenyan Air Force launched an attempted coup, which was quickly suppressed by Loyalist forces led by the Army, the General Service Unit (GSU) — paramilitary wing of the police — and later the regular police, but not without civilian casualties.

The leadership of Daniel Arap Moi was embrace by all Kenyans with hope and high expectations that he will change the then existing ethnic politic but to their surprise, Moi introduce the what so called “Nyayo” a Swahili term meaning “foot step”. Moi stated clearly that he is going to follow the footsteps of Kenyatta which granted the expectation of the citizens futile. The grievances of the citizens remained so high but who dare response? In Arap Moi’s leadership, things remained the same. The 1992 assassination of Robert Ouko, a great Luo politician who was by then a minister for Foreign Affairs was another brutality witnessed by the luo under Moi’s leadership. This happened in 1992 election when Kenyatta was nearly depeated in the contest by his rival J.O. Oginga. Robert was a strong key politician in siding with Odinga.

What should south Sudan learn from this story?

South Sudan in it two-decades struggle had had a similar situation as to that of Kenya which I would not want to squeak any syllable about because all of us know it. The similarities are that the nation’s wealth, goes to, if not one, few tribes, the land is being grabbed from the weaker tribes by the powerful majority tribes who also hold high positions in the government, employment in all private sector has almost 50% going to one, or few tribes, the composition of the government is 45% by one tribe giving the other minor tribe 55% of the share in the ministerial positions. Companies and big businesses are owned by one tribe. Assassination is a custom here because we have also witnessed some few. I have been reading some comments on the internet which I purely regarded as hate speeches, these look like, “this tribe is brave” “this tribe is coward” “this tribe will never rule” “we are born to rule forever” “this tribe is weak” and so on. What do we understand about a nation if we are still citing these jeopardizing messages?  Did we not fought in the war all of us and did we not shed blood together? Remember no matter how big a tree is, it can’t be called a forest, likewise to our cases, no matter how big a tribe is, it will never be called a nation. Why are we so obese with tribalism?

Let me take this opportunity to advise those whose legs are swift to shed blood, your blood is awaiting too. As the Bible said, “those who kills with sword, with sword shall they be killed”.

The writer can be reached through This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

By: Philips Al-Ghai

May 15, 2013 (SSNA) -- With the murder of Chief Kuol Deng Kuol as the latest in the series of Sudan’s continued aggression against S. Sudan, it is time that Juba draws curtain on soft stances, and develops relevant countermeasures against Khartoum –even if it means another war. It is worrying that S. Sudan might not stand a chance of getting fair justice with the current status quo within the United Nations and the African Union.  The approach employed by both organizations over the last few years, in an effort to forge peaceful solutions between the two countries, seems to fortify this.

In the progression of events since the independence of S. Sudan, the position of UN and AU has been hypocritical, and inherently redundant. Customarily, both have been [and still continue to] turning a blind eye to Sudan Army’s aerial bombings and ground assault deep within S. Sudan. However, when SPLA seized Panthou (Heglig) in April last year, they abruptly found guts to ‘condemn it with the strongest terms possible’. Outraged, they swamped the media barely a few hours after the incident.  Interestingly, capture of Panthou was a continuation of Sudan Army’s prior attack on SPLA positions in Unity State, but neither the UN nor the AU was keen to acknowledge that. Ban Ki Moon was lightening-quick to describe it as “an infringement on the sovereignty of Sudan and a clearly illegal act.” Assuming that Heglig is part of Sudan, the UN Chief simply implied that only SAF’s attack within S. Sudan territory is deemed ‘legal’. As if that was not enough, he went on to give ‘an order’ to the president of a sovereign state! Make no illusion that he’d take such crap to Bashir. He has never done, and will never do. Never.

Moreover, the same UN had been whining around, speculating that S. Sudan supports Sudan rebels; a scapegoat currently used by the bloody warmongers in the North to justify their destabilization campaigns in the South. Yet they were lip-tied when the whole proxy militia unit, used by Khartoum, returned to the South in a broad daylight! Didn’t they hear what they were doing in the North? I doubt.

The AU, on the other hand, looks comfortable with the hide-and-seek games that Khartoum has been playing throughout the negotiations. Khartoum has been breaching agreements on their faces, one after another, and Chief Kuol’s murder being the latest attempt to re-derail the Abyei referendum. Still they are as meek as lambs about it. As usual, Khartoum, intriguingly, is allowed to go scot-free. Why don’t they transfer the dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration if they are a bunch of gutless cowards who can’t afford seeing Bashir in the eye? Perhaps they are waiting for the breaking point when S. Sudan wouldn’t be able to influence any outcome, one is tempted to think. When that will be is another question.

Regrettably, both organizations have again and again proved too critical toward Juba yet they, blatantly, fail to hold Khartoum accountable for its incessant aggression and breach of agreements. This only portrays them as inadmissible, absurd, and void of impartiality. It suggests that S. Sudan’s perceived military and economic inferiority is being used as a potential fault-line that can be exploited to solve the problem.  This can only be seen as betrayal against S. Sudan.

It is also astounding that, even in the presence of United Nations Interim Force for Abyei [in Abyei], people still lose lives to SAF and their Misseriya arab militias. The UN and the AU once again pretend not to know anything about it. Apparently, if you give it a closer look, the lines between the UN, the AU, and the bloodthirsty Jihadists in the North have blurred. Their credibility has waned drastically. S. Sudan’s complains are reduced to a toothless-cobra’s hiss. One wonders whether S. Sudan will ever get fair justice with the current set up within the UN and the AU.

This leaves the government of S. Sudan with only one option: take a stern stance on Abyei and other disputed areas; negotiate when everyone is ready to, and leave the negotiation table when everyone else leaves. It is also necessary that corresponding echoes be unequivocally sent out when Sudan blows war or peace trumpets. That would balance the equation. Otherwise, S. Sudan’s sovereignty is at stake if it is left in the hands of the Bashir-shy UN and AU.

Philips Al-Ghai can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it