Lies and illusions of South Sudan’s president Kiir
* Article
* Comments (0)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Elhag Paul
It is refreshing to hear the vice president Riek Machar saying on
Sudan Tribune September 19 that the president of South Sudan Salva
Kiir has vowed to fight corruption in the government, nearly a month
after the formation of his first cabinet since the country’s
independence on 9 July.
Kiir’s picture slotted in the article in Sudan Tribune says a lot. The
picture shows him bespectacled in his hat with a serious look and
finger pointing. You cannot mistake the message. This is a no nonsense
serious president. Should we be optimistic that at long last something
is happening? May be yes, may be no, because we have heard this song
many a time before without any action. The question is, what would
make this time to be so different as for action to happen? If our
contemporary history is anything to go by, then this seems to me to be
another rising of hopes that will no doubt be dashed spectacularly.
Let us examine the contents of the statement.
According to Machar, Kiir has committed himself to ensuring that South
Sudan “enters a new era on good governance, democracy, accountability
and transparency.” So far so good, but how honest is the president in
making this statement. When did the president decide on this new era?
For us to believe the president, it is imperative that he answers this
question, as the evidence before us does not lend him credibility.
Just after the outcome of the referendum in January 2011, the majority
of South Sudanese advocated for good governance and democracy in the
soon to be born state. This sentiment arose from the outcome of the
South-South dialogue held in October of 2010. People were hopeful but
our hopes were dashed when Kiir went back on the agreement of
South-South dialogue and began to ignore other political parties.
Soon after, Kiir’s administration unveiled its draft transitional
constitution which by all standards was an instrument of dictators and
totalitarian regimes. First, Equatorians during the Equatoria
conference held at Nyakuroun in Juba on 14 April raised serious
concerns about its contents and asked for it to be revised. Secondly,
the Diaspora wrote a petition signed by over 900 citizens together
with extensive amendments to the contents of the draft transitional
constitution. Thirdly people on individual basis protested in the
media, SSTV and other fora.
All these efforts went in vain as Kiir refused to listen to the people
and he single handedly with the help of his rubber stamp parliament
passed this shoddy DTC into law. Everything that Kiir did in getting
the constitution into law was underhanded and does not show any
commitment to good governance and democracy. In order to have good
governance it is necessary that the law that governs the land is not
open to abuse by a single person. Now that the constitution of South
Sudan allows that, it is not an instrument that can promote good
governance and democracy in any way. Given this, what new era of
democracy is Kiir talking about?
The behaviour of Kiir following the South-South dialogue tells us that
he lacks integrity and conviction of character in the sense that he
does not respect agreements. Kiir uses people and parties to promote
Dinkocracy. Dinkocracy (self-defined) is a system of rule that can be
found in South Sudan based on tribalism whereby parliament is either
wholly or partially filled by appointment of corrupt members.
Institutions and structures that are presently in place are just for
face saving purpose. In this system consultation and citizen’s rights
are not respect. The views and opinions of citizens also do not mean
anything. Looting and corruption is accepted as a method of wealth
gathering with the façade that the government is working to address
it. The police force is predominantly illiterate and come from the
ruling tribe. Their job is to administer brute injustice. Violence is
routinely exercised freely by members of the ruling tribe (in the
organised forces) with impunity. Government officials are guarded and
protected by their kith and kin as opposed to agents of the state.
In short, Dinkocracy can not give birth to democracy because it is the
antithesis of democracy. For this reason dinkocracy can only give
birth to dinkocracy and this is what we have here in South Sudan.
Moving on to accountability and transparency, Kiir is the only person
so far who has been ruling the country since 2005. The massive
corruption and mismanagement of the country has been happening under
his watch all this time. The parliament in Juba was/is totally under
the control of his party the SPLM and yet they failed to enact any
legislation to deal with the mess. The only reason Dr Pauline Riek
(the poor naturalised Dinka) head of anti-corruption commission said
she could not hold people accountable is due to lack of legislation.
If we are to believe that Kiir is serious about what he is saying now
why did he not help Dr Pauline to eradicate the corruption?
Further why did he then not instruct the parliament to enact
legislation against corruption? The answer is simple, they (SPLM/A)
were busy on looting spree. Hence, Kiir is technically responsible for
all that has been taking place in South Sudan for the last 6 years due
to his irresponsibility and lack of due diligence. Where has he been
while all these ills are taking place? What Kiir needs is, to explain
to the South Sudanese people now his abject failure to manage the
country and not to pretend that he at last is getting on with
managing. Kiir and his administration should stop lies and the
creation of illusion.
If Kiir is serious and wants to be believed as a dinkocrat turned
democrat, then he needs to right the wrong immediately first by:
1. Dissolving the parliament and calling for a general election to
allow the South Sudanese people to choose their legitimate
representatives. After all, the four year term he and his party
awarded to themselves can hardly be viewed as a legitimate act flowing
from the people’s will. SPLM imposed itself on the people fraudulently
assisted by the might of SPLA.
2. Creating a conducive environment for the legitimately elected
representatives of the people (and not appointed MPs) to draft and
pass a democratic constitution for South Sudan.
3. Prosecuting the crooks within his cabinet whom he appointed
knowing their crookery, roguery and thuggery.
4. De-Dinkanising the organs of the state.
By doing the above, Kiir will not only gain respect, but he will have
shown to the South Sudanese and the world at large that he now has
matured; wised up; espoused the values of democracy; and genuinely
prepared to get on with the business of governing.
Now let us turn to president Kiir’s ‘five critical steps as visible
sign of the new government’. These are:
1. Investigations on diversion of funds.
2. Instruction to the parliament to enact new laws on accountability.
3. Create anonymous return account for civil servants and public
officials to return any diverted funds, obligating them to publish
their assets from the date of independence.
4. Seek international assistance in repatriating stolen funds and
5. Appoint senior advisers from the African region to the governor
of the central bank of South Sudan, the auditor general and the
minister of finance, planning and to strengthen anti-corruption
commission.
On investigation of diverted funds, the statement appears to limit
this issue to high profile cases involving hundreds of millions. When
dealing with corruption it is not just about cherry picking cases, but
to address it root and branch. Dr Pauline Riek recently reported on
her work and during that time the former ministers of finance were
said to have been called for questioning on the Dura saga. If this is
already being dealt with, why is Kiir presenting it as something that
is about to be investigated? We already know that the former ministers
and their legal counter parts have explained themselves in such a way
as to exonerate themselves.
On instruction to the parliament, why did Kiir not do this long time
ago when corruption was raging throughout the country? Could we even
trust this rubber stamp parliament to come up with a robust
legislation to address corruption? My guess is that the laws that will
be enacted will be so weak as to let the big fish escape. Watch that
space. Any MP trying to play tough will have known that Kiir can
easily fire him/her because the constitution allows it. Thanks to
dinkocracy and the transitional constitution.
On creating anonymous account for civil servant and public officials
to return any diverted funds, this in itself is the promotion of
corruption. Why should the government appear to be begging thieves to
return their ill acquired asset? Theft is a crime and it is even more
serious when the thief is a civil servant or a public official because
they are dealing with public funds. Further they should be bound by
values of honesty and trust in their employment contract.
What needs to be done is for a system of referral to be in place for
anybody to report corruption which can then be thoroughly
investigated. Should any civil servant be found to have indulged in
corruption, the full force of the law should apply. Allowing people to
deposit returns into an anonymous account simply enables the thieves
to hide themselves and the culture of corruption to continue. This is
a poorly thought out strategy which reflects the lazy thinking of the
regime. The most hilarious joke here is Kiir’s qualification that the
publication of ‘assets from the date of independence.’ What then
happens to the period pre-independence? Have we started to play with
semantics even before things hot up?
On seeking international support to recover diverted funds, Kiir and
his cohorts need to know that in the countries he mentioned law and
order is taken seriously. Governments cannot interfere with the
liberty of the individual and his/her assets without due process, even
when the individual is not a citizen. So if Kiir wants to recover any
assets, he must be ready to go to courts in those countries and what
this means is that he will need to produce evidence for each case to
be tested in court of law. South Sudan can only succeed in recovering
any monies deposited abroad by use of renowned legal firms. Kiir must
remember that these are democracies which are accountable and not
dinkocracies.
On appointment of African advisers, this is a daft idea whose benefit
would be for foreigners just to come and milk South Sudan as they
already are. South Sudan has qualified people who can run the Bank of
South Sudan, the ministry of finance and the anti-corruption
commission without any difficulties. What is needed is seriousness in
employing the right people in the right place. The biggest obstacle to
proper functioning of the organs of the state now is dinkocracy. Yes,
there may be certain areas that will require expertise but this can be
done in a proper way involving assessment of need by South Sudanese
authorities and the employment process must be through proper vetting
by South Sudanese organs like the parliament.
The timing of this statement is highly suspect given the fact that it
was done when Kiir left for New York. If Kiir was serious he would
have taken his time to make the announcement of the statement to
coincide with the first anniversary of the South-South dialogue as a
way of making amends with the South Sudanese people. But having his
deputy, Machar to read it out symbolises lack of seriousness on one
hand and on the other possibly to extract himself from any serious
questions about corruption arising in his meetings in New York. So, in
New York, if any questions about corruption crop up, he can
comfortably point to the work being done at home by Machar.
>From the aforementioned, it is clear that Kiir and SPLM have not been
serious in dealing with corruption because they are the beneficiaries
of this vice culture. Now that Kiir has again come up with this
promise, we should hold him to account. Personally, I do not believe
that he is going to deliver but let us wait and see. What I would
advocate is for the opposition parties and civil societies to
sensitise South Sudanese in preparation for the next election. In that
election the opposition and civil societies should make the issue of
corruption central in the campaign. Any party that wants votes must
clearly set out its agenda on how it will deal with corruption and
recover the billions of dollars stolen by SPLM party members and
sympathisers.
Elhag Paul lives in South Sudan. He can be reached at [email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD
info" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
