I refer to the story "Salva Kiir accused of unlawfully detaining opponents", which appeared in the Saturday Nation on 20 December 2014.
I
would like to reaffirm the facts of the situation, and then respond to
some of the points that came in the report. The facts are as follows:
First,
I was prevented from travelling to Addis Ababa by an Immigration
officer at Juba airport on the 13th of September 2014, who said clearly
that he was acting on the orders of the Minister of Cabinet Affairs. I
was leading the delegation of the political parties to Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia, for the 6th round of the IGAD led Peace Talks on the
invitation of the mediators.
Second,
to ascertain that the Minister was not acting on his own, the political
parties wrote on the 15th of September 2014 a letter to the President
of the Republic seeking clarification on the matter. The letter went
unanswered.
Third,
I wrote another letter to the Immigration Department on the 20th of
October requesting permission for me to travel outside the country.
Permission was not granted.
Fourth,
prevention of any citizen from travelling out of the country is a
violation of Article 27 (2) of the Constitution of South Sudan, which
stipulates that “Every citizen shall have the right to leave and or
return to South Sudan”.
Fifth,
no formal charges were laid against me, hence, the action was
politically motivated which, no doubt, infringes on my basic right of
freedom of movement.
INCLUSION OF STAKEHOLDERS
On
9 May 2014, the two principals of the warring parties, President Salva
Kiir and former Vice President Dr Riek Machar, signed an agreement
which, inter alia, stipulated that all stakeholders in South Sudan be
included in the IGAD-led Peace Talks in Ethiopia.
The
stakeholders were defined as: the two warring parties, the SPLM Leaders
(Former Detainees), the political parties, civil society organisations
and Faith-based Leaders. This agreement was the basis for the
participation of the political parties in the multi-stakeholder peace
talks brokered by IGAD.
Second,
I would like to correct some of the inaccuracies that came in your
article. It is not true that “other political parties back home refused
to endorse him [Dr Lam Akol] as their representative and he fell out
with them too” as came in your piece.
The
truth is that 18 political parties were invited by IGAD to a symposium
to be held in Addis Ababa on 5-7 June 2014, and 17 of them attended.
SELECTION OF DELEGATION
General
Lazaro K. Sumbeiywo, as the Acting Chairman of the Special Envoys, met
the delegation of the political parties on the 4th of June to explain to
them the programme of the symposium and the way forward regarding the
participation of the political parties in the peace talks.
When
the symposium was over, Gen Sumbeiywo met the political parties’
representatives again where he stated that it was not possible to
represent all the political parties and that they would have to choose
seven to represent them in the peace talks.
I,
Dr Lam Akol, being the leader of the official Opposition in the
country, was unanimously chosen by the 17 parties to lead the delegation
and chair the meeting to select the other six members of the
delegation. The selection was made and this delegation of the political
parties took part in the 4th and 5th rounds of the peace talks, in June
and August, respectively.
THE PROBLEMS THAT AROSE
The
problems in the political parties’ delegation started on the 15th of
August 2014 when all the stakeholders made their presentations in the
plenary as to their views on the resolution of the current conflict. The
government delegation was incensed by our presentation, particularly on
calling for the creation of a position of the Prime Minister to be
filled by the SPLM/A-IO.
The
next day, the government delegation boycotted the talks and threatened
four members in our delegation that they would lose their positions in
government should they not stay away from the talks.
Without
information to the delegation, the four declared on Monday 18
June before the thematic committees, that they were withdrawing from the
talks until the government delegation returned. They then wrote to the
IGAD mediators informing them about their withdrawal from the talks.
From then on, they boycotted our delegation.
The
rest of the delegation continued with the talks as it is our principled
position not to boycott peace talks for any reason. Such was the case
on 16, 20 and 21 June when the delegations of the warring parties
indvidually or collectively boycotted the talks. Our delegation kept on
talking with the other stakeholders.
PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT PULL OUT OF PPLF
It
goes without saying that the seven-person delegation is accountable to
the 17 political parties that chose it to represent them. Therefore,
when the delegation came back to Juba, it reported on 30 August 2014
what took place in Addis Ababa.
Two
of the four delegates who withdrew from the delegation in Addis Ababa
boycotted the meeting and another two walked out. The four converged not
long afterwards, held a pre-arranged press conference, and proceeded to
meet the President of the Republic the same day!
From
that date, all the political parties in the government or supporting it
withdrew from the Political Parties Leadership Forum (PPLF) which was
the umbrella that had brought all the political parties together.
These
government political parties, acting under the behest of the SPLM-In
government, the ruling party, declared that they have removed Dr Lam
Akol from the Chairmanship of the PPLF and the delegation of the
political parties.
They
also declared the dismissal of the other members of the delegation and
formed a new one of their own led by a Deputy Minister. This development
is what you erroneously refer to as “the other political parties back
home refused to endorse him…”
More
importantly, these political parties made it known that their position
in the peace talks is that of the government and that political parties
should have no independent position, only “to narrow the gap between the
warring parties”!!
All
the political parties in the government that pulled out of the PPLF
were met by the President of the Republic on Friday 12 September 2014,
possibly for a briefing before sending their delegation to Ethiopia.
DELEGATION PREVENTED FROM TRAVELLING
Our
delegation to Addis Ababa was prevented from travelling on Saturday
September 13 2014, and the government delegation masquerading as the
political parties’ delegation was facilitated by the government to
travel.
In
fact, they went to Bahir Dar claiming the seat of the political
parties. IGAD rejected this, arguing that IGAD did not oversee the
selection of the new delegation as it did with the first.
They
reached a compromise that IGAD would send a team to Juba to oversee the
selection of a new delegation if their claim that Dr Lam Akol had been
rejected by the political parties were to be proved true.
With
the permission of the government, the IGAD team arrived in Juba on the
29th of October 2014 and arranged to meet all the political parties the
next day. Unhappily, the government prevented the team from meeting all
the political parties, telling the team that it is the delegation
comprising the political parties in the government that must represent
all the political parties in the country!
The
assertion that Dr Lam Akol “was no longer a member of the negotiating
team” is ridiculous because as far as the political parties and IGAD are
concerned, he was the Leader of the negotiating team. If he wasn’t, why
was he prevented from going to Ethiopia?
The
government’s hand in the problem is unmistakable. There is no doubt
that it was the government that prevented the political parties from
travelling out of Juba.
ORDER CAME FROM MINISTER
First,
the claim that it was the other political parties, that “he fell out
with them”, is rendered baseless by the fact that it was the immigration
officer at the airport, who surely works for the government, that
executed the order.
Second,
the order came from a known Minister, which the President could not
disown. Third, the SPLM-IG sponsored the formation of a new delegation
from parties in government as well as its travel and stay in Ethiopia,
and subsequently prevented the IGAD team from meeting all the political
parties.
The
government in Juba did not deny having stopped the bona fide delegation
of the political parties from travelling to Addis Ababa. Where does the
overzealous ambassador get his information from?
The
Ambassador lies between his teeth when he asserts that “Dr Akol is very
free”. In light of the above facts, what freedom is he talking about?
Again, he unashamedly states that “If Dr Lam Akol wants to travel out of
the country, what he needs is to inform the security. This has never
happened…He is free to travel if he wants to.” Come on Ambassador! Whom
do you think you are fooling?
If
the Ambassador “requires a letter to travel out of the country,” it is
because he holds a diplomatic passport, and, in this case, the
permission is not from Security but from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
However,
holders of ordinary passports, like me, do not need permission or a
letter from anybody in order to travel out of the country.
CONCLUSION
The
government of the Republic of South Sudan did not like the independent
position of the political parties on the resolution of the current civil
war. Therefore, it wanted to replace their delegation with political
parties that are in the government.
When
it failed to do so it prevented the official delegation from travelling
to Addis Ababa. At least for Dr Lam Akol, this prevention morphed into
Juba authorities refusing him to travel out of the country altogether.
These are the indisputable facts of the situation in Juba.
A
stakeholder is by definition independent, and holds a position in the
peace talks distinct from the other stakeholders. The government in Juba
would like to score a rare feat: have an official government delegation
comprised of the political parties in the government, and get another
delegation of political parties composed of the same political parties
in the same government! It is inclusivity a la Juba.
The
continued absence of the opposition political parties in the supposedly
multi-stakeholder peace talks impinges negatively on the inclusivity of
the process and can only serve the agenda of the government to maintain
the status quo. Surely, the situation calls for an immediate remedy.
Dr Akolis the Chairman of Sudan People's Liberation Movement - Democratic Change.
No comments :
Post a Comment