• 14 May 2011 09:03, by Dinka Dominated SPLA

  Thank you very much keep abyei Dinkas in our constituation no matter what those coward of Dr Riek machar and political opportunist opsition parties leaders said,
  death to opportunist gruops of Dr riek machar and opposition, Keep our brother with us no matter what will happen,

  repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 12:34, by ARIEL OTEGAH

    Abyei should not be left out in the draft constitution of south sudan but should it happen its big mistake to leave some Dinkas in the north better for fighting to continous .Arabs with their associated groups are ready to fight wether you leave Abyei out of the draft there will be fighting or including in the draft constitution war is there.

    Splm oyee,oyee

    repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 19:36, by lakoda

    Mr. Dinka Dominated SPLA.

    I think your comment is not so good by pointing your finger to opposition party as wel as Dr. Riek Machar as if they were sizing with arab for Abyei issued, Riek him went to court don,t see he can have hand on that. We can thank South sudan government in general for thier decision not to remove Abyei in Constitution,. Let them come, South sudan is ever ready.
    Mr. don,t take it personal i,m just advising you that if there is any national issues, we better point to the enemies of South sudan.
    Thank you

    repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 21:03, by Jada Lotole

    If you dont have a past, then you certainly dont have a future so said the then SPLM most and lovely charasmatic later leader Dr.John Garang !

    On mediatation upon that wise saying, I have come to a conclusion that the current SPLM leadership has lost a track ! they have forgotten their Past (CPA) and hence have no future ! Pitty ! Besides, the current SPLM leardership doesnt coordinate at all ! The Top men/women say one thing, and the low men/women say the other ! Shame on you !

    Abyei belongs to South Sudan ! and so we MUST let them formalise thier return by allowing them to vote or choose where to be admnistered period !

    repondre message

• 14 May 2011 09:18, by James Peter

  There is no way for Abyei to be exclude from South Sudan independece. It is better to cancel the independence of South. If NCP need war, we are ready for it.

  repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 10:39, by Akot Akot

    Rommel, Do you really know what legal aspect of inclusion of Abyei in the Constitution of South Sudan. What legal justification do you have to include Abyei in the South Sudan constitution if you do not just blind of legal grounds.

    Legally, Abyei is in the north and it is part of the north and still in the north and it would be in the North until referendum is done for the natives of Abyei to demarcate their borders back from the North to the South. When the British colonial government demarcated the North South borders, Abyei was 5o years plus in the North.
    No legal claims here and that why referendum was inserted so that they decide.

    Akot Akot Dengdit

    repondre message

    • 14 May 2011 11:39, by Rommel

      I fail to see the relevance of your somewhat blinkered response.

      Abyei has been in the North for more than a century. Who said otherwise? Stating the bleeding obvious [one without dissenters] is pointless, wouldn’t you agree?

      That Abyei has geographically resided in the ’North’ for a considerable amount of time is atually rather inconsequential. It is not the bone of contetion here.

      Abyei could have been in the North for over a million years... this still does not explain why it [legally] should not be included into the draft Constitution, especially when one considers that both parties agreed that the residents of Abyei were be afforded a referendum on precisely where they should lay - a choice that has since been denied them.

      There is nothing in customary international law that prohibits a Nation-State from (peacefully) laying claim (s) to its former territories. There are (international) avenues in which territorial claims can be distilled for evaluation, with the implicit understanding that the ruling is binding and final.

      Provide citations or links to a law that prohibits Nation-States from laying claims to former territories.

      Please cite such a law, a legal document. Can you do that for me?

      If you can’t address the subject of legality and law - and you don’t care to learn anything about it, then just move on to a subject that interests you.

      The provisions of the CPA concerning Abyei are crystal clear, in that the residents of Abyei (not itinerants or transhumant groups) are to be afforded a referendum in tandem with the rest of the South after the interim period

      The provision in question reads as follows:

      The residents of Abyei shall cast a separate ballot. The proposition voted on in the separate ballot shall present residents of Abyei with the following choices; irrespective of the results of the Southern referendum:

      a. That Abyei retain its special administrative status in the north;

      b. That Abyei be part of Bahr el Ghazal.

      8.3 The January 1, 1956 line between north and south shall be inviolate, except as agreed above.

      I know you won’t understand the protocol above, so let me clarify it for you; (a) the residents of Abyei [the Ngok Dinka] were suppose to be permitted the choice of either staying in the North or joining the South in a referendum; (b) the 1956 border is inviolate, meaning it is not to be violated – except when concerning the decision of the Ngok Dinka in the referendum they have since been denied.

      What you’re inadvertently conceding is that once we have reached an agreement with these mad fools [as has been so often the case], one that was understood to be both binding and final… they are then at liberty to reject and abrogate on the agreement and can then with froth and imperious arrogance issue threats of war if the unresolved matter is again mentioned by the now understandably frustrated party.

      repondre message

      • 14 May 2011 14:23, by Akot Akot

        Mr. Rommel, I thought having cited that provision of the CPA which says residents of Abyei be allowed to choose in a free and fair referendum to either continue to be in the North or vote to come South, what constitutional legality does SPLM has to include it in the South yet the referendum of Abyei is not held to have affirmed any of the two choices.

        Better the north to still hold on that territorial rights of defining it as its territory. Be rest assured that Abyei has never had administrative status in the South since time memorial because before the coming of British, there was no defined geographical entity called South, nor did we in the South had unified administration before that. We were administered through tribal chiefs and kings. Despite the fact that nine Ngok Dinka are culturally Southerners, they are not Southerners be definition, let alone the issue that they have congregated the whole government of South Sudan.

        Mr. Rommel Ought to Learn that, that there is South Sudan has no territorial claims of Abyei in any legal court of law unless through referendum in which we in the South would just be watching while they vote. It is the reason which could not make vote together with us.

        Akot Akot Dengdit.

        repondre message

    • 15 May 2011 08:09, by James Garang

      The Name of Akot Akot are seem as a Dinka name but is not a Dinka I realize him is a Jurbel in Lakes State that why he does not want Dinka Ngok citizens to come back to South Sudan through his hatred with Dinka. Kindly dear Southerners who love their brothers and sisters Dinka Ngok and land of the South Sudan let us go ahead with our programme to maintain Abyei in our draft transitional constitution of the Republic of South Sudan by all mean whether war or politically

      repondre message

      • 21 July 2011 22:15, by DeltaBravo

        To James

        Akot Akot is not Jurbel, he is from Gok Arol Kachoul.

        repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 11:14, by Kon Ajith Deng

    dear brothers
    Talking about included of Abyei in the South Sudan darft constitution,it will remind us many things,may be some individuals in SPLM, do not want independence of Southern Sudan,or they want war because of their allies in the north,or they want unity of Sudan,but,I think no way for all these nonsence,let them resolve Abyei,s problem with north first,Abyei was the north since 1905 and the border between the South and the north was 1965,where is Abyei here? and why is Abyei excluded in Sothern Sudan protecol?.Southern Sudanese made a every big problem,when they apointed ministers and advisers from Abyei in the GOSS,Abyei like Nuba and blue nile,let the wait for their protecol.

    repondre message

• 14 May 2011 09:26, by Rommel

  I must say that I am absolutely thrilled with the inclusion of Abyei in our draft Constitution. It would have been a demonstration of the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction, if we had [as recently reported]removed Abyei from the draf Constitution.

  There are NO legal arguements against the inclusion of Abyei in our draft Constitution. Those who assert otherwise [without a shred of evidence] wish for us to surrender at the very first encounter of a threat, a challenge and double-standards.

  repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 09:41, by Angelo Ajiech Manyuat

    Bravo SPLM! The dish washer boys of Dr. Riak Machar will be shock by hearing this good news. Abyei belong to the South and we’re willing to die for it.

    repondre message

• 14 May 2011 10:29, by Makuei

  Hatred blidnfolded the NCP - while the National Criminal Party has Abyei in their constitution and the dont want the South to have it(Abyei)in their constitution - what a folly!!!!!!!

  Go SPLM!!

  repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 11:05, by Born to Achieve

    Makui,

    That’s how NCP’s are, they are asking the South to exclude abyei while they already have abyei in their constitution,this is just a hypocrisy.

    I appreciate the SPLM for making this wise decision,because i believe if Abyei is not taken now before independance then abyei will go forever.

    As for so-called political parties are they really politicians or a bunch of gangs who are trying to look for a source of living in the name of political party?why are they tring to hinder the draft process?GOSS should reduce this number of parties to approximately 3 parties immediatly after independance.
    Abyei is 100% Southern terriotary.

    Parise-France.

    repondre message

• 14 May 2011 10:56, by mohammed ali

  Flip flop politics, the President says something to international diplomates then comes somebody junior something else.The credibility of the President is lost! Who is in charge?!

  There was no dual sitizentship during the interim period,, there was and still is only one citizentship until July!

  All of the world is seeking peace including the closest allies to the SPLA , but it seems that the SPLA has got another idea!

  If the north recognizes the new state with this constitution that means it is recognizing Abeyei as part of the south.This will not happen!

  repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 14:38, by Rommel

    Mohammed Ali:

    Let’s talk of flip-flop politics for a moment, shall we.

    We’ll start with the Abyei boundaries commission (ABC):

    The Abyei Boundaries Commission (ABC) report was supposed to define and delineate the territory covered by Abyei and was composed in equal measure of representatives from the government, the SPLM and international experts appoint by the US, UK, and IGAD. The ABC presented its report to the Presidency [as stipulated in its terms of reference] on 14 July 2005, a few days after John Garang was sworn in as 1st Vice-President.

    The ABC was tasked the job of defining the Ngok Dinka territory as it had been in 1905, exactly a hundred years before. Both parties had agreed that the ABC report would be “final and binding”… it was immediately rejected by president Bashir and the National Congress Party (NCP).

    Disagreements over the boundary were allowed to drag on without resolution until 2008, when the SAF attacked, burned and destroyed the town of Abyei. Not long after this attack – the SPLM and the NCP were engaged in prolonged negotiations. At the end of these negotiations the NCP complained that the Dinka were afforded territory they did not deserve –- with the NCP suggesting that the dispute be referred to international arbitration.

    The dispute was then taken to the PCA in The Hague who ruled in 2009, reducing the territorial definition of Abyei to an area focused on the permanent settlements of the Ngok, but they also gave their judicial interpretation that the principal intent of the Abyei Protocol was to empower the Ngok Dinka as a whole to choose their status in the referendum.

    This ruling gave Khartoum much of what it wanted, which was control of the oil fields in the north-east corner of the ABC award.

    The Hague sought to assuage the [commercial concerns] of Khartoum and transferred the primary oil fields [three oil fields] and a great deal of territory to the North - sixteen thousand kilometers; and like schizophrenic mental patients, the North initially celebrated the ruling as a victory... three months later they again rejected the ruling and covetously clamored for more territory – four thousand kilometers more to be precise.

    The NCP also insisted that the Misseriya be given voting rights on whether the remaining Dinka territory [as defined by the PCA] rejoins the South in a referendum. This is the current sticking point: The definition of whom, for the purposes of voting in Abyei’s referendum should be considered a resident of Abyei. The PCA’s ruling clearly includes all Ngok Dinka as residents.

    The argument of Khartoum and the Misseriya is that all Misseriya should be included as well.

    You people are being inconsistent! You [Khartoum] argued before the ABC and the PCA to restrict the definition of the Abyei area as much as possible. Having achieved this to a certain extent, they [Khartoum] now want to apply an even broader definition of the Abyei area than the ABC produced so as to give the Misseriya voting rights, based on their seasonal use of the southern pastures.

    Full implementation of the PCA ruling is the only means of ending this dispute. A final resolution to the Abyei dispute requires a simultaneous two-pronged approach:

    1)the implementation of the referendum provision of the Abyei Protocol before the end of this year’s dry season (May), and
    2)the creation of long-term mechanisms to enable both the Misseriya and the Ngok to collaborate in secure annual movements of pastoralists through the Abyei area and neighbouring territories.

    1)Implementing the Abyei referendum:

    a)The US government must reaffirm its commitment to the full implementation of the referendum provision of the Abyei Protocol, based on the PCA definition of the Abyei area;

    b)Those entitled to vote in the referendum should be permanent residents of the Abyei area as defined by the PCA

    2)Securing the future of traditional grazing rights

    a)The provisions in the Abyei Protocol and the PCA ruling which establish the principle of the protection of traditional grazing rights should be widely publicized as the basis for resolving long-standing differences between the Dinka and the Misseriya.

    b)The Government of South Sudan needs to give a practical demonstration of its repeated statements that the Misseriya will not be hindered in their seasonal migration into Abyei and neighbouring Unity, Warrap and Northern Bahr al- Ghazal states by outlining the security measures it will undertake to help the Misseriya protect their herds without resorting to carrying arms;

    c)Both peoples should be involved in their own security by the creation of joint seasonal cattle guard forces to monitor grazing routes and pasture areas without having to depend exclusively on the national police and armed forces of either Sudan or South Sudan;

    d)The establishment of joint seasonal courts to settle disputes arising during the annual migrations.

    What do you suppose we do? That we further compromise of a compromise (the PCA ruling) of a compromise (the ABC report)? Or perhaps we should just surrender and forsaken Abyei altogether.

    Please spare us your feigned self-righteous indignation. If you people truly wanted peace... you would implement the PCA ruling.

    repondre message

    • 14 May 2011 19:17, by mohammed ali

      Rommel,

      That is fine with me, but I will make it very short!

      The ABC had a limmited mandate, to delinate the border of the Dinka Ngok chiefdom. The failed to do that and they admitted that they could not delinate the location of the Dinka Ngok .Instead of stopping there they went to make absured hypothkises and new theoris.The excceded their mandate.

      The GOS objected to that and said that the ABC EXCEEDED their mandate. They went to the Hague.With the first question to the Arbiterisation court : Did the ABC exceeded their mandate? The answer was YES, the ABC had exceeded it’s mandate.

      Because it was Arbiterisation they came to what they think is moderate and could be acceptable to both parties. The ruling was:

      1-The bounderies is as you mentioned in your posting.

      2- The dinka ngok and other residents of Abeyei has the right to vote in the referendum to determine the status of Abeyei.

      There is no dispute about the first item and the first part of the second item. The SPLA argues that the messeria has no right to vote! This was not the ruling of the Hague.This was clear to the US,AU, UN and the EU, who can read and understand English very well!

      For this reason all of them came with different proposals to make the refereundum comes in peace. The SPLA refused all these proposals from the US and AU.This why nobody is backing the SPLA in the so called international .The US , UN will not keep quite if things are as you mentioned in your posting! They know the ruling of the Hague gives the messeria the right to vote.

      The SPLA is decieving the people of the south, because of the hegemoney of Abeyei sons over the leadership of the SPLA.They are over-represented in the SPLA and the GOSS and the central government.They are holding Abeyei as a ransom and jeopardizing all the benfits which the south can get from the peace process.In fact in their quest for power they made all the mess which is taking place in the south as a result of thier fudging the selection of the candidates for the past elections.

      I donnot want to argue with you about who was transfered to south Kordofan in 1905.Because the claim that "the land was transfered" as the ABC tried to hypothesises was not accepted to the Hague. The dinka ngok migrated to south Kordufan and their administration was transfered to south Kordufan , no land was trnsfered! This was the main ruling of the Hague and this why the international community is not backing Abeyei sons in their claims. Unfortunately Abeyei sons are supported by the SPLA in fact they are controling the SPLA!

      This is the flip/flop politics and how the outside world will see it!

      repondre message

      • 14 May 2011 21:06, by mohammed ali

        Rommel,

        I forgot to mention that there was mention in the Hague ruling about the word " permenant residents" including this word is very misleading. They ruled that Dinka Ngok and other residents of Abeyei has the right to vote.This very important.

        Seconf, yes , Abeyei is part of of south Kordofan for more than 100 years.1905 there was no transfere of "land", it was transfere of the administration of the Dinka Nogok people.The ABC to make a hypothesis that Dinka Ngok were resident of South Korofan, but the Hgue ruled that out and did not accept the decision of the ABC.

        The father of Francis Deng, Deng Majok decided to migrate to the north where is south Kordofan, to avoid conistant conflicts with other tribes and to get better education for his children. He achieved his goals and both the Dinka Ngok lived in peace for centuries and Abeyei sons has the best education among southerners. He was a wise man. The Denka and Messeria were mixing very well untill the SPLA appeared to spoil the situation. Up to now many Dinka will vote to remain in the north despite the intemidation by the SPLA!The recent wars in the South have agumented this feeling among them!

        repondre message

  • 15 May 2011 08:31, by James Garang

    mohammed ali
    We cannot listen to the lies at this movement please let your government of North Sudan remove Abyei in your interim constitution and show to the world that you are removed Abyei from your constitution that where we can listen to removed Abyei in our constitution and we wait Abyei referendum to be done by Dinka Ngok citizens to chose where they will go. Despite your recognition on independent of South Sudan. without Abyei there is no need of independent of South Sudan

    repondre message

    • 16 May 2011 01:26, by mohammed ali

      James,

      All of Sudan is included in the constitution, even Juba and Nimuli! The border will be determined after July and Abeyei referundum.Up to this date it is the constitution of all of Sudan. Abeyeie is not included specificly but all of the south is included!

      Well , if you open the web site of the Hague arbiterisation court , you find who is lying. It is simple!

      repondre message

• 14 May 2011 12:57, by Mr. Truthteller

  Dear brothers,

  I am sick of SPLM senior officials directly contradicting their own statements.

  The President Kiir strategically said Abyei will be removed from the transitional constitution. He knew what he meant even if he didn’t mean to lose Abyei.

  Now his junior official Makuei Lueth emotionally rushed in to contradict the president.

  What is going on people?

  I guess some people pretend to like Abyei when they don’t. May be they just want to cause a war situation that would spoil the smooth transition of the South to statehood. This will also make it difficult to defend Abyei with the international community on our side.

  Be wise in bringing back AByei and stop cowardic emotional outbusts that can only stop in your door step when the bad comes to worse.

  repondre message

• 14 May 2011 16:45, by Martin Muong

  There is no removal of Abyei from Southern Sudan constitution no matter what it take period.

  repondre message

• 14 May 2011 19:41, by lakoda

  Thanks Presendent Silva Kiir for your decision.
  Let them come.

  repondre message

  • 14 May 2011 20:36, by mohammed ali

    Lakoda,

    Which decision you mean, the first to include , the second to exclude or the third to re-include Abeyei in the constitution?

    repondre message

    • 14 May 2011 23:26, by Marco A. Wek

      Mohammed Ali, it is a matter of time when what is rightfully belonging to the South will be taken by the South Sudanese by whichever means possible.

      North Sudan knows this that there is no way they could take whatever belonging to the South Sudan and get away with it. It can’t happen and it will not happen. It is just a matter of time.

      repondre message

Comment on this article