Email
Print
Save
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
February 9, 2012 — If integrity matters, then it should be practiced impartially. If order of issues is what governs a democratic nation, then it should be applied to all regardless of their status. The saga of Mading Ngor of Bakhita Radio and the Legislative Assembly is becoming interesting—interesting because it is showing the contradictions that are common in South Sudan. Our laws seem to be based on our feelings, not what they really are.
It was on Monday that Mading Ngor was mishandled by the security guards at the Legislative Assembly. The media took the issue seriously, forcing the Assembly to discuss the incident. The Assembly appeared at first to convince many people in public about its seriousness to deal with the issue impartially. The Speaker promised on Tuesday that the matter would be investigated. It was indeed investigated. But impartiality was killed before the investigations were completed. The impartial investigation would have meant the investigation of both sides: the guards and Mading in order to prove the claims of each side against the other. But that was not the case.
On Wednesday the findings of the investigation were read out. The findings were based on the statements given by the guards and people that had nothing to do with the incident. Those people might have been information volunteers during the investigation. But nobody even bothered to establish their relationships with Mading in his journalistic work.
Despite the partiality of the investigation, the reactions of the Assembly were interesting. The members capitalized on the findings without questioning the procedural justice that the Assembly should care about. The media was blamed on how it reported the incident. First, the Assembly could not believe that the Editor-in-Chief of Citizen, Nhial Bol, wrote that the Assembly celebrated the beating of Mading Ngor. Hon. Aleu Ayieny who brought this allegation to light denied the allegation and suggested that the Paper (The Citizen) be taken to court by the Assembly.
I agree with Hon. Aleu Ayieny that the Assembly never celebrated the beating of Mading Ngor. First, Mading did not say he was beaten. He said he was violently carried to the point his trousers were torn. Second, the Assembly applauded when one of their members suggested on Tuesday that the incident be investigated and that the guards responsible be held accountable. When Hon. Aleu accused Mading of trouble-making that day, the Chairperson of Information Committee in the Assembly disputed Aleu’s allegations. All this showed that the Assembly never celebrated the mishandling of Mading Ngor.
If Mr. Nhial Bol should be taken to court for misinforming the public, then he should indeed be taken to court. But the Assembly would win the case in court if it is free from such a practice. My fear is that the Assembly is not free from misinforming the public. In its findings during the investigation, one of the findings read out to the Assembly on Wednesday by the Chairperson of Information Committee was that Mading Ngor was found to be just a freelance Journalist not the Journalist of Bakhita Radio as he claims. I waited for more clarification on that point, but that was it. No any other evidence was given about the finding.
This, to me, falls under the category of the misinformation to public in an attempt to tarnish the name of the Journalist in the same way that Nhial Bol misinformed the public in order to tarnish the name of the Assembly. If the Assembly was the master of correct information, it would have gone to Bakhita Radio to find out whether Mading is a Journalist of Bakhita Radio or not. In its News at 8:00am on Thursday, Bakhita Radio announced that the Assembly banned its Journalist Mading Ngor from attending the session of the Assembly. If Mading was not a Journalist of Bakhita, then why would Bakhita call him its Journalist? Is the Assembly’s finding correct? If this finding failed the test, why would the public believe other points in the investigation findings?
The other interesting part was when Hon. Kom Kom said that during the investigation, they were told that Mading was causing trouble throughout in the Assembly. Mark the word “throughout.” If throughout really means what it says, then ten times that Mading was accused of causing trouble would be a drop in the ocean. Throughout would mean counting the sessions that Mading attended in the Assembly and adding them up to find how much. According to Mading, he had been attending the secessions of the Assembly for five months and we know that the Assembly has three sessions per a week. So, five months times sessions of the Assembly each week would be more than ten times and that contradicts the statement by the Chairperson of the Information Committee that the investigation findings was that Mading caused trouble ten times. If, on the other hand, the statement by Hon. Kom Kom was an exaggeration, then why blame Nhial Bol for the same behavior?
Coming to the point of the order of issues, a country where order of activities is valued should always have laws in place to regulate the order of issues. Here in South Sudan, we seem to act on emergencies often even when we have time to do things on time. Take for example the Wednesday call from the Assembly for the Executive to present the Media Bill quickly for deliberations and passage simply because of the case of Mading Ngor despite the fact that the Media Bill has been sitting in the Council of Ministers for years. What guarantee will the media have that the bill is not going to be based on the anger of the Assembly, making it a law against the media than a law meant to regulate the activities of the media?
The fear of media often presents suspicion on Government’s accountability and transparency. If our Government is a Government who fought for freedom as we know, then why would it fear the media? The media is the only tool that the Government should use to let the public know how things are done. Sitting on the Media Bill means that transparency is imprisoned. Now that things are getting out of hand, the bill is going to be discussed in a way that the fear would clearly be spelled out, tarnishing the image of the country internationally.
The suing of Nhial Bol would be baseless without the Media Act in place. Forcing it on different Articles would mean injustice. You convict somebody for knowingly breaking the existing law. But now, where is the law that regulates Nhial’s writing? The regulations that regulate the relationships of the Assembly with the media are not even in existence. What a system!
Zechariah Manyok Biar lives in Juba, the Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at manyok34@gmail.com
Latest Comments & Analysis
Is UNSC only legitimate to Sudan in complaint times? 2012-05-20 01:45:00 By Zechariah Manyok Biar May 19, 2012 — Sudanese leaders seem to think they are smarter than anybody else in this world. They seem to recognize the legitimacy of the United Nations Security (...)
Sudan’s NCP, an obstacle to peaceful co-existence 2012-05-20 01:30:00 By Jacob K. Lupai May 19, 2012 — Peaceful co-existence is what is expected of people the world over in promoting security. Nevertheless, how does peaceful co-existence come about? There are many (...)
On the African Union road map and UN resolution 2046 2012-05-20 01:00:00 By Gamal Adam My 18, 2012 — The African Union’s recent road map which the United Nations Security Council has endorsed with the Resolution 2046 includes a clause that puts pressure on the Sudan (...)
MORE