Home | News    Monday 26 May 2014

G. Equatoria politicians discuss federalism as Igga lashes out at rebel leader Machar


May 25, 2014 (ADDIS ABABA) – South Sudanese politicians and intellectuals from the three states of the Greater Equatoria region held a meeting in the capital, Juba, on Saturday during which they discussed the federal system of governance.

JPEG - 72.9 kb
James Wani Igga addressing the border dispute conference, Tombura, Western Equatoria, South Sudan in 2012 (file/ST)

In attendance of the one-day consultative conference held at Nyakuron Culture Center, were leaders from the executive and legislative branches of the country’s Western, Central and Eastern Equatoria states.

The idea to embrace federalism, which is being pushed by the rebel faction of the SPLM led by the former vice-president Riek Machar was, however, opposed by his successor, James Wani Igga who cautioned Equatorians against buying the concept.

The framers of South Sudan’s 2011 transitional constitution avoided mention of federalism, opting instead for a nominally ‘decentralized system’.

Observers, however, say most of the Equatorian politicians and intellectuals seem to be in favour of federalism given their resolution in this regard at last year’s conference.

Central Equatoria state governor, Clement Wani Kongo, though not part of the rebels, was last month the first to publicly declare his position in favor of federalism, saying, “the people of Equatoria have come openly that this [federalism] is what should be included in the constitution.”

Many leaders from the greater Upper Nile region have as well in the past expressed their support towards federalism unlike their counter-parts in greater Bahr el Ghazal region who have reservations on federal system of governance seeing it as a “disadvantage” to their region given its meagre resources.

The rebels under Machar’s leadership have demanded restructuring of the state on the basis of a new peace agreement and a federal constitution in order to end the current five-month old crisis in the new country.


Igga, the highest-ranking Equatorian in the country’s politics, urged Equatorians to neither join rebel leader Machar nor buy his idea of a federal system of governance.

“Many Equatorians saw that this idea of Riek on federation will rescue them. Equatorians, no, Riek is a liar. So please the few of us who think they must join Riek in order to get federation, please you are on the wrong road”, Igga told the conference.

He accused the country’s ex-vice president of allegedly stealing from the Equatorians the idea of federalism, which was proposed at a similar conference in Juba last year.

“This federation here is not the creation of Riek, we all know that Riek actually stole this renewed call for federalism in this hall here – Nyakuron – during a Equatorian consultative conference like this, because he knew the resolutions of it then he said yes, I am also for federation,” he further added.

Soon after Igga’s remarks, however, a high-ranking state government official warned journalists present at the conference not to report on the speech of the vice president, saying it ‘did not constitute part of the conference”.


Meanwhile, officials of the armed opposition faction of the country’s ruling party have welcomed discussions on federalism, describing it as a “courageous step” towards chartering the future governance of the country.

“Our leadership welcomes this courageous step taken by the Equatorian leaders and intellectuals in discussing the importance of constituting and implementing a federal system of governance in South Sudan,” Machar’s spokesperson James Gatdet Dak said when reached by Sudan Tribune on Sunday.

He further pointed that it was not significant to fight over who initiated the idea, but rather focus on how to implement the federalism idea.

“The question would be who is ready to champion this overdue popular demand of the people and implement it? I think it is important to say that those leaders who embrace the idea of federalism should instead lead their people towards achieving it despite who initiated the idea,” he further emphasised.

In an interview with Sudan Tribune last week, an Equatorian member of SPLM/A-in-Opposition, Oyet Nathaniel Pierino, observed that a federal system of governance could address issues of diversity and accelerate development in South Sudan.

Critics of the federalism idea, however, argue that federalism is a path toward fragmentation of the country into tribal regions. Some pointed to the recent series of Equatorian regional conferences as a resurgence of kokora – a term used in reference to Equatorian particularism.

But Oyet, formerly head of the political science department at Juba University, says South Sudan’s current crisis was mainly as a result of lack of separation of powers, checks and balances and development of independent legal and judicial branches.


Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
  • 26 May 2014 08:06, by Letigolight

    First of all Igga does not have a constituency - his people of Lobonok Payam did not vote for him, Igga bought off the candidacy of the Juba na Bari Payam with cash to stand for the parliamentary elections. The poor man went home to enjoy his free salary of five years paid once. So Igga’s views are his own so that Kiir does not remove him from the VP post!

    repondre message

    • 26 May 2014 14:07, by Ito

      Dear readers,
      As you can read from his mouth, you can see for yourself that he has nothing to talk about Dr. Riek Machar because he did not indicate reasons as to why federalism is not a good system or even give an alternative system and why. This clearly shows that he is a bought man and needless to say an opportunist. I must also say here that VP Wani Igga has no legs in Equatoria as some of you

      repondre message

      • 26 May 2014 14:13, by Ito

        may think. Wani Igga according to us is a Dinka as his whole work is to promote the interest of the Dinka. Dr. Riek did not claim federalism was not created by equatorians, can the vice president give us proof?What matters here is not about who introduced what or who did not, but the popular call of the people for a better system of governance.It is upto Equatorians and others to choose whether to

        repondre message

        • 26 May 2014 14:17, by Ito

          follow the always political rhetoric of the mad and naive VP which will leads to forever iron ruling of the country by one tribe and the selling of other tribes interest or to choose a system that benefits every citizen, state and region. The few like VP who hugely benefit from the current ruthless regime will always support the system for obvious reasons and I hope you the public understand this.

          repondre message

          • 27 May 2014 13:09, by Adodi Jotuwa

            Joseph Canada, Gangura, Whortti Bor Manza, James Gatdet Dak (and Jalaby who struggles to twist the political history of South Sudan vs Khartoum’s Islamic Policy). Why don’t you pretend to be fools than pretend to be political analysts of the pre-and-post July 9th, 2011 or post-December 15th, 2013/2014?

            repondre message

            • 27 May 2014 13:10, by Adodi Jotuwa

              If your brains are so little and tribal, you will never achieve something. If the reasoning of educated people like Dr. Fool Riek Machar does not make sense since 1991 up to date, why do you believe in “his interpretation of Federalism”, which is different from how some South Sudanese or Equatorians in particular are also struggling to define? Dr. Fool Fool defines federalism in terms of resources

              repondre message

              • 27 May 2014 13:11, by Adodi Jotuwa

                …not in terms of governance and unity as some Equatorians may imagine.USA did not adopt federal system because the States of Texas and California would be in control of oil and gold production respectively to enrich themselves regardless of their different ethnic European origins. It was adopted for the sake of governance and unity to freely address critical local issues facing State governments.

                repondre message

                • 27 May 2014 13:12, by Adodi Jotuwa

                  Kokora was taken for granted by some Equatorians/Junubins that they would develop and govern themselves better than the other regional ethnic groups as “one family”, but to Khartoum, it was meant for indirect abrogation of Addis Ababa Agreement (AAA-1972) and introduction of Sharia law to generate hatred among Southerners to pave way for controlling Junubins who politically raise their heads high.

                  repondre message

                  • 27 May 2014 13:14, by Adodi Jotuwa

                    In Equatoria region, the same thing that some Junubins/Equatorians in particular are currently complaining about such as nepotism, employment opportunities or service delivery would have not been achieved even if the war of 1983 didn’t break out because some ministries were indeed occupied by one tribe worse than the current claims raised by the very citizens of the region.

                    repondre message

                  • 27 May 2014 13:22, by Adodi Jotuwa

                    Equatorians know what I am talking about. Mundari tribe which Clement Wani Konga hails from was one of the illiterate ethnic groups among the Bari speakers or Equatorians as a whole. They could not compete with Bari of Juba Nabari, Kuku, Pojulu, Kakwa or Nyangwara in terms of education and employment. There was only one international NGO hiring and educating only Mundari…

                    repondre message

                    • 27 May 2014 13:26, by Adodi Jotuwa

                      …so that they would be able to compete in education, job market and service delivery with other educated Equatorian ethnic groups in the post-Kokora government in Juba here. I have no idea how Clement Wani and his colleagues define “federalism” at the current political crisis moreover Dr. Fool Riak Machar has failed to define it in 1991, KPA-1997 and 2005-2013/2014 as usual.

                      repondre message

                      • 27 May 2014 13:28, by Adodi Jotuwa

                        The kind of “federalism” that Dr. Fool Riek Machar and his associates yearn for is the imported one “copy and paste” in our current political environment as a solution while in reality it does not and will not be realistically viable because the outstanding issues with Khartoum are not yet over/peacefully resolved, our individual State/County borders are not yet physically or conclusively demarcat

                        repondre message

                        • 27 May 2014 13:32, by Adodi Jotuwa

                          Illiteracy rate is not yet brought down so that we could nationally, regionally and institutionally analyze and recognize the advantages and disadvantages of adopting realistic federalism that some political leaders are trying to hide their self-interest behind. What kind of federalism and its impact will be on the current ten (10) individual States or more and their ethnic groupings and resources

                          repondre message

                          • 27 May 2014 13:36, by Adodi Jotuwa

                            South Sudanese are not educated enough or ready to “copy and paste” the imported democracy and federalism that are often discussed on the media and public fora. Where will the playing ground of federalism be if Dr. Fool Riek Machar was able to disrupt popular movement along tribal line in 1991 and an elected government in 2013/2014?

                            repondre message

                            • 27 May 2014 13:41, by Adodi Jotuwa

                              It was the visionary icon Dr. John Garang who managed to keep the movement united until CPA is signed in 2005 and Joshua, H.E. Salva Kiir Mayardit was again able to advance the unity of the war-torn country during the interim period up to post-independent era. The needs for getting the outstanding issues resolved peacefully with Khartoum are more vital than application of federalism.

                              repondre message

  • 26 May 2014 08:16, by Letigolight

    Igga is a disgraced politician in the Greater Equatoria Region and his blatant support for Kiir isolates him further! Igga is a stooge, he lacks the charisma to lead South Sudan; he thinks M7 can help plant him and Kiir as PERMANENT DICTATORS to corrupt more public funds and have more of the luxurious hotels in Adis; TIME UP!

    repondre message

  • 26 May 2014 08:27, by Padiet Deng Alony

    Critics of the idea of federalism however argue that federalism is a path toward fragmentation of the country into tribal regions. Some pointed to the recent series of Equatorian regional conferences as a resurgence of kokora – a term referring to Equatorian particularism.
    Better to be tribal regions as always made advocacy:
    Dinka Region
    Nuer Region
    Shilluk Region
    Anyuak Region
    Latuko Region etc

    repondre message

    • 26 May 2014 13:11, by Diversity

      Yes! we should make an ethnic federalist state, mainly the schism that has been wrought by the SPLM among us can not be hidden/covered but soolved only by allowing each group/ethnically peacefully Co-existed group to run a state/region.

      repondre message

    • 26 May 2014 18:17, by Mapuor

      Bravo Padiet Deng Alony,federal system must be based on ethnic regions.There is nothing called greater Equatoria,Bhar El Gazal or Upper Nile,we Have the following regions in Equatoria:Moro region;Bari region;Zande region,Taposa region;Latuka region plus administrative areas.

      repondre message

  • 26 May 2014 08:50, by 4Justice

    Looters[Agents of Satan] don’t like Federal System one bit! their looting supplies will dry out under federal system. The Federalization of RSS will improve the lives of the people as funds will go directly into vital development projects such as roads, bridges, water supply distribution systems, hospitals, agriculture and so forth. Those states with high concentration of malevolent looters will have to deal with the culture of depravity in the confines of their own states.

    repondre message

  • 26 May 2014 10:43, by Jalaby

    Ironically, history will repeat itself again!
    Remember when I told you about the real story of the collapse of Addis Ababa agreement in 1972 between Sudan government and south rebel, the real collapse because of the conflict between south-south people themselves and it was never because of Arab-south conflict at all, the conflict was between Dinka from one side under

    repondre message

    • 26 May 2014 10:50, by Jalaby

      Abel Alier leadership and Equatorians from the other side under Joseph Lagu leadership, free and democratic election was conducted in the south in 1982 and the Equatorians list was the winner and Joseph Tombora (Azande) got the required votes to rule the south and form his government while Dinka and Abel Alier list was the loser and their candidate Clement Amboro

      repondre message

      • 26 May 2014 10:56, by Jalaby

        failed against Joseph Tombora, Equatorians list ran the election under one project:"The division of the south and non central government" while Dinka list stayed firmly in "one region" for the south!
        Dinka wanted one region to continue dominating and ruling the south through their majority number in the south while Equatorians and others pushed for 3 regions to >>

        repondre message

        • 26 May 2014 12:17, by Jalaby

          end Dinka dominance, they wanted to divide the south into 3 regions:Equatoria, Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal. By doing that, Dinka will end up ruling Bahr elGhazal only because they have majority in Bahr el Ghazal while weak presence in Equatoria and Upper Nile, so it is not just coincidence if you read in this report now that people of greater Bahr el Ghazal are not

          repondre message

          • 26 May 2014 12:23, by Jalaby

            supporting the proposal of federal system in south Sudan, again history will repeat itself!
            Joseph Lagu and Joseph Tombora and Equatorians behind them urged former president Nimery to divide the south into 3 regions because that what the southerns people want to be, they pushed Nimery till he agreed to divide the south into 3 regions and violated Addis Ababa agreement

            repondre message

            • 26 May 2014 12:30, by Jalaby

              Guess what happened after Khartoum government complied to Equatorians request and divided the south into 3 regions? Dinka wasted no time and rebelled immediately against central government under the excuse of Arab/Jalaba breached Addis Ababa agreement despite they know very well dividing the south was southerners demand and Khartoum did nothing other than complied to

              repondre message

              • 26 May 2014 12:38, by Jalaby

                the majority of southerners request!
                Ironically, instead of fighting with us Dinka, Equatorians disappointed us and gave us a donkey double kick, we lost our beloved one in that war, our economy was destroyed, we lived under poverty,famine,disease and discarded by international community!
                Thanks for the real great men of Nuer warrior who stood with us during that war

                repondre message

                • 26 May 2014 12:47, by Jalaby

                  Dinka asked us many times to fight Nuer rebel and attack them from behind but we said to them NO .. and BIG NO!
                  We’ll never ever fight our brothers and strategic ally no matter what happens!
                  You know I always tell you the truth and never lie to you,the federal system will give you the half solution only but confederal system with the north is your only cure buddies!

                  repondre message

                  • 26 May 2014 12:53, by Jalaby

                    I’m sure many close minded people will understand me wrong and will assume me talking about uniting north and south as before again, not at all, you need to know first what confedral system means, the federal system usually implemented against one country while confederal system implemented against two sovereign countries, hence you’ll still have your own country!

                    repondre message

                    • 26 May 2014 19:18, by Rommel

                      No, actually your fanciful little *story*, or rather mindless noise-making, has little to do with history. *Yawn* It’s over, Jalaby. Get a new hobby, instead of playing online fantasy in public forums about history > history that you know little to nothing about. In this site you provide only empty rhetoric and attempted distractions from your lack of evidence, and nothing more.

                      repondre message

                      • 26 May 2014 19:36, by Rommel

                        Contrary to your ignorant little flights of fancy, there were two ’elections’ in 1982, not one. The first election [the election to the National Assembly] was held in January of 1982, and it returned a two-thirds majority opposed to regionalization. Nimeiry rejected this result and demanded that a second election be held...

                        repondre message

                        • 26 May 2014 20:00, by Rommel

                          .. And so new regional ’elections’ were held in April that same year... Elections in which opponents of the re-division plan were arrested, while others [who had previously rejected re-division] were enticed with cabinet positions. How could this ’election’ have been ’democratic’ when the initial results were rejected, while those opposed were arrested and others bribed!?

                          repondre message

                          • 26 May 2014 20:26, by Rommel

                            And to show you just how incredibly sincere I am, I’m going to cite the works of historians to anneal my position. Do not engage in histrionics, personal attacks and a myriad of the many other juvenile forms of behaviour that we’ve come to expect from you.

                            repondre message

                            • 26 May 2014 20:32, by Rommel

                              The elections to the National Assembly in January 1982 returned a two-thirds majority of Southern members opposed to regionalization, despite the arrest of some of the most prominent opponents to this policy, and despite some election irregularities in the two Equatorian provinces. (The Root Causes Of Sudan’s Civil Wars: Peace Or Truce, Douglas H Johnson)

                              repondre message

                              • 26 May 2014 20:40, by Rommel

                                In the spring 1982 elections, those who favoured keeping the Southern Region united one more seats than those who favoured redivision. (War And Politics In Sudan: Cultural Identities And The Challenges Of The Peace Process, Justin Leach)

                                repondre message

                                • 26 May 2014 20:48, by Rommel

                                  Nimeiry dismissed the Alier government in 1981 and requested a referendum on dividing the South. National Assembly elections in 1982 returned a two-thirds majority of Southern members who opposed the plan. (Addis Ababa Agreement: Was it destined to fail and are there lessons for the Current Sudan Peace Process?, David H. Shinn)

                                  repondre message

                                  • 26 May 2014 20:58, by Rommel

                                    A month later in January 1982, the Southern Regional Congress of the SSU voted overwhelmingly to preserve the Addis Ababa Agreement and the unity of the South. (A History of Modern Sudan, Robert O. Collins)
                                    The elections to the National Assembly in January 1982 resulted in a majority of Southern opponents to re-division. (A Concise History of South Sudan)

                                    repondre message

                                    • 26 May 2014 21:08, by Rommel

                                      Some Southern activists charge that Nimeiri, not satisfied with initial results favouring unionists, delayed responding to the election results until he persuaded enough unionist candidates to change their position. (War And Politics In Sudan: Cultural Identities And The Challenges Of The Peace Process, Justin Leach)

                                      repondre message

                                      • 26 May 2014 21:28, by Rommel

                                        So here you had a situation in which the initial election results were rejected or ignored, followed by an ’election’ in which the most prominent opponents of re-division were arrested while the less principled and unscrupulous amongst them were enticed with cushy cabinet positions. That would not be considered a legitimate result anywhere not encumbered by dictatorship.

                                        repondre message

                                        • 26 May 2014 21:42, by Rommel

                                          Some eighty percent of those subsequently elected to the Regional Assembly were opposed to formal regionalization, but many were also sympathetic to transferring some of the powers of the regional government from Juba to the provinces. (The Root Causes Of Sudan’s Civil Wars: Peace Or Truce, Douglas H Johnson)

                                          repondre message

                                          • 26 May 2014 21:51, by Rommel

                                            Facts are important. Here are the facts: Nimeiry Imposed Sharia, changed the constitution, contravening the Southern Regional Self-Government Act and the Addis Ababa agreement, cancelled the agreed upon Referendums on Abyei and Chali, and attempted to redraw the border by annexing fertile and mineral rich Southern territories to the North.

                                            repondre message

                                            • 26 May 2014 21:54, by Rommel

                                              The proposal to re-divide the South did receive significant support from *some* minority tribes [in just [1] of the [3] regions], but that’s not the reason Nimeiry wanted the re-division of the South. Nimeiry’s motivations for wanting the re-division of the South was to undermine its political strength and denude it of powers it had under the Addis Ababa Agreement.

                                              repondre message

                                              • 26 May 2014 22:02, by Rommel

                                                The Addis Ababa Agreement affirmed the unity of the South and it specified that it could only be amended by a three quarters vote in the National Assembly and a two thirds vote in a referendum of the Southern electorate. This did not happen. You can’t renege on your commitments to an agreement just because some people in just 1 out 3 regions supported your initiative.

                                                repondre message

                                                • 26 May 2014 22:08, by Rommel

                                                  Now, show us how deluded you are, and try to explain exactly how educated people [like the historians I cited] are wrong. I’ll have to stop and wait for you to think up some answers. Some tribes in Equatoria supported re-division and understandably so, but they don’t outnumber the combined peoples of Greater Upper Nile and Bahr el Gazal, do they?

                                                  repondre message

                                                  • 26 May 2014 22:16, by Rommel

                                                    You shouldn’t try to reduce the many underpinnings that contributed to the resumption of the war to just one reason... especially not one that is congenial to your prejudice and bias; one that attempts to absolve you of any and all responsibility for the collapse of that peace agreement.

                                                    repondre message

                                                    • 26 May 2014 22:18, by Rommel

                                                      The actions which caused the most widespread discontent before 1983 — and which ultimately contributed to the outbreak of war were: Continued political interference by Khartoum in the internal politics of the Southern region; the inability of the Southern Regional Government to exert any real control over local economic development plans...

                                                      repondre message

                                                      • 26 May 2014 22:22, by Rommel

                                                        ... The gradual weeding out of ex-Anyanya officers from the ranks of the national army and the attempted transfer of southern army units out of the region; the failure to implement the referendums on the border regions (as stipulated in the Agreement. The Kasha policy -begun in 1981- which aimed at expelling large numbers of southern and Darfurian migrants from Khartoum was also a factor.

                                                        repondre message

                                • 26 May 2014 22:08, by Whortti Bor Manza

                                  Wani Igga is a simple dummy and a great fool dancing to the tune of the Dinkas. Equatorians have had many conferences: 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. In all these conferences Federalism was unanimously endorsed by all the delegates, Wani made it to power under oath of securing federalism for the Equats. How comes that he is back tracking from the aspirations of the equats.

                                  repondre message

                  • 26 May 2014 13:06, by Diversity

                    Federalism is an only option left for South Sudanese to restore their trust in one another (ethnic groups) as it is very difficult by any other means to avert the impact of the Ethnic hostility mindset being sown in our people by the SPLM

                    repondre message

  • 27 May 2014 03:12, by jur_likang_a_ likan’g

    People should debate this issue of federation in a mature way. Every citizen has a right to air opinions on how the country should governed. It is therefore a constitutional right for individuals to demand or not demand federal government in Sudan. The best this can be done is through a referendum to seek the opinions of the population.

    repondre message

  • 27 May 2014 06:05, by Joseph Canada

    Unfortunately u don’t seems to convince me on your prove. It seems to me that you are reading the book by Jonson and using it as the shield in which it made no sense. Jalabi this time have hit the nail on the head. We just need the Federalism and even regionalism if it come to the worse case. Dinka are arrogantly greedy and nepotistic. Iga have been bought and he’s not one of us. So plz!

    repondre message

    • 27 May 2014 07:30, by Gangura

      Vry stupid Wani Igga, I do not know which school or leve did Wani attend. instead federalims is what will bring an end to this senseless killing of innocent people. anyway I know Wani Igga is just a Kirr messager not really a discisionmarker otherwise keeping him there is usuless.

      repondre message

    • 27 May 2014 08:07, by Jalaby

      Joseph Canada,
      Rommel couldn’t provide any proof to falsify my strong argument and the historical facts that I mentioned above and remember many people who witnessed that era are still alive and no one from Dinka side will be able to fabricate the history and show themselves as the "innocent lamb"!

      repondre message

      • 27 May 2014 08:15, by Jalaby

        You see, until now, Rommel and his Dinka alike do not want to accept the result of that election and the group of "regionalizing" the south won that election and the Dinka group with their proposal of "one region" lost the election,Clement Amboro who was the Dinka candidate in his speech inside the south parliament at that time accepted the result and never questioned

        repondre message

        • 27 May 2014 08:21, by Jalaby

          its credibility because it was fair and the central government in Khartoum stood at the same distance from the two parties and never intervened and supported one part over the other, Rommel is lying as usual, none of Abel Alier and Clement Amboro list candidate was ever arrested as he mentioned, all their candidates were able to run the election without any problem!

          repondre message

          • 27 May 2014 08:27, by Jalaby

            you’re right, I believe Rommel is reading one book written by one of his Dinka fellow and that book is full of lies and nonsense!
            Rommel, which book are you reading now and then copying its story here? you know, I can give you many good books that you can go and read because you’re young boy with only 23 years old so I can guide you boy! LOL

            repondre message

            • 27 May 2014 18:43, by Rommel

              The more you post, the more you convince the rest of us that you are probably *on something*. I cited historians, and every single one of those historians affirms that the 1982 election to the National Assembly returned a two-thirds majority of Southern members opposed to the re-division plan.

              repondre message

              • 27 May 2014 18:57, by Rommel

                The historians that I cited also agree that Nimeiri rejected the results of the 1982 January election — an election that rejected re-division. When elections are held and the results tallied, you can’t simply reject the results and demand another election in which you imprison your political opponents. No part of that is ’democratic’, ’fair’ or ’credible’.

                repondre message

                • 27 May 2014 19:21, by Rommel

                  The fact remains that the National Assembly elections in January returned a two-thirds majority of Southern members opposed to re-division. I have cited at least three different historians on this point. Nimeiri did not have the constitutional mandate to break up the South; he contravened the Southern Regional Self-Government Act of 1973 and the terms of the Addis Ababa peace agreement.

                  repondre message

                  • 27 May 2014 19:24, by Rommel

                    You are guilty of investing in fantasy over fact, when it strokes your embittered and childish bias. You not only provide no evidence for your claims. You also ignore all findings that contradict your conclusions. There’s not a single credible historian that argues that the Dinka re-ignited the war.

                    repondre message

                    • 27 May 2014 19:35, by Rommel

                      Nimeiri contravened on the terms of the Addis Ababa agreement when he divided the South into three [3] regions when he announced Republican Order Number 1 on the 5th of June in 1983. But this wasn’t the only reason we took up arms. There were many other breaches of the agreement that you seem to wish to ignore.

                      repondre message

                      • 27 May 2014 19:41, by Rommel

                        You seem to want to forget that Nimeiry imposed Sharia, ignored the agreed upon quantitative one-to-one military ratio, cancelled the agreed upon Referendums on Abyei and Chali, and attempted to redraw the border by annexing fertile and mineral rich Southern territories to the North. You were responsible for the resumption of the war.

                        repondre message

                        • 27 May 2014 19:42, by Rommel

                          Historians have written quite extensively on the fact that Khartoum was responsible for the resumption of the war. It is their work you must refute, not mine. Pretending it’s mine just allows you to keep running away from the works of these historians.

                          repondre message

                          • 27 May 2014 19:47, by Rommel

                            There’s not a single credible historian that claims that Southerners were responsible for the resumption of the war. If you disagree, please name the contemporary historian that asserts that Nimeiri didn’t rescind on his commitments to every one of the terms of the peace agreement, and that it was the Dinka who initiated the war for absolutely no reason at all.

                            repondre message

                            • 27 May 2014 19:49, by Rommel

                              You don’t like the truth and prefer to make up reasons for believing in nonsense, so you continuously pretend not to understand a word I say. Please cite the historians that you claim support your position. Step up or step off. It’s a fair challenge - answers accepted, excuses rejected.

                              repondre message

    • 27 May 2014 18:07, by Rommel

      Joseph Canada:
      I cited Robert O. Collins, Justin Leach and Dr. Douglas H. Johnson. I am not at all opposed to federalism; we desperately need Federalism in South Sudan and Salva Kiir is an absolute imbecile for opposing it.

      repondre message

      • 27 May 2014 18:16, by Rommel

        Jalaby didn’t get anything right. He attempted to distort the history of South Sudan; he ignored the fact that Nimeiri rejected the initial election results and demanded another ’election’ in which his political opponents were arrested. That’s not ’democratic’, and it contravened the Addis Ababa agreement.

        repondre message

  • 27 May 2014 10:46, by Positive Thinker

    My dear people no need to be hard on VP, he is still eating and the current system of governance is good with him. I beleive the majority of South Sudanese are for federalism, but who will champion it is the question as those who are eating now will not allow people to make their choice.

    repondre message

  • 27 May 2014 17:53, by hellonearth

    Igga why the change of heart? you were advocating for federalism....http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article39318

    repondre message

Comment on this article

The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.

Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis

Implications of al-Bashir’s regime dismantling 2019-12-12 21:08:55 By Alhadi A. Khalifa The enactment of the law of dismantling the regime of Omar Albashir on 28 November 2019 represents a turning point in the march of the Sudanese revolution given its (...)

Security Arrangements in Sudan: Achilles heels of peace and democratic transformation 2019-12-10 05:47:59 By Elwathig Kameir This article is intended to act as an eye-opener for all the Sudanese political forces. It aims to shed light on the huge challenges that will be faced by the December (...)

Egypt final push to secure zero-sum water-share agreement 2019-12-09 14:11:32 By Ermias Hailu After Egypt’s failure to integrate Eritrea to its territories by the end of the second world war, due to Emperor Haile Selassie’s superior diplomatic skills, the then Egyptian Pan- (...)


Latest Press Releases

S. Korea supports UN communities building resilience project in Sudan’s Blue Nile 2019-09-09 09:26:41 UNDP Sudan September 5, 2019 (KHARTOUM) - An agreement was signed on 5th of September between the Korean Ambassador, His Excellency. Lee Ki-Seong and Dr. Selva Ramachandran, Resident (...)

Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders back calls for civil rule 2019-04-26 10:22:06 Press statement by 55 Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders on Sudan Sit-in and Peaceful Protest Khartoum -24/04/2019 We, the undersigned (55) Sudanese lawyers and human rights defenders, (...)

South Sudan’s Lafon youth condemn killings of civilians by Pari community 2019-04-03 21:54:29 Press Statement on the Fighting between Pari/ Pacidi and Lotuko/Lokiri on 24/3/2019 Release by The Lafon County Youth Union: We, the Lafon County Youth Union hereby condemn the atrocities and (...)


Copyright © 2003-2019 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.