Lies and illusions of South Sudan’s president Kiir

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]