South Sudan says lifting immunity not automatic indictment of corruption
June 22, 2013 (JUBA) – South Sudan said on Saturday that the suspension and lifting immunity of two federal ministers, suspected of involvement in the alleged illicit request and transfer of public funds without the knowledge of the president, must not be seen as an automatic indictment of corruption.
Jok said that the measures were taken “to afford an opportunity to clear the allegations or establish a fact of what actually happened.”
The minister was reacting to media reports on president Salva Kiir’s recent order regarding the minister of cabinet affairs, Deng Alor Kuol, and the minister of finance and economic planning, Kosti Manibe Ngai.
It is alleged that the two high profile figures requested and approved the transfer of $8 million to purchase fire safety equipment without the knowledge of relevant institutions.
Jok implored upon the media to show objectivity and avoid reporting negative and hateful comments on the case.
PUBLIC REACTION
William Wel, a member of Northern Bahr el Ghazal state legislative assembly currently in Juba, commended the decision taken by Kiir and asked the national parliament and general public to stand by the president in order to successfully win the fight against corruption.
“The decision by the president is commendable. He should be encouraged and should not hesitate pressing ahead. This is the only way to see the light of development, especially if we want to survive as [a] strong and viable state. We must do something extremely serious about corruption, which is the road our president seems to take. He must be supported”, said Wel.
The legislator said development would take place only “if the government shows it can punish whoever steals, whoever takes public funds from the treasury without the knowledge of the relevant institutions, whether it is in the local government, state or at the national”.
Charles Majak, a national member of parliament in Juba from Warrap state, stated that officials accused of corruption must be given the opportunity to clear their names in court.
“We should not sympathise with those who have taken public money. We should encourage them to abide by the requirements spelled out in the constitution, the law in respect of this country,” he said explaining the governing Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) has the responsibility to clearly show that it is committed to promote good governance and combat corruption.
“We are shouldering the heavy task bestowed by the history and going through the test of the times. We must uphold the principles for which this party [SPLM] was founded. It was founded on the democratic ideals which advocates promotion of good practices for the public good and that it exercises state power for the public, surprise our conduct and this country with strict disciplines” he said.
“Those in public office should show exemplary role. We must be modest and prudent, defy difficulties and work hard, bury ourselves in the work and forge ahead with the determination so as to achieve new, greater victory in completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects”, Majak explained separately in an interview with Sudan Tribune on Saturday.
Ladu James Laku, a local administrative officer with the Central Equatoria State government appreciated Kiir’s decision but added that he was not sure whether the officials would be prosecuted if proven guilty by the investigation committee formed by the president.
“I was not surprised by the order because we have seen similar orders before. You are aware of the case of the first minister of finance, Arthur Akuien Chol and his successor, Kuol Athian Mawien. They were removed from their positions which the public saw as the right decision in the right direction to fight corruption but what happened. Committees for investigation were formed but did we see any light. Was there any result. No. So this is the problem”, said Laku.
He said the public would never believe that the former officials were innocent as long as the debate did not extend to Parliament from which the result would have been extended to court and the general public.
“They may be innocent but in the public eyes they are still be accused of corruption. So it would have been important to prove their being innocent at the court. Their innocence should have tested against the evidence that would be provided by the law enforcement agencies but these processes seem to have been clearly ignored, regardless of the public opinions”, he said.
(ST)