Press Release on the question of USAP leadership
Union of Sudan African Parties (USAP)
This press statement is addressed to members and sympathizers of the Union of Sudan African Parties (USAP) in all walks of life, and to the general public at large, who have been consistently demanding a response to an article that appeared in our daily English News paper, Khartoum Monitor, No. 594, dated 30th of April, 2005. The article in question was written by a group of politicians who described themselves as “USAP in USA/Nairobi”.
Two points which featured prominently in their argument will suffice to illustrate the gist of their intentions, paraphrased below for the benefit of refreshing our memories, since it is almost a month from the time the article was published.
First: it was stated that there were two distinct USAPs operating as of now; one led by Honorable Eliaba James Surur, and the other by Honorable Joseph Ukel Abango.
Second: that the supporters of Honorable Eliaba should henceforth disassociate themselves from USAP led by Honorable Joseph. The reason being that, according to the article, USAP (Joseph) claims to be one political party, while at the same time continues to use the title of a union.
People are asking: where have these “USAP members” been during the last sixteen years of political struggle inside and outside Sudan, and why have they decided to surface at this post-war time?
Against this background, we owe the public an explanation, in a chronological order, of some hard facts related to the subsequent transformation of USAP from the “union umbrella” into its present status of a single political entity. Initially, we were reluctant to take up this exercise for the sake of unity of the southern people. We believe that after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and particularly after the South-South dialogue conference in Nairobi, all Southern Sudanese political leaders should concentrate their efforts on uniting their ranks to solidly face the coming difficult challenges, instead of picking at, and promoting divisive issues.
After the partial parliamentary elections of 1986 that ushered in Sudan’s Third Democracy (1986-1989), five political parties from South Sudan and one party from the Nuba Mountains were represented in the then Constituent Assembly by 37 members of parliament: Peoples’ Progressive Party (PPP), 11 MPs; Southern Sudan Political Association (SSPA), 8 MPs; Sudan African Peoples’ Congress (SAPCO), 8 MPs; Sudan National Party (SNP), 8 MPs; Sudan African Congress (SAC), 2 MPs; and Sudan African National Union (SANU), nil.
Because the six parties operated independently from each other, they were easy prey to the big Northern Sudanese parties, who exploited the situation fully for a complete year, using the usual divide and rule tactics. However, the situation changed drastically in 1987 after the six parties realized the danger, and decided to form a united front under the banner of the “Union of Sudan African Parties” (USAP), which became a force to be reckoned with in the Constituent Assembly. Hon. Eliaba James Surur was duly elected as its first Chairman since he led the party with the majority.
After the NIF regime took over the reins of power in June 1989, all political parties were banned, and party leaders detained. Following their release from detention, USAP leaders found themselves divided along three lines:-
– The first group comprised those who had chosen to join the new government, and were rewarded as ministers or other constitutional posts. It therefore follows that these politicians had to ally with the NIF government, and eventually acquire the membership of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP).
– The second group, among whom was Hon. Eliaba James Surur and former leaders of SSPA and SAC, decided to abdicate their leadership positions in USAP, and join the SPLM/A. It is a well-known fact that soon after, Hon. Eliaba was appointed Chairman for Mobilization in the SPLM. Therefore, how logically possible could he capably carry out the two mandates effectively in USAP and in the SPLM at the same time? As for Hon. Yoanes Yor Akol, who was a prominent member of USAP at that time, he left the Sudan in the early 1990s under dubious circumstances, and confined his activities to a London-based NGO working for the Nuba Mountains.
The third group was composed of USAP leaders who were determined to continue the struggle from within the lion’s den, and under these precarious circumstances, they had to fill the vacuum. Thus, in October 1989, Sayed Hilary Paul Logali was asked to assume the Chairmanship of USAP. He accepted this difficult assignment without hesitation in spite of his failing health. He was assisted by Sayed Ezekiel Macuei Kodi (Deputy), and Sayed Joseph Ukel Abango (Secretary General).
Under the new dispensation created by the wise and courageous leadership of late Hilary Paul Logali, many Southern Sudanese acquired membership, even those who did not belong to any political party: women, students, workers, civil society groups and professionals were mobilized and rallied around USAP. Since then, USAP had become a symbol of hope to which the silent majority inside the country looked forward to at all times of difficulties, and the defender of the rights of the internally displaced persons (IDPs). Sayed Hilary Paul Logali did not relinquish his responsibilities, even at the most crucial moments, until he died heroically in 1998. May his soul rest in eternal peace!
Four months after mourning the death of late Hilary Paul Logali, the party’s convention of 40 members met, and elected unanimously Ustaz Joseph Ukel Abango as the Chairman of USAP. General (Rtd) Peter Cirillo and Mr. Henry Tong Chol were appointed as his Deputies, and Professor Ajang Bior as the Secretary General. In the year 2001, Mr. Henry Tong Chol froze his activities in USAP for reasons only known to him. So General (Rtd) Peter Cirillo continues till now as the sole Deputy Chairman.
It is therefore abundantly evident that from the time of late Hilary Paul Logali’s leadership up to the present moment, USAP regards itself as one party, fighting for a common cause, and only one cause: justice and equality for Southern Sudanese citizens. Last August 2004, USAP leadership sent a message to Hon. Eliaba James Surur and to all the other former members of USAP inside and outside Sudan. It was made clear in the message that the door was open for those who would want to re-join, and therefore to re-apply for membership of USAP. They were also informed that the party would hold its convention during the first year of the interim period, and that the agenda would include, among other items, the option of maintaining or changing the name of the party, and the election of the new leadership. Meanwhile, USAP has opened its offices in Juba, Malakal and Wau, and the registration of new members keeps rising daily. Perhaps we will have to be better informed by those politicians of how to run a “party”, and a “union of parties”.
In conclusion, with the above clarifications, we wish to allay the fears of our grassroots supporters, and tell them that they should not take the current controversy over the question of who owns USAP, as a serious issue. The CPA has restored to us democracy in order to sanction our political behavior. Those making a fracas about USAP presently have no case, especially after they had abandoned USAP to its fate 16 years ago. Those noises should have come in handy at appropriate moments, for example, when make-shift houses, schools and churches were being demolished, and the IDPs relocated to uninhabitable desert camps; or when our women were being harassed and imprisoned for brewing waragi, the only source for their sustenance and education of their children; or when the only Christian cemetery was being defiled, desecrated and distributed to northern merchants, not even allowing our dead to rest in peace; or when our leaders inside were undergoing harassment, detention, torture and even imprisonment for up to a year for standing up to the authorities in the name of South Sudan and its people. After hibernating in the comfort and security of the west all this time, and then coming out boldly to make peace-time noises smells of something else
Hon. Eliaba James Surur, personally, has no quarrel with USAP leadership as he has always lauded the role played by us and the various civil society groups in the government-held areas for struggling hand in hand to protect our destiny as a people.
Lastly but not least, the CPA should be seen as a uniting factor because it has stressed the provision of “inclusiveness” of all political groups in the institutions of governments that are going to be formed soon. Old and new political parties should aspire for accommodation in the systems through well known channels without using USAP as a scapegoat, in a bid to solicit more positions in the coming phase.