Security for citizens: Will it be better in the independent South Sudan?

By Zechariah Manyok Biar

January 11, 2011 — Referendum voting has begun in Southern Sudan. Lines are long in every polling centre and people are relaxed and each of them is waiting for his or her turn to vote. The expectations are high that the Referendum will be peaceful. The peacefulness of the Referendum would not be realized without an improved security for citizens. Better security is part of good governance.

Security in Southern Sudan is improving a lot. At the turn of this year, there was only one death in Juba and it was caused by a drunkard driver who knocked dead a boda-boda rider. But it could not take the Minister of Internal Affairs in the Government of Southern Sudan Lt. Gen. Gier Chuang Aluong a minute to hear about the accident from other people; he witnessed it because he did not sleep that night. He was moving around Juba, asking people on where they think security threats were high and how they thought solutions could be found. It is this kind of commitment from the Minister that contributes to the improvement in security in Southern Sudan.

In November last year when the Minister of Internal Affairs toured all ten states of Southern Sudan to find out the gaps in security, I was part of the delegation. There is nothing I will compare with the experience I got in that tour. Security gaps were identified and they are being addressed now.

During the tour, we identified many reasons why our organized forces do not seem to be effective. Some of these reasons are questions that need complicated answers in order to find their solutions. These complicated questions must be addressed well if we are to have better security for citizens in the upcoming new country of South Sudan. I will try to address one question in this article. This question is how organized forces can protect the citizens and not endanger their own lives.

Life in the bush has turned almost everybody wild in Southern Sudan. Few people respect the law now. Most of our current civilians had been soldiers during the North-South civil wars. That means they cannot easily be intimidated. For example, if the chief or the judge orders a police officer to go and bring a cow from a fined criminal, the criminal would stand with his spear and make it clear to the police officer that he would spear him or her if he or she unties the cow. The police officer now would be placed in a situation in which he or she could either use force to implement the law or compromise the law and let the criminal have his way.

If one criminal is allowed to remain with the cow because the police officer had feared for his or her life, then other civilians would learn about it and use the same style next time to save their illegally acquired property. The police in this situation are rendered fearful and powerless.

If the police officer decides to use force to protect the law in the above mentioned situation and somebody gets killed or injured, then he or she falls into undefined legal implications. For example, on November 13, 2010 the Minister of Internal Affairs visited a prison in Aweil and randomly picked prisoners to ask them questions about their imprisonment. He picked Corporal Majok Garang. Cpl. Majok was guiding a particular centre with his squad one day. When civilians in the area attempted to rob a truck of ration at night, Cpl. Majok and his police personnel fired warning shots, killing a civilian far away from the scene at 10:00pm. Cpl. Majok and two other personnel who fired the warning shots were initially sentenced to death by one judge and the sentence was later reduced by another judge to four year imprisonment.

Here, there are many things to consider before we condemn any side. Cpl. Majok and his squad were performing their legal duties because the Mission of Southern Sudan Police Services (SPSS) is to “work together with the community to: Protect life and property; Prevent and detect crime; Ensure peace and safety and security; Uphold the rule of law.” Inaction from Cpl. Majok and his squad would have been a violation of the protection of life and property mentioned in the SPSS Mission Statement.

The judge who initially sentenced Cpl. Majok and his personnel to death was also performing his legal duties because Article 206 of the “The Penal Code Act 2008” stipulates that whoever causes the death of another person be sentenced to death or imprisoned for life.

So, who is right between Cpl. Majok and the judge who sentenced him to death despite the fact that Cpl. Majok was doing his job? The judge would say that he is right because nobody should cause the death of another person. The problem is that the judge overlooked part (a) of the same Article in which the word “intention” is mentioned.

Intention to harm somebody is very important in Law and in Ethics. Cpl. Majok did not intend to harm his victim. That is why the person killed was killed far away from the scene and it was at 10:00pm. If Cpl. Majok intended to kill civilians, he would have killed those who were at the scene of the attempted robbery.

If then Cpl. Majok was not intending to kill civilians, the judge would argue, then he would still be convicted of culpable homicide because of negligence and would still be sentenced to life imprisonment according to section one (1) of Article 201 of “The Penal Code Act 2008.”

The above argument might be correct. But the reality is that our police lack alternatives to be blamed for negligence. There are no enough teargases to be used in the protection of property in the situation that Cpl. Majok and his men faced. The only choice they had was to either use the sound of their guns (using life bullets) to scare away the attempted robbers, or allow them rob the truck of its ration.

The judge who reduced the sentence from death to four year imprisonment understood the above legal argument, I think. But the damage had already been done. Cpl. Majok and those sentenced to death with him had been placed under untold stress, which may remain with them for long time. Other police who have heard about the sentence would avoid similar situation next time in order to avoid stress and suffering. This would weaken the whole police force in Southern Sudan and the security of citizens will not be achieved in our new country. Something needs to be done.

Because of space, I am going to write another article on what I think is a solution to the above situation. The solution, I would argue, is that private or self-defence for the police must be clearly defined in our legal system if the police forces are to be effective in the independent South Sudan. I will elaborate on this argument in the next article.

Zechariah Manyok Biar, BA. Edu., MACM, MSSW. He can be reached at [email protected]