South Sudan’s constitution does not recognise power sharing: Gen Dhel
December 1, 2014 (JUBA) – South Sudanese president Salva Kiir should not be pushed into a power-sharing agreement as the country’s transitional constitution does not recognise the position of a prime minister, a senior member of the Dinka council of elders told Sudan Tribune on Monday.
He said the prime minister, accepted in fulfillment of the regional mediators’ proposal, will be allowed to operate but without any powers.
“If someone does not want this position, then let that person wait for elections and give it to someone else from his group or another person from a different group in the conflict one if he thinks the proposal is not fair,” Gen. Dhel exclusively told Sudan Tribune.
He stressed that Kiir remains the legitimately elected leader of the country and that the ruling party (SPLM) resolved last week that the president remains head of state and commander of the army.
“What this means is that the powers of the president will remain as defined in the transitional constitution of the republic of South Sudan, unless there are people wanting to go against the constitution which is what others have been citing as one of the causes of this conflict,” he said.
Government and rebel forces have been locked in an armed struggle since mid-December last year after a political split in the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) turned violent.
Peace talks in Ethiopia between the rival parties mediated by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) have been marred by ongoing delays and political differences.
The armed opposition faction of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM-in-Opposition) has proposed that only the positions of the president and the prime minister should comprise the executive leadership structure during a transitional period.
However, the government rejected the proposal arguing that in addition to the positions of the president and the prime minister, the position of the vice-president should also be maintained as well as create new positions of two deputies to the prime minister.
Gen Dhel also wondered why those against president Kiir often claimed the South Sudanese leader has disrespected the country’s transitional constitution, but dismissed such claims.
“So why do they want the same constitution to be violated?” he said.
FULL INTERVIEW
Q: As you may be aware, the current conflict was initially viewed as conflict between the Dinka and Nuer, don’t you see your meeting with the president could be seen this way and that whatever you may have discussed may receive different interpretations.
A: From day one, our people never believed the fighting is a fight between the Nuer and the Dinka. If there are people who say so, they could be politicians who want to use the conflict for their own benefits but on the ground, the Nuer and the Dinka are living together. You go to Warrap and other states in Bahr el Ghazal, you find Nuer in the area. If it was a tribal conflict, do you think they would have gone there?
What happened in December 2013 was an attempt by some people to cut their way to the presidency through illegal means and everybody knows who these were. The government and the people said no and that what caused the current conflict. The media picked one side and portrayed it a tribal conflict but everybody has understood the cause of the conflict.
So what everybody wants at the moment is how this conflict can be resolved through peace dialogue and we are glad that the government is committed to bringing peace. The president has assured us of this commitment to bringing peace and this was why he accepted IGAD proposal and made several concessions. You know that there is no provision in the transitional constitution for the position of the prime minister but the president and the leadership has accepted this if it could bring peace, although there are people who think it would set a bad precedent and they are right by the way.
Q: Why do you think they are right?
A: Because what do you think will prevent other people from not doing the same, rebelling against the government if this is one of the ways to positions or get back to the government when one is removed. Anybody can do the same. They can rebel against the government because he/she knows there will be a compromise. I also think that this will set a bad example but what can be done when our people are dying, just because some people do not want not to be separated from power.
Q: As an elder and someone who loves peace to return to the country so that people pay attention to development and other things which are important to the building of the nation, what is the way forward? Do you have a position on how this conflict should be resolved?
A: The position of the elders, not just Dinka elders as such, but all elders from the ten states of the republic of South Sudan, some of whom participated in the meeting, others communicated with us by telephones and they accepted the initiative and mandated us to visit and have an audience with the president on their behalf, is that peaceful settlement is the only way out of this conflict. So it was after consultations that we decided go to the president to get briefing on the plan of government and to congratulate him on successful conduct of the consultative conference.
Q: Do you have a comment on the IGAD proposed power sharing?
A: I think you know that consultative conference which brought together different stakeholders in the country was held here last week and it came out with clear resolutions. One of these resolutions is that the current system is a presidential system in that the president remains the head of state and government as well as the commander in chief of all the armed forces. What this means is that the powers of the president will remain as defined in the transitional constitution of the republic of South Sudan, unless there are people wanting to go against the constitution which is what others have been citing as one of the causes of this conflict. They claimed President Salva Kiir has not respected the constitution, which is not true in the first place. So why do they want the same constitution to be violated?
Q: What is your personal take or view?
A: In my view, since there is no provision in the constitution for the position of the prime minister, the president should not be made to share powers. The prime minister which has been accepted is a position without powers. If someone does not want this position, then let that person wait for elections and give it to someone else from his group or another person from a different group in the conflict one if he thinks the proposal is not fair.
(ST)