Archive for July 25, 2012


“The South has no intention of separating from the North, for had that been the case, nothing on earth would have prevented the demand for separation. The South will at any moment separate from the North if and when the North so decides, directly or indirectly, through political, social and economic subjection of the South” Father Saturnino Lohure Hilangi, the spiritual father of South Sudanese’ liberation struggle, speaking on the 2nd Sudan Parliament (1958).

By PaanLuel Wël, Washington DC, USA, Planet Earth

South Sudan Independence, July 9th, 2011

On this special occasion, marking the first Independent Day Anniversary of the Republic of South Sudan, this record is a towering tribute to the fallen heroes and heroines led by Dr. John Garang[1] de Mabioor Atem whose blood watered and flesh nourished the tree of liberty under whose shelter we celebrate this day; an unsurpassed gratitude to the gallant SPLM/A war veterans led by Comrade Salva Kiir Mayaardit that remained loyal to the SPLM/A—by sticking to the cause they went to the bush to struggle for—without which the Republic of South Sudan might not have seen the light of this day; a sincere appreciation to the SPLM/A returnees under Dr. Riek Machar Teny without which the fruits of the CPA might not have materialized; a big congratulatory message to President Salva Kiir Mayaardit for serenely guiding South Sudanese people across the turbulent waters of River Jordan into the Promised Land; a heartfelt homage to the Torit Mutineers—the Equatoria Corps—of 1955, to Father Saturnino Lohure Hilangi[2] and to Joseph Lagu Yanga of Anyanya One Movement, our beloved forefathers-in-arms who implanted the everlasting seed of South Sudanese’ liberation struggle; and above all, a celebratory kudos to the very determined and most loyal masses of South Sudan for their unyielding support and precious contributions to the liberation of the Republic of South Sudan.

To you all, we owe everything; in your cherished memory and highest honor we commemorate this day; in your battle-tested spirit we promise to build and protect this country, so help us Nhialic;[3] history is our witness! A reflective, soul-searching, but a happy, Independence Day to all and each of us; we made it to Canaan.

On the Bumpy and Long Road to South Sudan’s Independence

 1.    Pre-colonial Era

In Arabic, the word Sudan means “the land of the black” people. Before the arrival of the Arabs in the Sudan, the indigenous African tribes inhabited the land: the kingdoms[4] of Alawa at Soba, Maquria at Dongola, Black Sultanate at Sennar, the Darfur Sultanate in the West, the Shilluk and the Azande kingdoms in the South, plus the River Lake Nilotes of the Dinka, Nuer etc and other African tribes of the South. The Arabs came to the Sudan as camel-riding traders selling salt, cloths and other merchandise in exchange for African slaves, ivory, gold, sesame and grain. Though they had initially tried to enter the Sudan by force, the Christian kingdoms of Nubia at Dongola defeated them in 652 A.D. Only afterward, through trade, intermarriages and peaceful settlements, did the Arabs succeed to weaken and to encroach on African territories in the Sudan. The rest is history—recorded in blood and flesh!

However, the evolution of the present day Republic of South Sudan can be traced back to the 18th century when Mohamed Ali Pasha, the Ottoman Viceroy of Egypt, entered the Sudan in search of trading commodities and slaves. Driven by an insatiable greediness for more trading commodities and slaves, the Turco-Egyptian colonialists under the command of a Turkish Naval officer, Selim, organized numerous expeditions into Southern Sudan between 1839 and 1841 in which they travelled as far as Gondokoro and Rejaf in Bariland.

The Anglo-Egyptian colonialists were not the only ones interested in Southern Sudan though. When General Kitchener, the Anglo-Egyptian army commander who defeated the Mahdists at the battle of Omdurman, arrived at Fashoda on 18 September 1898,[5] he was confronted with the French army under Captain Marchand stationed at Fashoda. Down along the Nile were Belgians soldiers at Rejaf and Lado laying claim to the Equatoria Province, while at the East, the Menelik II of Ethiopia was sending his forces up to Sobat to plant an Ethiopian Flag signaling his ownership of the land East of River Nile all the way to Addis Ababa.

But as the Europeans powers were scrambling for the African’s land, the Arab slave traders were clambering for the African’s slaves. The most notorious Arab slave trader was Rahman Mansur al Zubayr, the first governor of the newly created province of Bahr el Ghazal. The Turco-Egyptian[6] rule ended abruptly on January 26, 1885 due to Mahdi Revolution [1881-1898] that forced a hasty withdrawal of Turco-Egyptian administrators from the Sudan after the killing of Charles George Gordon on January 26, 1885 in Khartoum. However, the Anglo-Egyptian expedition of 1896-1898 saw the re-occupation of the Sudan that culminated in the establishment of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium in the Sudan that was later re-affirmed by the infamous Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936. It was not until January 1, 1956 that the Anglo-Egyptian reign was broken, once and for all.

2.    Colonial Era

After the Anglo-Egyptian condominium defeated the Mahdiya Uprising[7] in 1898 at the “battle of Umdurman,” the British sent the first exploration mission led by Colonel Sparkes Bey into Southern Sudan in December 1900. Colonel Sparkes Bey and his 28 men arrived at Jur Ghattas Post (Tonj) on January 1, 1901, initiating the conquest of Southern Sudan by the Anglo-Egyptian colonialists. The entry of the Anglo-Egyptian[8] colonial powers into Southern Sudan opened a floodgate to Arab traders, Christian missionaries and British colonial masters. This elicited resistance and rebellions from the African tribes in Southern Sudan.

These rebellions[9] were the Azande Resistance led by King Gbudue, the Anyuak Resistance led by king Akuei, the Aliab Dinka Resistance led by Kon Anok, the Lou Nuer Resistance led by Guek Ngundeng and the United Tribes Society of Tok Mac Miir (an Arabized Dinka army officer, popularly known as Ali Abd al-Latif), a veteran of World War One. Despite their fierce resistance, early South Sudanese opposition to the Anglo-Egyptian rule was violently suppressed, with most leaders getting killed or ended up in jail. King Gbudue was captured and killed on February 7, 1905 after his fellow Zande and rival king, King Tambura, betrayed him.

The same misfortunes befell his fellow resistive brothers: the British subdued and killed King Akuei in 1920; Kon Anok surrendered in March, 1920 and was poisoned in prison in Mongalla; Tok Mac Miir was arrested and jailed in June 1924 while Guek Ngundeng was killed in action on February 8, 1929 by Percey Coriat, the then British commissioner of Lou Nuer areas.

The Closed District Ordinance Act of 1914-1946

After subduing resistive African tribes, the British introduced The Closed District Ordinance Act (1914-1946), apparently to protect the undeveloped, vulnerable African South from the more developed, sophisticated Arab North. Arabs were barred from participating in trading activities, missionary work and administration in the South. Unfortunately, the British Policy of cordoning off the South, whatever good intention was behind it, overwhelmingly contributed to South Sudanese political marginalization, economic exploitation and cultural subjugation after Sudan independence. This was because the South was left isolated and backward—South Sudanese were ill-prepared politically, economically, educationally and administratively by the time the British left the Sudan in 1956.

Moreover, the Islamists[10] in the persons of Turabi, Mirghani, and El-Mahdi have passionately argued that had it not been for the British-imposed Southern Policy of the “Closed District” that shielded Southern Sudan from Northern political, cultural, economic and religious influences, the African South would have been easily Islamized and Arabized, and thus, integrated into the Arabo-Islamic Sudan. In other words, according to the Islamists, the bitter problems between the North and the South, between the Arabs and the Africans, between Christians and Muslims in the Sudan could never have occurred but for the British Southern Policy.

To South Sudanese,[11] on the other hand, the British Southern Policy heralded the beginning of their political and economic marginalization in the post-independent Sudan at the hand of the British-favored Northerners. To be fair to the British administrators though, it is to be noted that the same policy of protecting the most vulnerable from the most sophisticated ones was also applied in the case of Egypt and the Sudan: Sudan was initially protected from the more advanced Egypt by the British. The difference is that Egypt and the Sudan separated, while the South and the North remained one, albeit till July 9th, 2011. 

The Two-Day Juba Conference of 1947

By 1946, the British imposed Southern Policy of “Closed District”[12] became untenable and was subsequently abandoned, opening the door for the North to administer the South as part of one united Sudan. However, no sooner did the British discard the Southern Policy than Southerners started complaining and protesting about wanton mistreatments in the workplaces and disparities in pay levels between them and their northern counterparts. Southerners were overwhelmingly underrepresented in the government, generally underpaid and largely mistreated at workplaces not just in North Sudan, but also in the South, their own backyard.[13]

Stunned by the unrests and persistent hullabaloos[14] from Southerners, Sir James Robertson, the then Civil Secretary of the Sudan from 1945-1953, sent a memo to the Southern Provincial Governors and heads of departments “instructing them to gather information from Southern educated elites regarding the status of the South.”[15] Among the responses reported back to Sir James Robertson by the Southern Provincial Governors were: rejection of incorporating Southern Sudan into Uganda; rejection of Southern Sudan being administered by the Northern Parliament owing to mistrust rooted in the slave trade and religious differences; some rejected unity with the north while others were for it, and the rest wanted separate independent Southern Sudan.

Intrigued by the mixed findings from Southerners, Sir James Robertson organized a conference in Juba to be attended by both northern and southern delegates to decide the future of their country—do they want to stay as one united country or two separate ones? However, the Southern delegates—many of whom were barely literate—were not adequately briefed on the meanings and high stakes of the Juba Conference. Furthermore, the manner in which the 16 Southern delegates were chosen was questionable in that most of those who got invited were those who, more or less, favored unity with the north in their earlier responses to Sir James Robertson. During the deliberations, only three Southern delegates got chances to air their views, and of the three, only one accepted the idea of a united Sudan, one in the form of a confederacy rather than a one-country, one-system arrangement.

Writing to Sir Robert Howe—the then British Governor-General representing the Queen in the colony, Sir James Robertson, by the end of the conference, reported “the Southern Sudan, through her representatives in the two-day Juba Conference, has agreed to throw her lot with the North. The best interest of the South will therefore be guaranteed in a united Sudan.”[16] Thus, as the British were preparing to grant Sudan independence, the Juba Conference recommendations of a united Sudan in which “the best interest of the South would be guaranteed” were implemented: the South and the North were conjoined into one united Sudan—an acrimonious marriage that was never supposed to have been and consequently never worked.

Most tellingly, Sir James Robertson, on further reflection on the Juba Conference and his role in it, later wrote the following, basically repudiating his earlier recommendation to the Governor-General, Sir Robert Howe: “I looked upon the Juba Conference solely as a mean of finding out the capabilities of the Southerners, and it was therefore inaccurate for some people to say later that at the Juba Conference, the Southerner representatives agreed to come in with the North. No decision could have been made at the Conference since members had received no mandate from their peoples. The only decision resulting from the Conference was taken by myself.”[17] Whether Sir James Robertson acted at the behest of the colonial British government or the British-favored northern Arab or on his own was not the burning question that Southerners were asking themselves then: the main problem was how they felt short-changed in the election following the 1953 self-government statute.

Ganging up to campaign for a Confederacy between the South and the North as the only hope left to safeguard their political and economic interest within a united Sudan, Southern Sudanese Members of Parliament and Civil Servants, with the help of the Liberal Party—the only party in the South by then, staged another big Conference in Juba in 1954. Instrumental in this conference of 1954 was Both Diu, a Southern Sudanese legislator from the Nuer tribe who was among the Southern delegates of the 1947 Juba Conference. Dubbed as the Both Diu Conference of 1954, the Conference was attended by 200 delegates from the three regions of Southern Sudan.

In addition to calling for the full implementation of the 1947 Juba Conference[18] recommendations that had promised Southerners’ protection under a Confederate System with the North, the 1954 Conference petitioned the British Governor-General, in a letter written by Chairman Benjamin Lwoki, that “no one in the South would like at the moment to see this Egyptian proposal (unity between Egypt and Sudan) carried out. We in the South are still undeveloped economically, socially and politically. If the Egyptian proposal to deprive us of our safeguards vested in the Governor-General are accepted, we ask Your Excellency that there will be no any other way for us except to ask for federation with the North. Failing to federate, we shall ask as the alternative for the appointment of a High-Commissioner from the British Foreign Office to Administer the South under the Trusteeship of the United Nations till such time as we shall be able to decide our own future.”[19]

Even though the petition containing Southern Sudanese’ grievances and political frustrations was copied to Prime Minister Ismail Al-Azhari of the Sudan, he exacerbated the problems when he appointed only 4 junior officials in his government of over 800 civil servants. As if that was not enough insult, Prime Minister Al-Azhari engineered forced transfer of Southern Sudanese military units from the South to the North in a move meant to deprive Southerners any credible mean of resistance: it backfired on him in Torit. In the first post-independence general election of 1957, Father Saturnino Lohure was the Prime Ministerial candidate from the Southern Liberal Party but he lost badly to the Umma Party of Abdalla Khalil who became the new Sudanese Prime Minister.

Torit Mutiny, August 18, 1955 

In the days[20] leading up to Sudan’s independence from Great Britain, Southern Sudanese were politically, economically and socially marginalized at the decision-making table. Military units with sizeable Southern Sudanese soldiers in them were being transferred to the North while military units dominated by the Arabs were being taken to the South. Fed up with Southerners’ marginalization in the lead up to Sudan independence from Great Britain, and in a move calculated to pre-empt their imminent transfer to the North, the Equatoria Corps—a military unit composed of Southerners—mutinied in Torit on August 18, 1955.

The rebellion was the official commencement of South Sudanese’ liberation struggle[21] that went on for the next 50 years till the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the SPLM/A of Dr. John Garang and the government of the Sudan under President Omar Bashir in 2005 that ushered in the independence of South Sudan from Khartoum. General Emilio Tafeng and Ali Gbattala led the 1955 Torit mutiny. Though it was violently crushed in the bud, the Torit Mutiny of 1955 became an inspiration for the founding of both Anyanya One and the SPLM/A Movement—both of which contributed to the final liberation of the Republic of South Sudan.

The Anyanya One Movement started its war on August 18, 1962 while the Underground Movement[22] of the Post-Addis Ababa Accord—the ancestors of the Sudan People Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A)—had planned to declare their insurrection on August 18, 1983. Kuanyin Bol and his money problem in Bor, however, derailed that plan.[23]


[1] James Shimanyula, “John Garang and the SPLA” [2005]

[2] Steve Paterno, “The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure: A Roman Catholic Priest Turned Rebel, the South Sudan Experience” [2007]

[3] God in Dinka Language

[4] The Liberator, “Volume 2, July 2011, Issue No. 009” [2011]

[5] Charles Armine Willis, “The Upper Nile Province Handbook: A Report of Peoples and Government in the Southern Sudan, 1931” [1996].

[6] Scopas Poggo, “The First Sudanese Civil War: Africans, Arabs, and Israelis in the Southern Sudan, 1955-1972” [2008].

[7] Charles Armine Willis, “The Upper Nile Province Handbook: A Report on Peoples and Government in the Southern Sudan, 1931″ [1996]

[8] Richard Gray, “A history of the Southern Sudan 1839-1889” [1961].

[9] Leek Mawut, “Dinka Resistance to Condominium Rule, 1902-1932” [1983]

[10] David Mayo, “The British Southern Policy in Sudan: An Inquiry into the Closed District Ordinances (1914-1946)” [1994]

[11] Mohamed Beshir, “Southern Sudan, Regionalism & Religion: Selected Essays” [1984]

[12] Roberts Collins, “The Southern Sudan in Historical Perspective” [2007]

[13] Joseph Oduho and William Deng, “The problem of the Southern Sudan” [1963]

[14] Dr. Lam Akol, “Southern Sudan: colonialism, resistance, and autonomy” [2007]

[15] The Liberator, Volume 2, July 2011, Issue No. 009 [2011]

[16] The Liberator, Volume 2, July 2011, Issue No. 009 [2011]

[17] The Liberator, Volume 2, July 2011, Issue No. 009 [2011]

[18] Minutes of the Juba Conference 1947 [1947]

[19] The Liberator, Volume 2, July 2011, Issue No. 009 [2011]

[20] Arop Madut-Arop, “The Genesis of Political Consciousness in South Sudan” [2012]

[21] Arop Madut-Arop, “Sudan’s Painful Road To Peace: A Full Story of the Founding and Development of SPLM/SPLA” [2006]

[22] Gabriel Achuoth Deng, “Wars and a new vision for the Sudan: (a political lesson)” [2005]

[23] Elijah Malok Aleng, “The Southern Sudan: struggle for liberty” [2009]

Sudan will revise oil transit fee demand in talks with South

Posted: July 25, 2012 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Junub Sudan

Sudan will revise oil transit fee demand in talks with South

Chicago Tribune –
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – Sudan will revise its transit fee demand for South Sudan’s oil exports when the African neighbors resume talks to end an oil dispute for the first time since border fighting escalated in April, a Sudanese official said on 

No passport, no country; Guor Marial makes it to London Games

Posted: July 25, 2012 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Junub Sudan

Runner brings many along

Concord Monitor – ‎
By Megan Doyle / Monitor staff When Guor Marial was a teenager, his adopted mother Zainab Mohagir would send him to run her errands in the neighborhood. Mohagir and Marial’s aunt Ana Batalu would sit together and wait for him to return.
Oneindia – ‎
London, Jul 25: Here is an athlete who ran for his life to escape a Sudanese child labour camp and has finally got a chance to run at the Olympics. The Sudan athlete has no country and no passport yet, he has got an opportunity to participate in London 
SBS – ‎
Guor Marial, a refugee from the South Sudan, will be the first athlete to represent his country in London 2012, but he won’t be running under his nation’s flag. Guor Marial, a refugee from the South Sudan, will be the first athlete to represent his 
Christian Science Monitor – ‎
Conflict and poverty stand in the way of perhaps 40000 South Sudanese whose bags were packed a year ago but are now stranded in squatter camps of the north. By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / July 25, 2012 People gather as South Sudanese surrounded by 
Chicago Tribune – ‎‎
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – Sudan will revise its transit fee demand for South Sudan’s oil exports when the African neighbors resume talks to end an oil dispute for the first time since border fighting escalated in April, a Sudanese official said on 
Mmegi Online –
JUBA: Sudan has turned down South Sudan’s proposal of a higher oil transit fee and an $8.2 billion or (P63 billion) financial deal, ruling out any comprehensive settlement of outstanding issues by the August 2 deadline. The offer and its refusal come 
Huffington Post (blog) – ‎
After promising but hesitant initial steps, the Republic of South Sudan is at a crucial point in its one-year-old existence. It has thus far benefited from sustained international attention, which has encouraged it to protect fundamental freedoms.
Pakistan Daily Times – ‎
KHARTOUM: Darfur rebels wounded in the latest fighting with Sudanese troops have gone to South Sudan for treatment, the army said on Tuesday, as Khartoum pushes Juba to end alleged backing for rebels. The army and insurgents gave conflicting accounts 
Haaretz – ‎
By Zohar Blumenkrantz | Jul.25, 2012 | 1:55 AM Israel continues to keep a low media profile regarding the weekly flights of deportees to South Sudan. The next flight will take place on Wednesday from Ben-Gurion International Airport, aboard an aircraft 

By DENG BIOR DENG (Deng-Athok)

They refer to him as “African Icon of visionary leadership” (Dr. Luka Biong, ” The Garang I knew”). BUT, To me, this may be an exaggeration when we think back to recall President Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Patrice Lumumba of Ghana, Julius Nye ere of Kenya, President Banda of Zambia, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, William Deng Nhial, and all the African Leaders who fought for African identity, dignity and freedom before South Sudan became independent. However, yes, from the Sudan point of view, Yasser Arman, (quoted by Dr. Luka in his the same article) may be right describing Garang as a gift to humanity; yet, this humanity needed to have been qualified as of the Sudanese so that it may not be confused with humanity World wide where we also need to remember people like Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy who liberated African-Americans from the yoke of slavery with their blood.

Sometimes overstatement of the facts may underrate facts and therefore, having stated all above, I hope, I will not be seen as being jealous than being humble for the sake of affirming the nobility of our late leader. Truly, John Garang was socially a humane, humorous character in ordinary life; and politically, a South Sudanese with charismatic, witty and cunning personality, and finally, a nationalist who asserted himself very well and by all means in Sudan politics; we missed him.

MARTYRS, YOUR BLOOD CEMENTED OUR NATIONAL FOUNDATION.

We all have memories of our struggle in the 18Th to 19Th Centuries; as well as the struggle of our forefathers and leaders from whom we inherited our determination for national liberation. We need to recognize all our heroes in this history. In remembering Dr. Garang’s vision of new Sudan, other heroes during our struggle had a different outlook as to the definition and how to achieve our goal. It may therefore be realistic to state the thoughts of others during the struggle. Such other thoughts, for the sake of writing our true history to our children and the children of, of …our children, are necessary to be recorded because this is the right way we shall have cherished the role played by our late leader, John Garang.

So, as we remember John Garang, we shall pause to recall our great heroes and forefathers: Kon Anok of Aliab Dinka, Prophet Aguek Ngundeng of Jonglei Lou Nuer, Machiek Chol of Jonglei Bor South Dinka , Ajang Duot Bior of Jonglei Twic East Dinka, Aggrey Jaden, Joseph Oduhu, William Deng, Father Saturino, Akuot Atem, Gai Tut ETC. These are but few among many of our first liberation fighters who shed their blood for the Independence of South Sudan.

Under the SPLM, then, as a movement and now as a ruling party, we must remember Kerubino Kuanyin Bol, William Nyuon Bany, Arok Thon Arok, Francis Ngor Maciec; all without which John Garang would have become the leader we rightly adore today. In fact I had thought their future would have been built behind John Garang as he points at our national flag in our freedom square; and their remains would have been laid to rest around the mausoleum of John Garang as a matter of being “trust and truth worthy” to our liberation.

Moreover, as we sing our National Anthem in dedication to God, we are also thankful to God, than to ourselves, for having John Garang been survived by our leaders in the name of President Salva Kiir Mayardit, Vice President Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol; all without which the self determination of the South Sudan would have been achieved. ( The Nassir declaration- by Dr. Lam, and the minutes of Rumbek meeting which reconciled John Garang with President Salva are referenced).

THE MYSTERY OF NEW SUDAN VISION VERSUS SOUTH SUDAN INDEPENDENCE.

The vision for the unity of the Sudan had been in the books of many South Sudanese since 1947, far before and after the so called independence of the then Sudan. The difference might have been in the language and the way it was articulated; but the idea had remained the same as it was on the record of our former leaders in the names of, Bullen Alier, Buth Diu, Deng Teang, William Deng, Joseph Garang; and lately, John Garang. Here I read John Garang as a student of all those South Sudanese who called for Sudan unity before him.

Having said that, I call this new Sudan vision a mystery because I see there was nothing so especial to relegate and attribute it to John Garang alone in disregard of all others whose call for it was part of the same history.

It is also a mystery to always say that, without this New Sudan vision, as expounded by John Garang, South Sudan would not have been independent, thereby disregarding more than fifty years of our peoples struggle which John Garang, through pressure, recognized at last during the CPA negotiations. In fact it was this New Sudan vision that was about to compromise South Sudan independence had it not been because of our people’s political fight during Naivasha, before and after.. Misrepresentation and down play of our people’s will in history is a political fraud which amounts to political hooliganism.

To go a little further, it is also a mystery to always claim that our alliance with parts and traditional political parties of North Sudan was a political strategy and ploy for liberating South Sudan, than their right of self liberation from marginalization; had this been the case, then, it goes without saying that we were betraying them! Here we consciously or otherwise accuse our late leader of bad faith and dishonesty which could be seen to be a distasteful attribute of a good leader despite the fact that he won the right of popular consultation for people of Southern Kordufan and Southern Blue Nile.

Late Dr.John Garang and Joseph Garang were highly educated South Sudanese Nationalists who shared their common ideology in Sudanese politics. They must be praised for the way they intellectually articulated the South Sudan problem as having been a Sudanese problem. What has to be reiterated is that, although their vision of new socialist Sudan was remarkably imposing, it didn’t and wouldn’t work; that is why the separation of the South was the right option for South Sudanese; noting that the separation of the South was and is the right way the two Sudan can peacefully develop and co-exist.

NOT YET FREE; SOUTH SUDAN.

As they remember their late leader, John Garang, South Sudanese must be asking themselves, are we really free? Notwithstanding all the shortcomings in our country, this is enough a valid question when they here every day people being mysteriously pulled out from their houses at night, taken to nowhere under darkness, only to be found tomorrow half-dead if not dead. Insecurity in our Country makes citizens feel they are under occupation; a recipe for eventual civil war if this situation is not corrected. Without a change in the way we are governing ourselves, the legacy of John Garang is abused.

NB: Deng Bior Deng is a South Sudanese. He lives in Juba and is currently on visit in the US. He can be reached at, (email-dengbior69@gmail.com).