By Prof. Simon El hag Kulusika
OPINION – Persons, organizations, or governments avoid self – appraisal. Else secretive deeds in which they had/have been involved might be exposed. Especially, if those deeds were/ are controversial, abominable, or both. For researchers apprising events, or persons (VIP), organizations, liberation movements, or governments is fundamental in acquiring knowledge. It gives the masses opportunity to form informed opinions. Thereby take transformative decisions about the future. It is hoped the appraisal of ND will achieve some noble goals for SS societies.
A declaration about change of leadership of SPLM/A was made public on 28 August 1991. It became known as “Nasir Declaration (ND)”. In the ND, the term “overthrow” was reported to have been employed. To convey the idea of coup d’état. The view of this article is that usage of the term “overthrow” in the ND was not appropriate. Explanation for rejecting the term “overthrow” is provided under.
NASIR DECLARATION
This article does not write an appraisal of SPLM/A, its rise and development. A lot has already been written on same. The article jumps to the events of 28 August 1991. On that day, a declaration emanated from Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon and Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin claiming that ” they have overthrown Dr. John Garang de Mabior, as Chairman of SPLM, and also as Commander – in – Chief of SPLA”. “That Dr. Machar has been elevated to the position of Chairman of SPLM and Commander – in – Chief of SPLA”. That “Dr. Akol is Deputy Chairman of SPLM and Commissar for External Relations and Peace.” (Arop, Ch10, 2006).
The announcement would appear to tell people of southern Sudan (SS) that coup d’état “has occurred”. This startling news was immediately picked by the BBC and broadcasted. The main aim of the ND, as this article presumes, was to whittle away civilian and military support from Dr. J. G. de Mabior. But without success.
Because, three days later, Dr. John Garang de Mabior emerged. He made a statement. In which he declared that he was “alive, well and in charge of the movement.” (see Arop, 2006). De Mabior rubbished the declaration of “coup” as merely “theoretical”.
Meanwhile, de Mabior continued to received messages of support from several Zonal and senior Commanders of SPL, including Commander Martin Manyiel Ayuel, who was supposedly one of the “coup” leaders.
Those who heard the ND from the self-proclaimed new leaders of SPLM/A and the refutation made by Dr. de Mabior were confused. They did not understand what was happening. Whose statements to be taken seriously.
CALLS FOR CHANGE
The events that took place in USSR and in all the USSR satellite states (Eastern Europe and Baltic region states) had far reaching ramifications. for global geopolitics. Africa was not spared the upheavals. Even organizations, institutions of learning and business enterprises had to undergo changes. Some of the changes were dramatic. Three examples will suffice to support this claim. East Germany (DDR) ended. Its president hurriedly flew to South America. In Africa, Zambia witnessed end to one party political system. The UNIP government led by president Kenneth D. Kaunda (KK) had to amend the Constitution to allow formation of political parties. In the elections held in 1991, MMD of president F. T. J. Chiluba, emerged a winner. Ethiopia descended into chaos. Its government collapsed. Forcing president Mengistu Haile Mariam to flee to Zimbabwe. He became a refugee and a guest of president Comrade R. Mugabe. His sudden departure rendered SPLM/A helpless. They had to leave Ethiopia at short notice and in utter confusion.
The loss of Ethiopia’s protection and charity led to calls for Changes in the movement. In order that it to adopt to the new political orders sweeping the globe.
In addition to the above there was dissents within the movement. Spearheaded by Dr. Akol and other persons, such as, Prof Wangi. The voices of Dr. Akol were louder, but resonated not far. When a meeting with the Chairman was called to review those calls, Dr. Akol raised three issues (Arop, Ch.10, 2006). Careful reading gives this writer, five unpalatable issues for discussion. They were
- the Chairman was not allowing the Politico – Military High Command (PMHC) to participate in decision – making, such as, appointments, promotions and dismissal.
- the plights of fellow fighters – detainees should be considered and appropriate measures taken to resolve the matter.
- the movement should undergo major changes, to make it more relevant.
- the strategy of the movement requires rethinking.
- the structures of the movement should be considered to rejuvenate the movement.
These points were raised during a meeting in Ethiopia. Dr. Machar supported Akol’s suggestions. He said those issues must be considered with “immediate effects”. James Igga and Lual Diing did not comment on the issues. The Chairman said, the issues should be put in their ” right perspective” for discussion during up – coming meeting of the PMHC (Arop), which never took place.
Akol was reported to continue his agitation for change. He wrote a number of provocative papers. He also wrote open letters to the Chairman. He circulated copies to other officers and interested parties. As this was going on Dr. Machar continued to support Dr. Akol.
Strangely, SPLM/A did not take action against Akol, contrary to practice of other liberation movements in Africa. Where such behavior of Akol would have been punished severely. Because Dr. Akol would be treated as challenging the leader of the movement. Or he might be viewed as a rebel trying to wreck the ship – liberation movement. Luckily for Dr. Akol, he survived after several twists and turns, to lead his own liberation movement – the NDM. Where he wouldn’t tolerate contrary opinions in matters of leadership.
While Akol’s supporter, in trying to discredit de Mabior, Dr. Machar saw and has continued to see the flows and ebbs of ocean tides, under his feet, that could have taken him down to the floor of the sea. But, being a Master of odds, Dr. Machar is still presiding over SPLM/A – IO. Evidencing the endless struggle for control of SPLM/A.
COUP D’ETAT OR SPLIT
The action taken by Dr. Akol and Dr Machar to remove Dr. de Mabior from power was and has been erroneously described as coup d’état. The error arose from the ND made by the two Commanders – Akol and Machar. In the ND, as indicated above, the two Commanders declared that they had overthrown Dr. de Mabior, as Chairman of SPLM and also as Commander – in – Chief of SPLA (Assili). Further, that Dr Machar was elevated to the position of Chairman of SPLM, and Commander – in – Chief of SPLA. While, Dr. Akol had assumed the role of Deputy Chairman of SPLM and Commissar for External Relations and Peace. No other names were mentioned, such as, Gordon Koang.
In fact, the ND preempted the orders of Dr. de Mabior for Zonal and all senior Commanders to proceed to Kapoeta to attend the delayed meeting of PMHC. Dr Machar and Dr. Akol refused to go to Kapoeta, fearing they would be arrested.
The preceding discussion would suggest that Dr. Akol and Dr. Machar had not carried out coup d’état against Dr. de Mabior. Because at the time of the claimed coup d’état, the two officers did not know the whereabouts of Dr. de Mabior. Otherwise, de Mabior would have been arrested, as the Communists coup plotters had done to Nimeiri Akol and Machar had no control on all, or the majority of SPLA forces to enable them to set the wheel of coup d’état rolling. They had a few disaffected officers who could be described as defectors.
What this article would like to suggest is that the two officers themselves defected from SPLM/A (Assili). And managed to take with them a number of soldiers and officers to form what became known as Nasir Faction (NF). Those officers who were hesitant to show allegiance to the new leaders were extra – judicially executed. Further, alienating the new leaders from mainstream SPLA.
What the two officers gained was to cause a split of SPLM/A (Assili). Leading to brutal clashes between the NF and the Torit Faction (TF)(under de Mabior). (Read Arop, 2006, and learn more about those tragic clashes).
ASSISTANCE FROM KHARTOUM
Both factions of SPLM/A encountered considerable challenges. As they try to adjust to new military – political environment. The NF had to reorganize and recruit more fighters to face the challenges ahead. The TF had to carry out restructuring in order to withstand threats from the NF and from Sudan government armed forces. Especially, the military campaigns, Khartoum code – named: Saif Al Ubur. Before those “Uburs” started, the Season of Migration to Khartoum took place. Because the NF needed material and financial support from Khartoum to survive.
Fortunately, for the TF, the dismissal of Dr. Akol by Dr. Machar resulted in the break – up of the so – called SPLM/A United. And the formation of Southern Sudan Independence Movement /Army (SSIM/A) led by Brother Dr. Machar. While Comrade Dr. Akol had his own movement.
It’s during this period of confusion, attacks and counter attacks that the SS witnessed the most heartbreaking incidents of killings. Where innocent civilians were not spared. The rest is history. What is important is that the two officers – Akol and Machar, later on, realized the virtues of Comradism and decided to reconcile with Dr. de Mabior, and to rejoin SPLM/A, shortly before the conclusion of the CPA, in 2005.
LEGACY OF SPLM/A
To trace the rise and development of SPLM/A is a mammoth challenge. It cannot be ventured upon. It also would rekindle painful past, as Arop Madut Arop’s book under the title: “Sudan’s Painful Road to Peace, 2006” informs the reader. SPLM/A journeys from 1983 to 2005, was overshadowed by the scenes of savage warfares, killings, disappearances, tears, and mourning in every household across SS. That were what the people of SS experienced. This is not to say that SPLM/A was bent on cruelty. No, but struggle for powers amongst its leaders, coupled with the actions of extremists within its ranks, characterized by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, had/have tarnished the brighter sides of the movement. The events of 2013/16 were extremely horrible and dismaying. However, SPLM/A is the hero of independence for SS, a country whose history has been turbulent.
CONCLUSION
South Sudan has to build Idealistic, ethical and democratic practices in all fields, eg, military, politics, economics, social. Where leadership should be subject of free and fair contests. At the same time, leaders should be removed through laid down procedures, whether constitutional, legal, or military. Coup d’état should be outlawed as it creates a culture of recourse to use of force to ascend to power. Assassination, or killing should be avoided, as it generates revenge: those who come to power by the use of guns will be removed, or killed in the same manner.
One must pray for change in South Sudan based on transformation, reconciliation, forgiveness and adjustment of conflicting political visions.
The author is a professor of law at Zambia Open University. He can be reached via: simonkulusika@gmail.com.
The views expressed in the ‘OPINIONS & ANALYSIS’ section of Sudans Post are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not this website. If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email us here.