The South Sudan government prevented me from attending Ethiopia talks

President Salva Kiir arrives in Juba, South Sudan, on November 8, 2014, after signing a ceasefire agreement with former Vice-President Riek Machar in Ethiopia. The government of South Sudan did not like the independent position of the political parties on the resolution of the current civil war, says Dr Lam Akol. PHOTO | CITIZENSIDE | SAMIR BOL

What you need to know:

  • The truth is that 18 political parties were invited by Igad to a symposium to be held in Addis Ababa on 5-7 June 2014, and 17 of them attended.
  • The assertion that Dr Lam Akol “was no longer a member of the negotiating team” is ridiculous because as far as the political parties and Igad are concerned, he was the Leader of the negotiating team.
  • There is no doubt that it was the government that prevented the political parties from travelling out of Juba.
  • The government of the Republic of South Sudan did not like the independent position of the political parties on the resolution of the current civil war.

I refer to the story "Salva Kiir accused of unlawfully detaining opponents", which appeared in the Saturday Nation on December 20, 2014.

I would like to reaffirm the facts of the situation, and then respond to some of the points that came in the report. The facts are as follows:

First, I was prevented from travelling to Addis Ababa by an Immigration officer at Juba airport on the 13th of September 2014, who said clearly that he was acting on the orders of the Minister of Cabinet Affairs. I was leading the delegation of the political parties to Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, for the 6th round of the Igad led Peace Talks on the invitation of the mediators.

Second, to ascertain that the minister was not acting on his own, the political parties wrote on September 15, 2014 a letter to the President of the Republic seeking clarification on the matter. The letter went unanswered.

Third, I wrote another letter to the Immigration Department on October 20 requesting permission for me to travel outside the country. Permission was not granted.

Fourth, prevention of any citizen from travelling out of the country is a violation of Article 27 (2) of the Constitution of South Sudan, which stipulates that “Every citizen shall have the right to leave and or return to South Sudan”.

Fifth, no formal charges were laid against me, hence, the action was politically motivated which, no doubt, infringes on my basic right of freedom of movement.

INCLUSION OF STAKEHOLDERS

On May 9, 2014, the two principals of the warring parties, President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Dr Riek Machar, signed an agreement which, inter alia, stipulated that all stakeholders in South Sudan be included in the Igad-led Peace Talks in Ethiopia.

The stakeholders were defined as: the two warring parties, the SPLM Leaders (former detainees), the political parties, civil society organisations and faith-based leaders. This agreement was the basis for the participation of the political parties in the multi-stakeholder peace talks brokered by Igad.

Second, I would like to correct some of the inaccuracies that came in your article. It is not true that “other political parties back home refused to endorse him [Dr Lam Akol] as their representative and he fell out with them too” as your piece reported. 

The truth is that 18 political parties were invited by Igad to a symposium to be held in Addis Ababa on June 5-7, 2014, and 17 of them attended.

SELECTION OF DELEGATION

General Lazaro K. Sumbeiywo, as the Acting Chairman of the Special Envoys, met the delegation of the political parties on June 4 to explain to them the programme of the symposium and the way forward regarding the participation of the political parties in the peace talks.

When the symposium was over, Gen Sumbeiywo met the political parties’ representatives again where he stated that it was not possible to represent all the political parties and that they would have to choose seven to represent them in the peace talks.

I, Dr Lam Akol, being the leader of the official Opposition in the country, was unanimously chosen by the 17 parties to lead the delegation and chair the meeting to select the other six members of the delegation. The selection was made and this delegation of the political parties took part in the fourth and fourth rounds of the peace talks, in June and August, respectively.

THE PROBLEMS THAT AROSE

The problems in the political parties’ delegation started on the 15th of August 2014 when all the stakeholders made their presentations in the plenary as to their views on the resolution of the current conflict. The government delegation was incensed by our presentation, particularly on calling for the creation of a position of the prime minister to be filled by the SPLM/A-IO. 

The next day, the government delegation boycotted the talks and threatened four members in our delegation that they would lose their positions in government should they not stay away from the talks. 

Without information to the delegation, the four declared on Monday, June 18 before the thematic committees, that they were withdrawing from the talks until the government delegation returned. They then wrote to the Igad mediators informing them about their withdrawal from the talks. From then on, they boycotted our delegation.

The rest of the delegation continued with the talks as it is our principled position not to boycott peace talks for any reason. Such was the case on June 16, 20 and 21, when the delegations of the warring parties individually or collectively boycotted the talks. Our delegation kept on talking with the other stakeholders.

PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT PULL OUT OF PPLF

It goes without saying that the seven-person delegation is accountable to the 17 political parties that chose it to represent them. Therefore, when the delegation came back to Juba, it reported on 30 August 2014 what took place in Addis Ababa. 

Two of the four delegates who withdrew from the delegation in Addis Ababa boycotted the meeting and another two walked out. The four converged not long afterwards, held a pre-arranged press conference, and proceeded to meet the President of the Republic the same day!

From that date, all the political parties in the government or supporting it withdrew from the Political Parties Leadership Forum (PPLF) which was the umbrella that had brought all the political parties together.

These government political parties, acting under the behest of the SPLM-In government, the ruling party, declared that they have removed Dr Lam Akol from the Chairmanship of the PPLF and the delegation of the political parties.

They also declared the dismissal of the other members of the delegation and formed a new one of their own led by a deputy minister. This development is what you erroneously refer to as “the other political parties back home refused to endorse him…”

More importantly, these political parties made it known that their position in the peace talks is that of the government and that political parties should have no independent position, only “to narrow the gap between the warring parties”!! 

All the political parties in the government that pulled out of the PPLF were met by the president of the republic on Friday, September 12 2014, possibly for a briefing before sending their delegation to Ethiopia.

DELEGATION PREVENTED FROM TRAVELLING

Our delegation to Addis Ababa was prevented from travelling on Saturday September 13 2014, and the government delegation masquerading as the political parties’ delegation was facilitated by the government to travel.

In fact, they went to Bahir Dar claiming the seat of the political parties. Igad rejected this, arguing that Igad did not oversee the selection of the new delegation as it did with the first.

They reached a compromise that Igad would send a team to Juba to oversee the selection of a new delegation if their claim that Dr Lam Akol had been rejected by the political parties were to be proved true. 

With the permission of the government, the Igad team arrived in Juba on October 29, 2014 and arranged to meet all the political parties the next day. Unhappily, the government prevented the team from meeting all the political parties, telling the team that it is the delegation comprising the political parties in the government that must represent all the political parties in the country!

The assertion that Dr Lam Akol “was no longer a member of the negotiating team” is ridiculous because as far as the political parties and Igad are concerned, he was the Leader of the negotiating team. If he wasn’t, why was he prevented from going to Ethiopia?

The government’s hand in the problem is unmistakable. There is no doubt that it was the government that prevented the political parties from travelling out of Juba.

ORDER CAME FROM MINISTER

First, the claim that it was the other political parties, that “he fell out with them”, is rendered baseless by the fact that it was the immigration officer at the airport, who surely works for the government, that executed the order.

Second, the order came from a known minister, which the president could not disown. Third, the SPLM-IG sponsored the formation of a new delegation from parties in government as well as its travel and stay in Ethiopia, and subsequently prevented the Igad team from meeting all the political parties.

The government in Juba did not deny having stopped the bona fide delegation of the political parties from travelling to Addis Ababa. Where does the overzealous ambassador get his information from?

The Ambassador lies between his teeth when he asserts that “Dr Akol is very free”. In light of the above facts, what freedom is he talking about? Again, he unashamedly states that “If Dr Lam Akol wants to travel out of the country, what he needs is to inform the security. This has never happened…He is free to travel if he wants to.” Come on Ambassador! Whom do you think you are fooling?

If the ambassador “requires a letter to travel out of the country,” it is because he holds a diplomatic passport, and, in this case, the permission is not from Security but from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, holders of ordinary passports, like me, do not need permission or a letter from anybody in order to travel out of the country.

CONCLUSION

The government of the Republic of South Sudan did not like the independent position of the political parties on the resolution of the current civil war. Therefore, it wanted to replace their delegation with political parties that are in the government.

When it failed to do so it prevented the official delegation from travelling to Addis Ababa. At least for Dr Lam Akol, this prevention morphed into Juba authorities refusing him to travel out of the country altogether. These are the indisputable facts of the situation in Juba.

A stakeholder is by definition independent, and holds a position in the peace talks distinct from the other stakeholders. The government in Juba would like to score a rare feat: have an official government delegation comprised of the political parties in the government, and get another delegation of political parties composed of the same political parties in the same government! It is inclusivity a la Juba.

The continued absence of the opposition political parties in the supposedly multi-stakeholder peace talks impinges negatively on the inclusivity of the process and can only serve the agenda of the government to maintain the status quo. Surely, the situation calls for an immediate remedy.

Dr Akolis the Chairman of Sudan People's Liberation Movement - Democratic Change.