Khartoum Monitor Got It Wrong

The paper does not even respect the ethics of journalism, for instance, on many occasions it refuses to publish responses to articles they write against people. One hopes this one will not meet the same fate.

To begin with, the title of the editorial is based on an arrant lie. Its opening statement on which it is based reads thus- quote:
“The Governor of Upper Nile State, Brig. Gatlwak Deng said Dr Lam Akol is a security risk in Akhirlahza issue No. 620 date 20th April 2008 on page 1”. Unquote.

Reading the newspaper referred to above, nowhere did the Governor of Upper Nile State say that Dr Lam Akol was a security risk. In fact, there was inference in the same piece that the Security Committee in Malakal had said something to that effect

which was denied by the Governor. He is the Chairman of the Security Committee and would definitely know what it discussed and what it decided. Therefore, the statement attributed to the Governor is not true. It follows that the title of the editorial is a concoction of “Khartoum Monitor”. This is the least surprising given its well known mission of character assassination directed against the person of Dr Lam Akol.

The editorial, in fact, is relating a story as given to it by the mentors of the person whose full name and mobile number are given in the editorial. A fair newspaper would have checked the facts first before a one-sided story becomes the

position of the paper to deserve appearing as an editorial. But, again very few persons will be surprised when such unjournalistic behaviour comes from “Khartoum Monitor”.

Before making a comment on the information provided in the editorial, it is imperative to relate the facts of the case first. In October 2007, an unsigned tract appeared in Malakal claiming that Dr Lam Akol had met with a big number of people

and resolved to assassinate the Shilluk Reth. A certain Peter Oyath Odhok, who is also the Nazir of Panyikang distributed this tract to the security organs. He then called all the people of his chieftaincy to a meeting where he related to them the

information in the tract and said many bad things about Dr Lam Akol and confirmed that Dr Lam was planning to assassinate H.M. the Reth. In fact, he told the gathering that if a supporter of Dr Lam Akol was found in the area he should be killed. The Nazir also held a meeting with an international NGO operating in the area and the same information was given to them.

That Peter Oyath Odhok distributed the tract to security organs in Malakal and confirmed its contents in a public gathering proves that he either wrote or participated in the writing of the tract, or knows the people who wrote it.

Based on the behaviour of the said chief, Dr Lam Akol opened a case of libel and threat to kill against Peter Oyath Odhok before the Attorney in Malakal. The Attorney in Malakal issued a warrant of arrest on the 16th of April 2008 to arrest Peter Oyath to answer for the case. The warrant of arrest was handed to the police to execute it. Anybody familiar with warrants of arrest knows that it is addressed to “any policeman” and it is the obligation of that policeman to execute the arrest.

Three unarmed policemen, went on the 17th of April to the house of the accused to effect the arrest. They knocked at the gate of the house and showed the warrant of arrest to the person who opened the gate. To their utter bewilderment, they were assaulted and shot at by the persons inside the house, who seemed to have planned the confrontation. In the words of the editorial, “the Chief was well guarded and protected”! The claim that it is the unarmed policemen who used force or shot at anybody in the house is absolute nonsense and turns the victim into the villain.

Nobody will believe that, coming as it is from a person himself accused of being among the people who shot at the poor policemen. Everybody in Malakal knows that a constitutional position holder provided protection to the chief in his car during the day which delayed the execution of the arrest to the evening when the accused went back to his house. The person who provided protection to the accused knew that a warrant of arrest was issued the day before, i.e., the 16th of April 2007.

This is a clear case of resisting lawful arrest executed by the police and should be handled accordingly. It should not be politicized at all.

The next question to ask is: which is the competent legal authority to look into libel and threat to kill cases? And has a local chief immunity against arrest? These are matters of law and the Attorney in Malakal must have given them and similar questions careful consideration before issuing the warrant of arrest for the chief to answer for the case raised against him before a court of law in Malakal. This matter has nothing to do with the Shilluk tradition as claimed in Khartoum Monitor’s editorial. Every Sudanese citizen, including a Shilluk, has every right to raise a case before any court of law in the Sudan. This is a constitutional right. Also, why should a case be raised against H.M. the Reth when nothing was heard from him on the issue of litigation? He did not distribute the unsigned tract nor did he confirm the contents of the tract in a public gathering. It is Peter Oyath who did all that and more, and he is the person to answer for his actions. It is him to state in the court who the authors of the tract are, why he behaved in the way he did, and if the idea was not his who told him to do so. Nobody is above the law.

The one-sided editorial talked about the SPLM Convention as the right place for airing out the differences. What has the Convention to do with a personal lawsuit? The incident that took place in Malakal on the 17th instant is a very ugly one. An immediate and thorough investigation into this nasty incident should be conducted so that those who breached the law face the full brunt of the law. In particular, those who killed the policeman while carrying out his duty must be arrested and legal measures taken against them. In the meantime no politics should be made out of lawsuit.