South Sudan: Abyei 'Referendum' Raises Serious Issues

The on-going process of a "unilateral" referendum for Abyei has suffered condemnation by all stakeholders including the government of South Sudan.

However, this 'community referendum', as christened by the Ngok Dinka, raises serious questions regarding the complexities in the Abyei protocol, giving no options for the Ngok people but to be at odds with regional and international bodies.

The African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) was categorical in its communiqué issued after its 403rd meeting[i] when it explicitly recognized the frustration arising from a delayed referendum. Nonetheless, the AUPS sent a forthright message warning of "unilateral action" by any of the stakeholders. The chairperson of the AU Commission Ms. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma made further remarks terming the on-going plebiscite in Abyei as "illegal, irresponsible and unacceptable"[ii]. South Sudanese officials made similar remarks, including an extreme example by the Minister of Cabinet Affairs Martin Elia Lomuro who warned that if the people of Abyei do not heed to government then they are not South Sudanese[iii].

It is understood that these remarks and condemnations are being made to avert possible tensions and conflict that may arise; yet no institution, whether regional or national, took the logic of such defiance from the perspective of the Ngok Dinka. Indeed the Abyei protocol which is part of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) remains and will currently go in history as the only protocol that has never been implemented since it was signed in 2004[iv].

Moreover, the Abyei protocol remains the only open protocol in the CPA that is constantly modified to accommodate serious hiccups arising between the two parties. The Abyei area has generated many sub or supplementary agreements that include the 2008 "Road Map"[v], the June 2011 "Temporary Arrangements for the Administration and Security of the Abyei Area"[vi] and lastly the September 2012 African Union High Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP) proposal for the final status for Abyei. It is unfortunate that the essence of the protocol and its purposes have been eclipsed by the myriad subsequent agreements.

These temporary supplementary agreements dominate the scene and make any attempt to get to the crux of the original protocol futile. The two parties are trapped in endless debates on some of the provisions gained earlier as part of supplementary agreements that are meant to take the process forward and help the parties determine the final status of the region.