SPLM-DC’S VICTORY AND DR NYABA’S CHICANERY

Dr Peter Adwok Nyaba is diagnosed to be suffering from a disease called "Lam-phobia". Nowhere is the name of Dr Lam Akol mentioned in a complimentary manner without him jumping into trying to negate that compliment.

He relishes on attacking Dr Lam Akol, calling him names and would always strive to trivialize his achievements. One case in point is an article he wrote in the Citizen Newspaper dated April 21, 2010 in which he said the following:

"The vote for Dr Lam Akol in the Shilluk area is therefore an anger vote which does not translate into political support for SPLM-DC."

Dr Nyaba looks extremely agitated by the fact that the SPLM-DC captured all the contested seats in the Shilluk area and would want to belittle that victory by calling it "an anger vote". One would like to pose a simple question to the learned gentleman: how do you distinguish between an anger vote and the vote driven by political support?

As usual, Dr Nyaba lies between his teeth when he alleges that the High Elections Committee in Upper Nile State was "infiltrated" by SPLM-DC. Everybody in Malakal knows that nothing could be further from the truth. It is an open secret that the party that the High Elections Committee in Malakal gives the hardest time is the SPLM-DC. The records are there for every one to see. This can hardly be the behaviour of a body infiltrated by SPLM-DC. How then can Dr Nyaba turn the facts upside down in this crude way? This is balderdash.

It is not true that the voters' choice for illiterate people was ticked on the ballot paper by the polling officers as Dr Nyaba alleges. Only blind people, according to the National Elections Act 2008, that are accompanied by polling officers to the voting booth where the officer concerned ticks the choice of this voter on the ballot paper and deposits it into the ballot box. Illiterate voters indicate their choice in front of the polling officers, all parties' agents and monitors. This is the fact Dr Nyaba would like to twist around to suit his purposes.

Given the above facts, the SPLM-DC's victory in the Shilluk area can neither be ascribed to it infiltrating the High Elections Committee in Malakal nor to the officials of the same misrepresenting the voters' choice in favour of SPLM-DC. The reason(s) for that victory has to be sought elsewhere.

The people in the Shilluk area have to be congratulated for their courage and steadfast political stand. The SPLM candidates in the area subjected them to threats, including utterances that if they were not elected people will go back to war, and intimidation through heavy military escorts armed to teeth. All these undemocratic and awe-provoking moves did not shake their confidence in making their own choice.

The victory of the SPLM-DC was not by chance but was due to a patient political work extending over many years. After the signing of the peace agreement in 2005, Dr Nyaba and Co. resolved to do away with the leaders who were in the area before them in exclusion politics and deluded themselves into believing that they can steal the support of the people there overnight and turn it to themselves. They even made their non-Shilluk mentors believe that no political work was necessary and the only thing needed was to win over the Reth and he will deliver the Shilluks to the SPLM. Well, they are now politely reminded that there is no short cut to politics. Despite the fact that the Reth, contrary to the Shilluk tradition, did campaign openly for the SPLM and especially for Salva Kiir, the Shilluks decided otherwise. This was the case all over the Shilluk land. It is a true expression of a political stand. This was the same stand the Shilluks recently showed to the Reth in Malakal stadium when he advised them to vote for Salva Kiir. The development is an eye-opener for those Southern Sudan leaders who buy the lies of Dr. Nyaba and his ilk that the Shilluks can be taken for granted.

Dr. Nyaba knows that this support for SPLM-DC was on solid foundation when he supervised in Tonga over the rigging of the SPLM Panyikang County's Conference elections in March 2008. The actual people elected from the Payams were refused participation in the Conference on grounds that they were "Lam's" people. The case they raised against this abuse of party democracy and undemocratic practice was buried by his other allies in the National Convention. It was not long time ago for him to forget. It is the same cadres who are now the party workers of SPLM-DC. If the SPLM was a party worth the name it would have conducted a post-mortem of this total defeat and taken measures against Dr Nyaba and Co. for having misled the party for the last five years about the situation in the Shilluk area.

If "the apparent political weakness of the SPLM leadership in the State", as Dr Nyaba avers, was the only reason for the voters to refrain from voting for the SPLM, why then wasn't the votes spread over to the many political parties that contested for the elections? How does he explain the fact that it was the SPLM-DC that won the votes?

Dr. Nyaba has always portrayed the SPLM leadership in Upper Nile State as weak. This is half-truth. The other half is that he was adopting that line to justify his desperate quest to become the Governor of the State presumably to provide the strong leadership needed. This burning urge let him to nominate himself for the gubernatorial race in this election as an Independent candidate. Despite earlier appeals from his party's leadership to withdraw his candidature he was adamant to remain in the race. Suddenly, after the withdrawal period has lapsed he snapped and announced his withdrawal. It turned out that he did so because he was threatened with dismissal from his Ministerial position if he didn't withdraw his candidature. Such a behaviour speaks volumes about his opportunism.

Dr. Nyaba asserts: "One of the holy laws is not to bear witness against your neighbour and indeed accusing the SPLA is like bearing false witness against them". Dr. Nyaba could not be serious. The SPLA has sufficiently been misused for political ends by the SPLM. What do you mean by false witness when the SPLA was used to take over ballot boxes and rig the elections in favour of the SPLM? What do you mean by false witness when the SPLA was arresting party agents and intimidating them? What do you mean by false witness when the SPLA was tearing campaign posters of parties other than the SPLM? What do you mean by false witness when the SPLA Spokesman makes public political statements against political leaders? The list is long and all these violations are well documented. The leadership of the SPLA must be careful and should ponder over the dire consequences of dragging the SPLA, supposedly the army of the South, into partisan politics and serving parochial interests.

Dr. Nyaba opines that: "Dr. Lam can't snatch power from Kiir in a fair and free election in Southern Sudan given Dr. Lam's political experience in the SPLM". First, Dr. Lam doesn't need to "snatch" power. He is seeking to be elected into the office of President of GOSS. Second, whatever Dr. Nyaba means by "political experience in the SPLM", it is not only the SPLM that votes in the President of GOSS. It is the people of Southern Sudan who are entitled to choose their leader. Third, if the SPLM shared Dr. Nyaba's confidence in Kiir winning the race, why did they resort to open intimidation, obstructions of Dr. Lam's election campaign and blatant rigging by the SPLA actually taking over the ballot boxes and sending away agents of all the political parties? These are well documented irregularities and fraudulent acts. The NCP must be green in envy for SPLM's audacious and blatant rigging!! A confident contender does not need to resort to rigging and stealing an election.

Dr. Nyaba sees the challenge to Salva Kiir as something impossible. One does not see why this could be the case. On the contrary, his record in office is abysmal and leadership qualities are wanting. Such a feeling must stem from either inferiority complex or resignation to the use of brutal force to obstruct democratic practice. Dr. Lam Akol was contesting for the office of the President of the Government of Southern Sudan representing his party, SPLM-DC, and the Alliance of Southern Sudan Political Parties. Salva Kiir was contesting for the same office in the name of SPLM, and the field was wide open for any other person from any political party or an Independent interested to serve the people of Southern Sudan in that capacity. The candidates could have been many as is the case for the President of the Republic. How such a democratic exercise could be turned into making "history being the only challenger to Salva Kiir for the Presidency of GOSS" tells a lot about the dictatorial attitude of the SPLM and the way they think they own the South. The learned Dr. Nyaba should have applauded the fact that the Southerners are offered a choice in these elections, not to get stuck with an incompetent fickle whom he himself described, as the grapevine goes, with quite unsavoury adjectives. After all, Dr. Lam Akol is more qualified for the position in all respects than Salva Kiir. What then is the whole fuss about? The only history made in this election is that the SPLM has been exposed for what it really is: a test tube baby that cannot survive in open air of free democratic competition.

As to the poor showing of the SPLM in all parts of the South where there was truly free election, Dr. Nyaba was right when he said: "that the elections were open, free but not fair is something the SPLM had resigned itself to earlier because most of its members spent the last five years struggling against each other, blocking and conspiring against one another". However, Dr. Nyaba was in the forefront of those who "spent the last five years struggling" against their comrades in exclusion politics and driving some out of the SPLM. He should correct his mistakes rather than hide his head in the sand pretending that the world does not move without them.

The SPLM-DC is the party for change cherished by our people. Didn't Salva Kiir in his lack-lustre election campaign claim that he was for "change"? With such an appeal, the SPLM-DC is there to stay and those who thought it was going to wither away by the mere use of brute force against it are the only ones now surprised by its strong showing not only in the Shilluk area but all over the South. The struggle must continue.

Michael Deng.