A Reply To Kimo Ajing

Despite the fact that the writer is my sibling and we belong to the same political party, I decided to reply his article for the contradictions and tales unrelated to the reality that are its hallmark. The article also exemplifies the lack of knowledge with the party rules and regulations; for how can a member of the SPLM talk against one of his leaders publicly in the Internet? I was seriously offended this unbecoming behaviour motivating me to respond. The writer has gone beyond the red lines which I and any true nationalist cannot tolerate. Such talk cannot be said except by those who envy the political abilities of the man and the position he holds. The saying goes: "If you can't reach him throw stones at him".

We should have praised the man for the achievements he has made and the illustrious record he has given to this country. He was the product of one of the most prestigious universities, a PhD holder who did not lack the necessities of life and could have lived a comfortable one. However he chose the difficult path of the struggle. Before he left the University of Khartoum, he was working hard clandestinely to recruit people into the SPLM, some of whom are now your 'heroes'. We should have addressed him as the man of the difficult tasks instead of attempting to assassinate his character and spread falsehoods about him. The late Dr John Garang knew him better than any and this is why he gave him the leadership position that was and still is being coveted by some of the comrades whose mouths continue to water for any position he holds. How can we equate a man with such stature with a student who emerged out of a blue? The position he holds today is not a gift or came by accident but was a result of the tremendous efforts he has exerted and still exerting.

It was natural for some comrade to caution the late Col Dr Garang about Dr Lam Akol because they know that he is a man of vision and one of the few intellectuals in the political scene on the levels of Sudan, Southern Sudan, SPLM, the State and worldwide. When he was given the responsibility to be the zonal commander of Northern Upper Nile, Dr Lam Akol did not contravene the orders of Dr Garang on the force you are talking about. All this in spite of the harm that befell members of the tribe when, previous to his assignment, the SPLA troops used to avoid engaging the 'Friendly Forces' reasoning that these forces are not the target of the SPLA. What did we want Dr Lam Akol to do?

Regarding the points you mentioned I would like to tackle them as follows:

1. If there are Shilluks in the Diaspora who belong to any organization of their choice, it is not the right of anybody else to deny the existence of such an organization because social bodies exist any time and in any place according to the the general assembly there present. The issue is not the existence of any organization but the conflict is created by those who support Pagan when they do not like any organization supporting Dr Lam Akol.

2. I assure you that the Shilluk tribe is socially united behind the Reth. If you mean political unity of the tribe, then this is not possible because there is no tribe that is united politically. A tribe coalesces on supreme social interests. Fashoda village knows no enemies. During the war times, the Reth used to receive the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Friendly Forces- despite the fact that they used to loot and displace the Shilluks. The Reth is the social symbol of the tribe and is not a political symbol of any particular group. Some of the misguided fellows have gone as far as to slaughter bulls for and making incantations to the Kujurs wishing to drive a wedge between the Reth and Dr Lam Akol. There are a lot we know that you don't for your absence away from the country. Politically, I do not remember that the Reth belongs to a political party. Is it conceivable to say that the present Reth belongs to the SPLM? What about his sons the Shilluks in the other political parties? This is by way of reply to your statements which I perfectly understand to be politically motivated. The Reth does not seek the position of President of the Republic nor any Ministerial portfolio. Give to God what belongs to God and to Caesar what is Caesar's. This is necessary so that we can separate the truth from falsehoods. The Reth's position should not be dragged into politics. Dr Lam Akol, like the rest of the Shilluks should respect the Reth as a social symbol we all respect. Hence, the Reth should not be used as a shield by those who are envious of the man. The Reth is the Godfather of all and I personally reject using his name for cheap advantage.

3. I know that what you are now saying is not yours but the position of others. You were not in Sudan during the election of Dr Lam Akol and Mungo Ajak Akol, nor did you live the events that took place in the Shilluk area. How can you judge on a reality you did not witness? The attempt to link the Minister with the last events in Malakal is one of the most malicious games played by some. How do you explain the fact that the shootings took place while he was in town and that his house was the target of the firing that night keeping in mind that the place of the incident was not more than a hundred metres from his residence?

4. Foreign policy of Sudan does reflect the policy of the SPLM alone but that of the Government of National Unity (GONU). The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) specified the percentages of participation and the responsibilities of all. These should be clear, unless we do not read the CPA or we say that some of the leaders of the SPLM do not understand the interpretation of its provisions. In either case this is a political disaster. Therefore, to continue criticizing Dr Lam Akol alone as if he is the only SPLM Minister in the GONU and GOSS and to turn a blind eye on those who did not move a feather in their ministries is the height of injustice.

5. Some comrades would like to revisit the Nasir split in order to eliminate Dr Lam Akol from the political scene while tactically they do not touch Dr Riek Machar describing him as having played no role in the split. This is the politics of divide and rule. The stone that was earlier rejected by the architects is now the cornerstone. Therefore, I advise you, if you may allow me to do so, that don't enter politics from a half-open door. Heaping insults is not a characteristic of honourable men. Do not forget that you are lawyer and should know better. Even during the time of the split, such a foul language was not used between Dr Garang and Dr Lam Akol. This is the language of desperate people overwhelmed by the envy of and greed for the position of the man.

6. We do not call upon the Shilluks to rally socially behind Dr Lam Akol but we are working to realize the aspirations of our people including the Shilluk tribe to attain freedom, justice and equality.

7. Concerning the initiative you talked about, the two persons are not worthy of what you are saying and we are eyewitnesses to that. We made an initiative before between Dr Lam Akol and Pagan Amum with the aim of finding out the reasons behind the differences between them. Peter Adwok insisted that he was a third party. All the same, the initiative was accepted by all and two committeees were formed under the chairmanship of Mr Anthony Edward, the Advisor of the State Government, from our side and Mr James Thubo on the other. Unfortunately, we got a message from Dr Peter Adwok that the two committees should freeze their activities until he arrives Malakal. When he arrived, we were surprised by his rejection of the initiative as he did to many similar ones known to the father of Pagan Amum. If you doubt this information, you can launch your own initiative and you will find out that the group you belong to is not keen for unity. We challenge anybody who talks about initiatives because

we have done our utmost to no avail.

Finally, there are points that I did not respond to as they relate to Dr Lam Akol and SIC. They are better placed to respond.

Thank you.

Bartholomew Ajing Aba

Malakal.

20 March 2007.