It is Unfair to Criticize Shilluk Politicians on Infallibility

It is Unfair to Criticize Shilluk Politicians on Infallibility

By James Solomon Padiet

(Mobil Tel: 0913765756, E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. )

Since the formation of the Government of National Unity (GoNU), Government of

Southern Sudan (GoSS and Government States (GoS) as per implementation of the

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 9th January 2005, complaints, accusations,

fears and criticism have been flowing like a river through out the different part of

Republic of the Sudan. This has been expressed and engineered by different means,

the most common of which is the print media (particularly the internet websites and

newspapers).But to be short, I am going to react only to the two recent internet

articles published in http://www.pachodo.org and http://www.SouthSudan.net ? the

one written by Shilluk International Congress (SIC) on Support of H.E. Hon. Dr. Lam

Akol, the foreign minister of the Sudan and criticism of H.E. Hon. Pagan Amum, the

Secretary General of the SPLM, and the other which Kimo Ajing Aba (John-Kimo S.

Ajing) wrote on criticism of H.E. Hon. Dr. Lam and support of H.E. Hon. Pagan .

I do not care about the identity of these opposing and contradicting writers but I care

about what they said to the public in their articles. Having read them analytically

and critically, I conclude that all of them are trying to say one thing about those

two important sons of Shilluk in the Sudanese politics and in the SPLM top

leadership; they should be infallible in their decisions and actions. Surely, this

is unfair position to take unless those writers are insensitive to being realistic

and contextual.

To begin, the two writers are not respectful to the constitutional and leadership

honours held by the Very Important Peoples (VIPs) they mentioned, supported or

criticized in their articles. In order to write ?Hon.?, ?H.E.? or ?Dr.? as entitled

to any of those people, they just writes their names dryly and scornfully without

such qualifications (e.g Lam Akol or Pagan Amum). With all their weaknesses and

strengths SIC and Kimo Ajing should give our government and party leaders due

recognition and honour of their positions (even if they do not agree with them in

some of the political practices they do or are required to do). In this regard the

two writers owe apology to those VIPs whom they belittled intentionally. Failure to

do that means supporting anarchy and ?honourlessness? more than government or party

titles of their country.

Particularly, Kimo Ajing Aba has committed a very unfortunate scandal to himself to

have called H.E. Lam Akol a ?gay? in his article. He owes a serious apology to SPLM,

to all Shilluk, to Palo (Doleib Hill), and to Dr. Lam and his friends for having

used that term on him. It is a serious insult to Southern Sudan and to a Shilluk man

(particularly to Kwanireth). If we were in the village Kimo Ajing is supposed to be

speared to death by blood relatives of Dr. Lam for this shameful attitude.

The context in which SIC wrote their public statement was shaped by the remours

which went around at the eve of SPLM top leadership in Yei that H.E Hon. Dr. Lam

Akol is going to be removed form the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of the

Sudan and replaced by H.E. Hon. Deng Aluor. This group of Shilluk took those remours

seriously because it was becoming too much to be silent again on the same attempt on

Dr. Akol Honourable position in GoNU. The most annoying part of those remours is

that it was somebody who is already a minister in GoNU and who is, perhaps,

discontent about his ministry who is up to the exit of the Sudan Chief Diplomat.

This group of Shilluk has been outraged by the unfounded and misplaced accusations

leveled against this rare Southern Sudan intellectual icon and a man from the cradle

of formal education (Dolleib Hill) of the Shilluk kingdom. They knew that if his

critics within the top leadership of SPLM managed to pollute the decision of H.E.

Our President Salva Kiir with those bias accusations, the result would have been

disastrous to the Shilluk people including insensitive and disrespectful people like

Kimo Ajing. It would have meant that no Shilluk in the History of the Sudan would

ever get that honour again; the credit that the first southerner and, perhaps, the

last one has made it to the Foreign Ministry of the Sudan after a golden jubilee of

British colonialists exit. A Shilluk man or woman who does not appreciate this fact

is surely blinded by hatred or jealousy and should start to look for a

psychotherapist to help him/her out of this destructive disease of human conscience.

Rejoicing at the mistakes committed by the Shilluk leaders and working for their

down fall is a sign of failure in life of the critics; it contradicts any claim if

being a gentleman or a gentle group. Also being saddened, grieved and disturbed by

the successes of the important Shilluk political leaders like H.E. Hon. Dr. Lam and

H.E. Hon. Pagan, is a very bad indicator for a civilized Shilluk person. It is

unfortunate that SIC and Kimo failed to adhere to this noble wisdom of godly human

life. They have opted to evaluate and judge those gifted SPLM as either angels or

devils when it is impossible for any of them to be according to the metaphysical set

up of a human person. Not only that, but they have also judged those leaders out of

the context and failed to understand that there is no future in the past when we try

to make (the past) the presence.

One of the credits that SIC accorded to H.E Dr. Lam is the appointment of well

represented sixty southerners to the Sudan Foreign Ministry diplomatic service while

one of the criticisms Kimo Ajing leveled against him is the appointment of seven

close relatives of Dr. Lam to this ministry of sovereignty. Both of these writers

are wrong in that because H.E. Dr. Lam Lam, according to the powers vested on him by

the constitutional virtue of his office, did not appoint those Southerners but

rather nominated them to the classified posts of that Ministry. They have to go

through a process of verification of their academic qualifications/credentials and

medical check-up for fitness before they get their appointment letters from the

public service department of the Ministry. The seven Dr. Lam?s relatives on which he

is criticized did not get into the list by family ticket: Emmanuel Yoannes,

Ngathjwok Shawich, and James Solomon (Okuk) and Emmanuel Moses would have come to

this Ministry even if Dr. Lam was not there because they have been recommended

strongly by some top SPLM leadership and nominated in SPLM Chapters in Kenya, UK and

Egypt two years ago for that purpose, because they have been seen as potential

resource persons and strong young cadres who can promote and reflect the spirit of

CPA in Sudan diplomacy (all of them are Master Degree holders with distinction).

John Samuel (Cairo) is known for his administrative ability in Comboni School of

Khartoum and was recommended by Shilluk community in Khartoum to be the office

manager of H.E Dr. Lam. That work gave him a credit to get nominated into the

diplomatic corps automatically. John Simon has been working as a Lawyer and U.N

Human Rights consultant and has the necessary qualification and characteristics that

makes him attractive to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Kimo Othwon has also been a

lawyer and a teacher with credibility. He has applied in this Ministry before CPA

but his file has been hidden for long. H.E Dr. Lam traced that and included his name

in Southerners list. The question which I have posed to many critics who I know and

who I befriend is: Is it a sin for H.E Dr. Lam to employ his relatives in the

Ministry he holds if they are qualified and reliable to do the required duty? Don?t

they see me deserving that job and its privileges or do they want me to resign and

give a way to a non-Dr. Lam?s relative? To my surprise all they tell me is that they

want me to have that job and are happy that I am there. Then I wonder on what ground

they are criticizing and hating our Minister for having nominated us. I have

realized that those people are not being sincere and are contradictory in their

arguments. They are targeting us because they do not want us to get anything good

through Hon. Dr. Lam; they have bad hearts and ill intention towards our success!

From all what I read in the article of Kimo Ajing and who ever gave him some basic

information for its content, I see nothing good but animosity and contempt towards

H.E Dr. Lam Akol. That is why they are not able to see the popularity of Dr. Lam,

not only in the Shilluk land but also in the whole Sudan. It is also a shame on

these writers to endorse the use of word ?Garang Orphans? and demand resignation of

H.E. Dr. Lam for not using that term. There is no doubt that justice and liberation

fighters and supporters of SPLM/A love our Late H.E Dr. John and are so grieved by

his untimely death. Dr. Lam has even mentioned the popularity of Dr. John Garang in

his book SPLM/SPLA: Inside an African Revolution when he said ?Dr. John Garang

enjoyed the good will of the members of the SPLM/A in a way no other southern

politician ever enjoyed.? (Akol, 2001:233). Being an orphan means ?left without

knowing what to do and needing someone else to take care of you before the survival

fitness destroys you.? Is it true that our late hero of peace left our top leaders

in the SPLM today ?not knowing what to do and needing someone else to take care of

them?? We can only be proud of this term if we admit that SPLM/A is equal to Dr.

Garang and vise versa but it cannot be true, taking into consideration the

development that has taken place even when the death robbed us from our beloved late

hero. He has a crucial role in the SPLM/A which we are missing so far so bad but

this cannot qualify us to say that the movement is dead and buried in our late H.E.

Dr. John?s tom in Juba near the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly.

Regarding, the criticism of H.E Dr. Lam for his consistent stand on the Foreign

policy, it cannot be justified by the CPA that he should go against the presidency.

Sudan is not an Island; therefore, it can mediate in conflict resolution as it can

also be mediated by other countries. This is the core noble purpose of peace

diplomacy in any foreign affairs of a peace loving country. That is why it is a

noble thing for H.E. Dr. Lam to mediate in the attempts of conflict resolution in

Lebanon. National issues that can be resolved internally are not a priority to the

Foreign Ministry because there are Ministries established for that purpose like the

Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. Dar Fur crisis is an internal

national affair for the Sudan which has drawn international attention. Therefore, it

would look wise if this crisis is mediated by a peace lover foreign country(s).

Though Dr. Lam Akol is not the inventor of the Right to Self-determination, he is

undeniably its architect and agenda-setter in the context of Sudan Politics for the

sake of Southern Sudan. Even if Fashoda Peace Agreement of April 21, 1997 has been

signed under pressure, it has legitimized the valid call for the right of

Self-determination for the people of Southern Sudan. This document saved SPLM from

the hurdles which almost prevented the progress of CPA negotiations; it acted as a

precedent referral that lead to the major break through of Machakos protocol. It

also led to the defeat of the argument of government of the Sudan on their rejection

of independent status of SPLA: ?If it was accepted and practiced in Fashoda

agreement and in Khartoum Peace Agreement of H.E Dr. Riak Machar why not for the

CPA, otherwise the government would prove the thesis of Hon. Abel Alier?s book that

too many agreements have got and can get easily dishonoured in the Sudan for

Southern Sudan.? Thus, whoever denies H.E Dr. Lam and H.E. Pagan Amum the credit

they deserve at the moment is just na?ve for nothing.