KHARTOUM MONITOR EXELLS IN DISINFORMATION

BY: Aban D. Atur.

Khartoum Monitor is enjoying the thrill of disinformation,especially when the material is against Dr.Lam Akol.In the editorial of MondayApril 21,2008, KM published misinformation from a deliberate unilateral disinforming source.The bad intention of the paper is very clear by publishing an ordinary news story in an editorial that should reflect the policy of the paper.

To return to the subject matter of this article which intends to correct information that came in the editorial of KM on the date mentioned above in which the paper concludes prematurely and with confidence in the 4th line that Dr. Lam is a controversial political figure, a judgement simulating negative verdict on him, without probing the story properly.

The truth about the situation on aborted legal arrest of chief Oyath Odhok are as follows:

1.The governor of Upper Nile State Brig. Galwak Deng never said Dr. was a security risk as the editorial suggested as claimed on Akhar Laza(dated 20th April 2008).EL Saafa only published the newsof the incident(19th April 2008). What Akhar Laza wrote was that “the security committee recommended that Dr.Lam leaves the state and the Governor reserved”. The is the closest possible transilation on what came as big title.This definitely means the governor didn’t approve of it.

2.What you termed an alleged document should have been produced for your accurate information byDeng Kwongo Padiet.Deng intentionally lied to you by saying that the document carried threats against a number of Shilluk intelectuals and politicians. Why didn’t those politicians pile a case against Dr.Lam for threat on there lives?Who are those intelectuals and politicians? You should have been objective to let Mr. Deng answer instead of concluding as you did.

3.The alleged document accused Dr. Lam of trying to kill the Shilluk King.Why didn’t the king open a case against Dr. Lam? The norms in a civilize society shilluk community included usually resorts to law suit in :

    3-1.If life is threaten by killing.

    3-2.If there is defermation of one’s name.

4. Chief Oyath Odhok went around in his chieftency propogating this defermation against Dr.Lam, and even instigated the villagers to kill his followers.In that same meeting, the elderly men told the chief to do the killing himself as each and every rose and left the meeting without permission from the chief. What does this indicate?

5. This Oyath the chief or not can never rise above the law. That is why the warrant of arrest was issued by the court in Malakal. If there is any thing in the pinal code that regulates between the law and H.Majesty powers, it would have not escaped the notice of the judge who issued the warrant of arrest to embarras his court.

6.For those who do not understand the Collo traditional laws, they have never gone against the laws of the land, and that’s what made the kingdom survived the upheals of many systems. Thus there is nothing like lifting of immunity of a chief if his conduct became offensive to the law. Further more H.M.Reth Ayang Aney was very humble to have testified in the court of law during his tenture for which he was respected as he respected the law. How about that?

7.Mr.Che Daniel Obudhok,Mr. Ajak Ngor Oywaj and the late police myter from Brun who was murdered while discharging his duty are all police men. Gundown by police officers rebelling agains execution of the law, and protecting a fujative.

8.The three policemen went to arrest Oyath on the evening the day before in the house of Late kwanyireth Adieng Jolong and were told that the chief Oyath had guests, which would be embarracing. The following day the chief spent the whole day with Kwanyireth Aban Deng the minister of Agriculture and could not be arrested. That why he was about to be got hold of at 6;00 PM.

9. The two police officers became accomplices and were trying to protect the culprit and the guards of the chief in their company shot the policeman who hails from Brun. Mr. Che had to run for his life and because of darkness, the chief who was firing an automatic riffle could not get killed. Because of uncontrolable rage, he the criminal fired at the car’s tyres and smashed the wind screens. So where does Deng stand with law or against it? 10. KM should find out real facts instead of being lured into writing nonsense not in accordance with the eye witness accounts on both sides. This incidence has nothing to do with census or SPLM coming convention whatsoever