12 reasons why President Salva Kiir should resign

Let me state this piece with a caveat. I don’t have a personal interaction with H.E President Salva Kiir and I have not worked closely with him either. So what I am going to insinuate here about his personality, character, abilities, style, willingness are solely based on publically available sources and my personal analysis and conclusions based on these sources. To have run the affairs of South Sudan – a very complex region and country – for almost 10 years, there are certainly many things that Kiir might have done right. Those might constitute the subject of another opinion piece. Therefore, concentrating my efforts on the negatives of his regime should not in anyway give the impression that I am oblivious to the good things that he might have been done. Finally, I am not in any way suggesting here that Kiir in his personal capacity was responsible for all of these vices nor am I suggesting that there were or are no brilliant, honest and God fearing people in the Government of President Salva Kiir. With these few words, let me ask your indulgence to proceed.

1. 1.    As the Commander – in – Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of South Sudan Salva Kiir has failed to put in place a foundation for a professional army, protect civilians and the territorial integrity of the country

If there is one professional discipline President Salva Kiir has certified ability, skills, knowledge and expertise as well as years of service in, it is the military. From his humble beginning as an intelligence officer in the Sudanese Armed Forces, Salva Kiir rose through the military rank of the rebel movement to become the second in command to the Late Dr. John Garang. One should have expected, therefore, that Kiir with so many years of experience and training would have attempted to put in place the institutional, strategic and operational basis for a professional army in South Sudan. Unfortunately, almost 10 years into his leadership, South Sudan is still without a professional and a disciplined army. About 40% of the budget of the country was spent on security and a huge junk of this went to the Army. The Army received trainings from some of the best armies in the world and still South Sudan Army is mainly a coalition of armed groups with seemingly uncoordinated command system.

In addition, twice within two years, Salva Kiir has ordered the deployment of the armed forces for combat operation under circumstances that were entirely avoidable. Salva’s poor military judgement was again evident when he unwittingly continued to integrate and promote armed civilians and militias into the Army in return for renouncing violence. These groups were mainly from a particular part of the country. Consequently, the composition of the Army now is tilted in favour of one or two particular ethnic groups. In addition to putting together groups that have been fighting each other without proper integration or reconciliation plan or strategy, the result is that these errors of judgement have seemingly paralysed the Army to the extent that an Army that fought Sudan Armed Forces to its knees could not handle a mutiny in the Army.

Furthermore, what seems to have complicated the current rebellion is also a strategic blunder.  As a result of the border war with Khartoum, most the state-of-art military hardware and assets of the South Sudan Army were moved closer to the border. So when the crisis in Juba started, it was easy for the commanders of the SPLA divisions who were already in possession of some of these hardware to defect taking with them most of these military assets. Moreover, both the command and composition of the military in this region equally favoured and made it easier for defection. One cannot but imagine that it was not difficult for Kiir to anticipate that the power tussle between him and Riek will eventually take a military and ethnic dimension. With foresight he could have ordered strategic redeployment of assets and military personnel to minimise damage. This was not done. As a result of bad judgement, South Sudan now has a rebellion that is well armed and supplies that could last for few more months.

Additional evidence of military mal judgement is the reported recruitment by President Kiir of his bodyguards from his own clan. If this is true, this was the greatest admission by Kiir that the South Sudan Army project was already a failure. An Army that could not provide security to the highest office in the land, how could it be trusted with the security of a country. That is probably why Kiir’s first call when the crisis broke was to Yoweri for reinforcement.

The worst failure, to date, of Kiir as a C-in-C is his inability and or unwillingness to protected unarmed civilians few blocks away from his office and residential area. For nights, women, children and families were murdered in cold blood without protection from a government they fought for and voted in power. Instead of offering protection, the government was busy arresting and calculating how it could turn the tragedy into a political and power – stepping-stones.

Finally, Kiir has compromised and might even compromise more the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of South Sudan. Without proper consultation and proper parliamentary debates, Kiir brought into the country the armed forces of another country under circumstances that most of the citizens in the country do not even know. We have known of Uganda, USA and only God knows who else is involved or present in the country and carrying arms. There is no declaration of war or state of emergency in South Sudan, yet the President is acting as if the country is already at war.

1. 2.    As the Chief Executive, President Salva Kiir has failed to provide responsible leadership, direction and oversight. He is a very poor manager of people and processes.

Without constitutional power, African presidents are normally among the most powerful in the world. In addition to this natural propensity to gravitate towards unrestraint power, Kiir, constitutionally speaking, is the most powerful president in office in Africa today. The Transitional Constitution of South Sudan was tailor-made for him and to service his political ambition. However, instead of deploying these sweeping powers for peace, security, development and good governance of the country, he has used these powers to build a political empire for himself made up of political cronies and praise-singers. Those who hold contrary views were randomly sacked and governors who dared to take a different line were starved of the small resources that were supposed to come in from the National Government.

Ministers were hired and fired at will without due regard to competence.  Government ministries operated without clear, targeted and measurable plans. Different commissions were created to provide jobs for certain individuals without clear mandate and synergy. Because appointment to government positions, in some instances, were motivated by ethnic considerations, loyalty and political appeasement, when these appointees stole government resources, all the President could do is to beg them to return something back into government coffers. The ability to identify problems, wisely select appropriate interventions and deploy the right resources to solve the problem are some of hallmark of a successful chief executive that are conspicuously missing in the leadership style of the President.

1. 3.    The President lucks the ability and/or the willingness to lay a solid foundation of peace and nation building process.  

Responsible leadership, good governance and appropriate levels of resources and other capabilities are some of the prerequisites for effective and efficient peace and nation building processes in a post conflict situation. Good governance refers to the responsible use of political authority to manage a nation’s affairs. It is a basket of many practices: professional civil service, elimination of corruption in government, a predictable, transparent and accountable administration, democratic decision making, the supremacy of the rule of law, effective protection of human rights, and independent judiciary, a fair economic system, appropriate devolution and decentralization of government and appropriate levels of military spending.  Since I have dealt with the leadership component of good governance already, I will dwell a bit on the rule of law dimension.

The law is the platform on which vital institutions of society rest. No modern market economy can function without law and, in order to be legitimate, power itself must submit to the law. Thus, the rule of law is not a mere adornment to development; it is a vital source of progress. It creates an environment in which the full spectrum of human creativity can flourish, and prosperity can be built. The rule of law prevails where: 

• The government itself is bound by the law,
• Every person in the society is treated equally under the law,
• The human dignity of each individual is recognized and protected by law, and
• Justice is accessible to all.

Transforming a society requires comprehensive legal, political, social, and economic reforms. Legal reform means a great deal more than simply the drafting of “modern” laws that are accessible, comprehensible, and usable. The legal system cannot operate without institutions that make these rules come to life through their dynamic interpretation and enforcement by an impartial, efficient, and reliable judicial system.

Good policing is an essential component of the rule of law. Policing is the most public manifestation of governmental authority. When they use that authority primarily to serve the interests of government, they belie the democratic promise of government for the people. The most dramatic contribution police can make to democracy is to become responsive to the needs of individual citizens. First, it becomes accountable to the most diverse set of interests possible. Second, it enhances the legitimacy of government, by demonstrating daily and practically that the authority of the state will be used in the interest of the people.

In a democracy, the actions of the government are constrained by law, that is, by decisions made and publicized after due representative deliberation. Police actions in a democracy must, therefore, be governed by the rule of law rather than by directions given arbitrarily by particular regimes and their members.  Democracy requires not only that the police, part of the executive arm of the state, be constrained by law, but also that the police make a special effort to safeguard activities that are essential to the exercise of democracy. These activities are: freedom of speech, association, and movement; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, and exile; and impartiality in the administration of law.

 In addition, adequate resources and appropriate levels of capacities are imperative to peace and nation building.  Capacity is the ability of individuals, institutions and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner.  Capacity strengthening must take place at three different levels: The individual level, the institutional level and the societal level. These three levels are interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing.  A sound institutional framework and adequate organizational and human capacity are necessary ingredients for fostering and sustaining a culture of human rights and democratic governance in post-conflict South Sudan. Capacity is required to help deliver the “peace dividend” in the form of basic social services, pro-poor economic growth and development, improved equity and security, leading to eradication of poverty; strengthen the capacity of government institutions to discharge their obligations, improve the quantity and quality of service delivery, and enhance good governance and the capacity of oversight institutions to perform their functions.

Through a combination of dictatorial tendencies and exclusionary policies Kiir has produced weak institutions and interlocking structural inequalities in South Sudan. Government institutions and infrastructures have been neglected, bypassed, destroyed, in some instances, and many more lacked political neutrality, professionalism, efficiency, fairness and transparency.  Corruption, embezzlement of public funds and bribery are endemic outputs of some of the surviving institutions in the country. In South Sudan, the police would effect an arrest of a criminal only for a general in the Army to order a release, for example. Almost anyone in government can order the arrest of an individual without giving any reason and keep him in detention as long as it pleases the arresting ‘authority’. Judges write judgements but are forced to deliver different ones. Government jobs are hardly advertised; when they are, applying with ‘some kinds of certificates’, in most cases postgraduate degrees, without someone in government to sponsor your application might just disqualify your application. Some government officials hold three different government positions for which they are monthly paid their salaries.

1. 4.    President Salva Kiir has cost South Sudan and its people the image of the country and the international goodwill that that country enjoyed for decades

It is not an exaggeration if one was to say that there is hardly one country in Africa that enjoyed international goodwill and had the most favourable conditions to start on a right foot as South Sudan did. From military support during the years of war to swift diplomatic and international recognition, South Sudan had it all. Countries in Africa offered free expertise, international community poured in aid, and non-governmental organisations deployed their best to support South Sudan succeed. South Sudanese the world over left well paying jobs in the West and other parts of the world to go back home to help. What has South Sudan given in return? Wars, ethnic cleansing, wanton looting and gross mismanagement of public resources, bad governance and gross human rights violations. The world is looking in dismay as a nation that was probably born in the most favourable of conditions happily walking into self-destruction.

South Sudanese probably did not know the extent to which the world was disappointed until that shameful effort to become one of the members of the UN Human Rights Council. Under normal circumstance, with a combination of goodwill diplomacy, South Sudan should not have had any hurdle, but it was not to be. Under Kiir South Sudan not only lost goodwill but even respect. When the government speaks the world waits until there is an independent confirmation, in order to react. Our government officials, even those who have not stolen, are seen around the world as thieves. Some of our highest office holders have been arrested and maltreated by law enforcement agencies around the world without a credible protest. South Sudan is back, with brain injury, into the ICU of the world hospital; instead of sympathy we are getting scorn. That is where our leaders have taken us.

1. 5.    President Salva Kiir has failed in his 10 years of rule to provide basic service to the people of South Sudan.

Development partners, non-government organisations and the private sector today mainly provide any resemblance of service delivery in South Sudan. Having presided over the disbursement of over $20 billion, the world is wondering what was this money used for? The government teaching hospital lacks basis staff and facilities. Thousands of people die in Juba in those makeshift clinics in search for simple medical care. The University of Juba can hardly boast of more than 100 staff members, and schools across the country are in dilapidating forms. There is no electricity even in Juba; people in the main cities, including Juba, drink water directly from river Nile. The only decent all-weather-road in the country was built by a foreign government and handed only to the government of South Sudan when it was completed.  People could hardly sleep in peace in their houses in Juba even before the crisis erupted.

What is a government for, if it cannot use collective resources to provide security, health services, education, water, electricity and basic infrastructure for its people? If Salva Kiir could not build one decent hospital in 10 years what is the guarantee that he will do so in the next 10 years? If there are no roads, no hospitals, no electricity, no water, no decent schools, no housing, and no social security, what has the government been budgeting for all these years? 

1. 6.    President Salva Kiir does not seem to have a clear vision, ability and willingness to put in place appropriate strategy to realise such a vision for the country.

If President Salva Kiir has a vision for South Sudan then he probably has not communicated such a vision clearly, concretely, concisely, courteously and compellingly. Where there is no vision, the Holy Book says the people perish! It seems that the main goal Kiir has set for himself is to explore opportunities to do more than his Godfather – Yoweri, in longevity.

1. 7.    President Salva Kiir is a dictator in the making.

Salva Kiir is a smart man! He knows exactly how to take advantage of chaos to acquire more power. The ways in which the President has run his party that has two vice chairpersons, used government appointments and positions to reconfigure the allegiance of party structure, orchestrated a national constitution to be written in his own image, sack and alienated any opposition on his way to absolute powerhood, amongst others, are clearly indicative of the political philosophy Kiir has chosen for himself.

Strong leadership might be inevitable in South Sudan, but any attempt to run that country dictatorially is a recipe for instability. There is no evidence that Kiir will change his style of leadership. In fact, now that he knows that as long as Yoweri is alive he can brutally deal with his opponents and count on the support of his godfather to crush them militarily and clear the way for him for more power, there is more incentive to continue along the same path.

1. 8.    Salva Kiir lacks good crisis management skills.

Since the 1950s until today South Sudan has been more or less in a permanent state of crisis. Thus, crisis management is a very crucial character feature of any leader in that country. There are many instances that point to the President’s lack in the area of managing crisis. To start with the way he handled this crisis is indicative of his overall strategy. Without proper reflection, the President was on air making sweeping statements about an attempted coup and those who are responsible and what he will do to them. Until today the President is yet to put before the nation credible evidence to that effect. Those he accused have all been released with the exception of three who might be in detention on a different accusation. Due to lack of an effective early warning mechanism, the country was caught naked and consequently without a proper crisis management strategy. The President and his team communicated to an audience other than its citizens. Even then, the messages were so incoherent that it was difficult to paint a clear picture of what was happening.

1. 9.    President Salva Kiir hardly takes responsibility for the failures of his government

In his almost 10 years of leadership, I can hardly remember when the President took responsibility for any error of judgement action or inaction of government. His response was to dismiss his colleagues in government, sacking the cabinet or simply keeping silent when things went wrong. Government is a collective enterprise. If all your ministers failed, as a president that selected these ministers in the first place, it is reasonable to presume that he has equally failed. That may be why, despite so many changes in government ministers, there was very little change in the style, capability and willingness of government to deliver. A leader who blames everyone else except himself for faults and failures in the system is not ready to learn and change the ways he or she does things.

10.President Salva Kiir is a party to the crisis and his continuous stay in power will continue to escalate the crisis and erode his respect

This crisis was started by Salva Kiir and Riek Machar. With Kiir in power, the temptation for the President to do everything possible to defeat Riek who has complicated his formula to retain power his very high, and Riek will want to continuously demonstrate that he has the power and ability to destabilise the country. The combination of these two power hungry colleagues will most likely lead the country into a full blown civil war with devastating consequences for South Sudan. Both of these leaders should not benefit from the blood they have spilled in South Sudan.

11.Resigning now is just the right and noble thing to do

Even if the President is not responsible directly for the massacre that is taking place in South Sudan, the fracture in our national fabric, the rising up of one ethic group against the other and the waste of scarce financial, human and other resources to contain the escalation of this crisis, the President is morally responsible. He should take responsibility for this tragedy and leave the country to choose another person to clean up this mess.

12.South Sudan needs a change in leadership to bring out a change in direction

Multiple sources have warned that the Republic of South Sudan was heading the wrong direction. The political, economic and social policies of the government needed a drastic change. Thus, the approach that the government of South Sudan has followed, so far, of putting new wine in an old bottle has not brought any substantially and sustainable change. South Sudan needs new wine in a new bottle!

Remember Miamingi (http://miamingidotcom.com) is a South Sudanese human rights and governance expert. He is currently based at the Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. He can be reached at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.