Analyses

By Dr. James Okuk

Quote: “Nations need dreams, goals they seek in common, within which the smaller dreams of individuals can guide their personal lives.”(Ford Foundation, 1991).

June 1, 2010 (SSNA) — What is “Secession”? It is a formal withdrawal from an organization, state, or alliance. For example, the withdrawal from the Union of 11 Southern States in 1860 – 1861 that led to the formation of the Confederacy and the beginning of the Civil War in the USA until resolved by a federalist constitution that gave supreme power to the union of American people rather than to the state (See Encarta Dictionary).

And what is “Independence”? It is freedom from dependence on or control by another person, organization, or state. For example, after 30 years of Eritrean War of Independence (1 September 1961 – 24 May 1991) the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) defeated the Ethiopian forces and then declared their independence by referendum that took place thereafter in April 1993 (See Wikipedia).

I. How do these apply to the case of Southern Sudan in the context of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005? It applies trickily because of Machiavellianism played by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) commanders with their rival politicians of the Umma Party (UP), the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), and the National Congress Party (NCP) who changed guards at the Gordon Republican Palace in Khartoum during the eruption of civil war in the South and the resultant peace-talks.

Where is then the trick hereafter? It is in the confusion of the use of the terms “Secession” and “Independence” when mingled in both common and legal jargons. Legally “Independence” is a ‘closed-case’ accompanied by national sovereignty and international diplomatic recognition, while “Secession” is an ‘open-case’ susceptible to different manipulations of what can be interpreted and made out of it.

After declaration of any “Secession”, the following practical question comes up: Now that you have decided to secede, what kind of rule do you want for your seceded territorial jurisdiction? This implies that “Secession” usually ends up in “Federation” or “Confederation” or new “War-of-Independence” that uses fresh tactics of military victory, accompanied with politico-diplomatic negotiations for a new strategic deal of full autonomy and sovereignty. World History is rich of such kind of options (e.g., the USA experience, etc.).

The option of “War-of-Independence” out of “Secession” is what Southern Sudan might end up with, comes 2011. Despite the deceptive and malicious or ignorant songs of ‘peace-and-freedom’ chanted by both the SPLM/A and NCP/NIF leaders daily, weekly, monthly and yearly, the full revelation of truth will come up at the CPA ‘end-road’. That is, the “Secession” of Southern Sudan through a referendum might not end up with peaceful “Independence”. Please remember this projectional hypothesis even if I might not live to see the light of the dignified South Sudan in near or far future!

Why am I tempted to predict this option and create an alertive tone for it? Because the law does not have mercy on fools or ignorant people who act outside or in defiance to what has been codified and stipulated in constitutions, acts, statutes and precedents for obligatory execution. Reading and reflecting critically on The Interim National Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan (2005) – including CPA text), The Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan (2005) and The Southern Sudan Referendum Act (2009), I can sense the shock that shall be encountered at 11:59 hour when conformation comes up that the referendum for self-determination of the people of Southern Sudan has nothing to do with “Independence”. It shall be confirmed that the (YES) or (NO) questionnaire circles in the referendum ballot papers should only have “Unity” and “Secession” terminologies as the offered options.

Thus the circumstance shall be different from the Eritrean case (I will detail this below). Even President Isaias Afewerki has called on Southerners to remain united with the North! (See his message when he attended the inauguration ceremony of President Al-Basir, 27/05/2010). But why did he do this? May be because of spree of corruption and injustice in the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) and in the SPLM/A, or perhaps he knows that the “Secession” mentioned in the CPA and other legal documents does not necessarily qualifies for “Independence” of South Sudan as a result of the 2011 referendum. You can also deduce some suspicion in the way Southern Sudan political parties were refused registration in the Sudan Political Parties Affairs Council (PPAC) and certification from the Sudan National Elections Commission (NEC), pending amendments of phrase “Independence of South Sudan” mentioned in their mission statements.

II. What am I trying to make out of this alert? I want to emphasize on the point that if the victory of the 2011 referendum ended up with confirmation of “Unity” of the Sudan, then there shall never be much tedious legal post-referendum battles. The unionists, at the top of which sits the Government of National Unity, shall say with utmost joy: Bravo and congratulations to Southerners for accepting “unity of government” with the Northerners!!!

Nevertheless, if the result became “Secession”, there the separatists shall stand straight and worried, while rolling up their sleeves for demonstrating tough fists of anger from the last minutes shock from red-cards lifted up by the gentlemen who knew the hidden unity’s tricks of the CPA in Machakos/Naivasha’s negotiation halls. The ‘Square-One’ that the CPA partners have been avoiding to jump in, might become the easiest short-cut to resort to. But under whose leadership shall the “War-of-Independence” takes place? Will it be Mr Salva Kiir, Dr Riek Machar, Mr Wani Igga, Mr Pagan Amum or Mrs Rebecca Nyandeng? A nightmarish to Southerners; indeed!

Already the chief law-maker of the Sudan, Mr. Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Tahir, on his re-election speech as the Speaker, vowed that his National Legislative Assembly (with about 75% of the NCP legislators) shall never be neutral on “Independence” of South Sudan because the country must remain united whether by thick or thin. Also President Omer Ahmed Hassan Al-Bashir pledged in his swearing-in ceremony that he shall ensure that the referendum for Southern Sudan takes place within the scheduled time (Inshallah- by God’s Will?) but with unity of the Sudan as the only desirable outcome. Not only this, but also one of the think-tanks of the NCP/NIF and a national legislator, Dr. Ghutbi El-Mahdi, hinted in the Sudan-TV discussion forum that the referendum shall only be about “Secession” and “Unity” options but not “Independence” of Southern Sudan. What a revelation!

A critical question poses itself here: What is the utility of “Secession” if it is only for “Unity” of the Sudan in different colours (be it “Confederation” as proposed by SPLM Deputy Chairman and Mr. Governor, Malik Agar with his 100% stand with unity, or “Federation” as proposed by Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi in 1998 before he parted ways with President Al-Bashir and his NCP)? Are Southerners fit to secede so that they remain united with the North by proxy? This is very funny but it portrays how comical the CPA show is. No wonder! That is why you see the SPLM/A and NCP/NIF quarreling and re-negotiating the CPA from time to time, and creating sideline deals to pass time.

III. Let’s state what the laws says exactly about the referendum for self-determination, but indicating the loopholes dug by the SPLM/A and NCP/NIF Machiavellians to let the separatists fell off the tipping cliff of CPA’s pending troubles, especially when the force of time expose the duplicity.

1. Articles 219, 222 & 220 of the Interim National Constitution: The people of Southern Sudan have the right to self-determination through a referendum to determine their future status (Article 219). A Southern Sudan Referendum Act shall be promulgated by the National Legislature at the beginning of the third year of the Interim Period [Article (220)(1)]. The Presidency of the Republic of the Sudan shall, as soon as the Southern Sudan Referendum Act is issued, establish the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission [Article (220)(2)]. Six months before the end of the six-year interim period, there shall be an internationally monitored referendum, for the people of Southern Sudan organized by Southern Sudan Referendum Commission in cooperation with National Government and Government of Southern Sudan [Article (222)(1)]. The people of Southern Sudan shall either:- (a) confirm unity of the Sudan by voting to sustain the system of government established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and this Constitution, or (b) vote for secession [Article (222)(2)]. This is excellent but…!

Evaluation #1: The sub-articles No (2) and (b) above are vague and fit the general criterion that requires the constitutions to be written in a vague language so that the constitutional judges and lawyers can have a work to do; the interpretation and verdicts. But what work will the Sudanese constitutional judges do here? Shall it be a dirty work or a clean one in regard to interpretation and verdict on “Secession” of Southern Sudan, for example? Evaluate what those judges did regarding the objections raised during April 2010 elections process and you can tell which work they will do? Anyway, don’t worry about this! I will later tell you why you shouldn’t.

The sub-articles No (a) says it in a legal slyness that the referendum vote shall only be about sustaining the system of government established by virtue of the CPA and the constitutional dictates, the consequence of which shall be unity of the Sudan. The sub-articles No (b) remains silent on what follows if the majority choice becomes “Secession”. It is not even indicated that the “Secession” will be from what? We may just assume it as “Secession” from Northern Sudan but the law we have consulted does not say so decisively. Remember the cliché: Be Legal; Be Safe!

2.Article 9, 10 & 11 of the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan: [Article (9)(1)] reads exactly like article (219) of the Interim National Constitution. Any Southern Sudanese who has attained the age of eighteen shall have the right to vote in the referendum [Article (9)(2)]. For purposes of the referendum in sub-Article (1) above, a Southern Sudanese is: (a) any person whose either parent or grandparent is or was a member of any of the indigenous communities existing in Southern Sudan before or on January 1, 1956; or whose ancestry can be traced through agnatic or male line to any one of the ethnic communities of Southern Sudan as in Schedule G herein; or (b) any person who has been permanently residing or whose mother and/or father or any grandparent have been permanently residing in Southern Sudan as of January 1, 1956 [Article (9)(3)]. Articles 10(1), (10)(2) & (11)(1) read exactly like articles (220)(1) & (220)(2) of the Interim National Constitution except for the term “issued” changed with the term “promulgated”. The people of Southern Sudan, voting on a single ballot and by majority vote, shall either:- (a) confirm unity of the Sudan by voting to adopt the system of government established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement; or (b) vote for secession[Article (11)(2)].

By Luk Kuth Dak May 24, 2010 (SSNA) — Now that there remained only about a few months before the general referendum in South Sudan, one would hope that much…

By Dr. James Okuk

May 17, 2010 (SSNA) — Many people would like to enjoy speculating and manufacturing rumors these days regarding the fresh military rebellion of the former SPLA General, Mr. George Athor. Some have been against and others for what this great man has done as a consequence of his self-defense against the GoSS and SPLM leaders who want to violate his democratic rights by force. This division is a sign that Southerners are not yet one nation to speak with one voluminous voice in the coming referendum (if it is going to take place de jure?). It has been known that disunity is a serious challenge to achieving common good and collective rights in public life of successful human societies. At least unity in diversity has been successful in advanced big nations because of their respect for the sense of direction with the rule of just laws. Resorting to the rule of law were justice is lacking has never thrived, surely.

Crushing Mr. Athor militarily and suspecting some Shilluk people of supporting him is not going to work at all. Let’s avoid war and value peace!!! We have done it after Nasir Split when we dialogued it out in 2001 – 2002 to re-merge our splintered forces prior to CPA great achievement, we have done it again in Rumbek in 2004 when we put our house in order so that Dr. John Garang does not any longer carry the SPLM/A in his briefcase when he traveled (of course that briefcase got burnt in the crashed evil Ugandan Presidential Chopper leaving SPLM behind with the current continuous confusion), and we have done it in the Juba Declaration in 2006 when we dialogued it out with Paulino Matip, Ismail Kony, Clement Wani Konga and others in order to join and integrate our gallant forces for the defend of the Greater South Sudan and dignity of its people.

Unfortunately we failed to do it directly with Gabriel Tang-ginya, Tom El-Nour and few others though at least we managed to keep general peace with them (except for some few instances of clashes with them in 2007 and 2009) as they continued to pay their loyalties to the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF). What can prevent us at this moment to dialogue it out with Mr. Athor and others at this critical moment without showing our tired SPLA military muscles from the 22 civil war? None!!! Mr. Athor is one of us and he is capable of understanding our concerns as we consider his case too. He is not idiot as some people would like to portray him. He knows what he is doing and his demands are all reasonable for negotiation. He knows that the Sudanese and especially South Sudanese courts are a failure to waste time with because at the end of the day, most of the judges are SPLM supporters.

On Saturday and Sunday, 15th and 16th May, 2010 the SPLA went on rampage in the areas of the Shilluk Kingdom which lie on the western bank of the Nile, beating children, youth, women and men of all ages mercilessly in the name of fake disarmament that has never been carried out honestly elsewhere in the South. These uniformed men had a list of youth and men they were directed to disarm in some villages, and when they failed to get hold of them, the supposed liberators of Southerners and protectors of the people of Southern Sudan (the SPLA) turned brutal and wicked on the families of the alleged names. They left many innocent Shilluk civilian wounded and traumatized as they arrested others for more torture and intimidation. What a terrible “Army of South Sudan!” God come to our aid!!

Surely, if the so-called GoSS and SPLM leaders are rational human beings who know what to learn from history as they were honestly advised online by Prof. John A. Akec of Juba University in his opinion article; “Doleib Hill Crisis: Lessons from History” seconded by James Chol De’Guin in his article; “Athor Crisis: Peace Must Always be Given a Priority”, these leaders should disciplined their army at this critical time not to mistreat the Shilluk or any other people of Southern Sudan. Alas!

What the SPLA has done in the Shilluk land, so far and so bad these days can, without much doubts, is adding fuel to the fire of Mr. Athor’s rebellion. While the wise voices are calling for peaceful settlement of burning issues and erupting problems, the SPLA commanders are ordering force and violence even on the innocent civilian in the Shilluk Kingdom and suspected areas of Padang Dinka that harbour the courageous son, Mr. Athor. The SPLA has a loosed chain-of-command because of maintaining its bush system of commanders’ headquarters. Any headquarter of a certain commander with a SPLA force can order any operation without the knowledge of the C-in-C and even the General Chief of Staff. This has caused many blunders because any commander or officer can take some SPLA on offence for his selfish interest without the knowledge of his above bosses.

“The implementation of the remaining CPA provisions is only possible through the political wills of the two peace partners or/and an external intervention by the International community”.

BY Justin Ambago Ramba

May 9, 2010 (SSNA) — Nobody can argue against the truth that it was the Comprehensive Peace agreement (CPA) which brought and continue to sustain the present relative peace enjoyed in south Sudan as well as the other parts of country (except of course Darfur). It is for this very basic reason that the full implementation of the agreement remain relevant but also vital if peace is to be extended and maintained all over the region.

The Sudanese have a historical responsibility at this time to see to it that the greedy politicians do not drag the region back to war. We have fought wars now for over five decades and as if the only out-standing common achievement of the so-called independence of Sudan, declared on January, 1^st 1956, is nothing more than the continuous wars and distrust that pursued since then until today between the northerners  and the southerners. 

If we are to ask the successive regimes that ruled Sudan from the republican palace in Khartoum as to why they sustained the civil war in the south, no doubt that all of them without exception will say that they did it for the sake of maintaining the unity of the country. But now with the loss of the 2 million lives in the south, is the unity any nearer?

There are those who look at Sudan’s national crisis from what they think is the logical point of view as it addresses the material gains of all the different parts of the Sudan and especially so of the political north and south divide. In this school are those who continue to dream that one day some miracle will descend from the heaven and all Sudanese black or brown, African or Arabs, Muslims, Christians or Animists , southerners and northerners will wake up to find themselves true Sudanese without the aforementioned adjectives and purely become dedicated to nothing else but a prosperous Sudan for all. Yet we very well know that if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

When the CPA was signed in 2005, it was intended to not only stop the blood-shed between the warring sides, but it was also expected to transform the Sudan into the dream country that I just described above. The difference here, however lies in the fact that the transformation stipulated in the agreement was not expected to fall from the heavens above. It was expected that the Sudanese political leaders would be the ones to actively engage in transforming the Sudanese people so that they satisfy the pre-requisite of remaining one people in one Sudan. But see what they have done.

The politics that emerge following the signing of the CPA and the formation of the initial government of national unity (GoNU), have sadly enough concentrated powers in the hands of the two peace partners leaving the other political parties either marginalised or totally denied of any say on neither the present day Sudan nor its future. This abnormal situation has now given birth to a north that 68% identifies itself with President Omer al Bashir and his NCP, while the south is now 93%, SPLM territory, under H.E Salva Kiir Mayardit. 

In the concluded Sudanese elections, despite its multi-party superficial appearance, the whole exercise was effectively reduced by the two peace partners into a two party division of territories. This has now been successfully achieved, and the other opposition groups in both the north-south political divide have either now accepted  defeat and went under-ground or some may choose to continue to suffer humiliation by accepting hand-out cabinets for the sake of personal survivals or individual egos.

Does it really make any political sense when NCP and SPLM who ruthlessly used maximum fraud in order to monopolize the election are now turning around to appoint as ministers people whom they not only deprived from a free and fair electoral process but also humiliated? If the ruling parties, the SPLM & NCP didn’t like the opposition to have victories in the elections through democracy, why then do they want to have them in the cabinets?   What can a humiliated politician who has lost his pride achieve in a cabinet dominated by his victimisers?

A minister who has no representation in the parliament is either saying that he/she has officially joined the majority party or is out right for a huge unprecedented political gamble, in other wards a mission to dismantle the monster from within. These two are never new political games in the third world and especially so in countries like the Sudan. Otherwise how could you have explained the presence of a southern Sudanese Christian Anglican bishop in the position of a minister of state for foreign affairs in the National Islamic Front (NIF) led military junta?

The people of Sudan may continue to say that the country comes before partisan politics, however no one can really effectively participate in shaping the political features of the nation when they have been official barred out from doing so, especially so following the NCP and the SPLM’s extensive use of all the declared and undeclared illegal and corrupt methods to dominated the Sudanese political life and maintain a tight grip on power. It is now the duty of the two parties to see that the remaining CPA provisions are implemented fully and in time. Any failure to do just that will precisely be blamed on the two partners and no one else.

Meanwhile the call by the deputy SPLM Secretary General for northern Sudan, Yassir Arman  on the "New Sudan and Democratic forces" in northern Sudan to form a broad alliance with his party to establish the New Sudan, doesn’t  represent anything new, it doesn’t also spell in any clear terms the way forward.

At this particular moment in time, the SPLM is expected to keep its promise to the South Sudanese masses who according to declared elections results have casted 93% of their votes for the incumbent SPLM chairman, and president of south Sudan, Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit in the believe that he would be the one to lead them to the Promised Land, which clearly translates into an Independent South Sudan nation.

On the other hand Cdr. Yasser Arman a northern Arab Muslim and a long time member of the southern based SPLM remains dedicated to the original vision of attaining a united secular Sudan for all. This view however has lost much of its previous appeals to the people of the South. And as if to cope up with the imminent secession of the South, Cdr. Arman has recently added some new dimensions to his political speech.

Arman’s withdrawal from the presidential race in April remains a cause of deep rifts and concerns within the SPLM party, although the leadership wouldn’t accept that openly. But in a bid to remain within reach of the highlights of the mainstream Sudanese politics, Yassir for the time being has no alternative but to cling to his SPLM party. Whatever that means to the northern sector of the SPLM party which   still remains under his leadership cannot be properly assessed at the moment.

But on the other side, Arman is being very realist with himself when he suggested that the SPLM should form a committee to study the future of the party and the challenges it may face after the referendum. His other message that the New Sudan vision remains valid across geographic and ethnic variations in the country and the stress that voluntary unity of Sudan cannot be maintained without it, remain at large an issue of ideology and self consolation.

Up till here everything suggested by the SPLM northern sector can be viewed in the context of the party’s internal re-arrangements, however the southern grassroots who overwhelmingly voted to retain Sava Kiir in office are now becoming uneasy about some of the statements that recently found their ways to the press and are attributed to senior party members.

The current call for a possible alliance with the other northern opposition political parties as declared by Yassir Arman remains a hugely contested view within the wider south Sudanese circles. It has never been any secret that most northerners (including the people of the Nuba Mountains, Abyei and Southern Blue Nile), remain against the secession of the South. Even Yassir Arman who is now coming out to seek ways for implementation of the remaining provisions of the CPA equally shares the strong unionist views of his colleagues in the geographical north as recently aired by Cdr. Malik Agar Eyre of Southern Blue Nile State.

But in clear indication that politics in Juba doesn’t necessarily agree with those in Damazin, Khartoum or Kadugli, Dr. Riek Machar during his recent meeting with the visiting British Special Representative for Sudan, Michael O’Neil, told the Envoy that unless the dominant National Congress Party (NCP) in the North refrained from taking official position on unity, the SPLM might be compelled to respond with a message of a recommended choice to the people of south Sudan.

Dr. Teny however didn’t reveal exactly which choice between unity and secession the SPLM would want to recommend to the people of the South. Yet common sense says it all.

By Luk Kuth Dak May 7, 2010 (SSNA) — With the political climate still simmering in Sudan, it’s hard to predict what will unfold in the next few weeks when…

By Justin Ambago Ramba May 5, 2010 (SSNA) — Before we put the elections chaos behind us, the people of south Sudan have again woke up  to a very irritating…

By Zechariah Manyok Biar April 21, 2010 (SSNA) — Everybody, including analysts who predicted some months ago that there was going to be a widespread violence during elections in Sudan,…

Chairman, The National Elections Commission   Dear Sir,   Subject: Obstructions to my elections campaign in the four States of Bahr El Ghazal   April 16, 2010 (Khartoum) — I…

By Justin Ambago Ramba, MD

April 9, 2010 (SSNA) — This far we have reached and the elections remain. It is all about one long journey that our people together walked the walk. Nature has its shortcomings and it can only be misinterpreted by a wicked mind. The people of south Sudan bravely tolerated the hardships of incompetent leadership, and I hope they will not be misled into yet another miserable era like the one they barely survived over the past five years which followed the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). No war, yet no peace.

When underperformance becomes so common, it is only sensible for people in responsibility to make critical analysis and soul searching. This is better than if they courageously take some time off. The entire SPLM led GoSS is badly in need of such a break. They might have acted out of good faith, though worrying greed can still be seen in some eyes. However whatever made them in the first place to take up those leadership positions, the truth is that they are no longer appealing to average citizen. The charms are since gone and the people out of hunger, misery and destitution are crying for a change.

People of south Sudan want this government changed; you as an individual also want the same thing. No surprise my brothers and sisters that both Dr. Lam Akol and President Salva Kiir Mayardit are currently calling for this very change and in their open campaigns. I have heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes the slogans, “Vote for Change”, raised by our two presidential candidates all over the local and international media outlets, thanks to technology. But realistically one of these two men must be telling lies. However should we all run and hide behind nationalism as opposed to being tribalist bigots and proceed to assume that they are both fair in their judgement and are truly calling for change , then this even sooner than later brings us face to face with the obvious. Here we can only   change   the incumbent leadership with a new one. I will never claim to know it all better than everybody out there, but how on earth do you change the status quo. Obviously not by performing some kind of surgical operations or juju-voodoo  charms on either candidates as that is outside the electoral mandate, even if it were to improve anything.

Our votes can only change the faces and persons in offices, but as for their characters, policies, management abilities and credibility, these are all issues that they should have either learnt at their former schools, places of work, political parties or even family homes. We as the poor masses cannot build up competent leaders through the mere act of putting papers in the ballot boxes. Leaders are made some elsewhere, and the election season only offers us hopefully the fairest opportunity to pick the good ones and obviously not to do the opposite.

Many observers the worldwide don’t believe an iota of the Change thing; president Kiir is seen and heard spreading all over the place. The truth that I see and so do many others, is that voting for Kiir could  only be justified by other reasons ,but “Change”,  definitely is not a part of it. If Kiir has already from day one of his campaign went out openly to choose his incumbent Vice President Dr. Riek Machar as his running mate and hopefully to continue in office together, can this be called the first step to  this dubious slogan of  change? My dear folks is what you are seeing a change?

The CPA is a document that we have to implement if we are to play by the rules. However the way some southern politicians wanted to remain in offices without conducting elections is an issue of great worry. Our people must never ever give politicians the undeserved option of walking into leadership positions without popular mandate. The credibility of any elections is obviously an issue of concern, but how on earth do you expect a credible act from a source which lacks that very value. In parties where democracy is virtual non-existent, as is the case with our grand totalitarian political dinosaurs, you can only be praying for a divine intervention should you be expecting them to deliver anything, even if just the  second best that can be acceptably described as credible.

Our incumbent leaders initially chose to implement the CPA in the ways that suited them. Dates were dishonoured. Whole events were carried out with the least of national responsibility. The end result is that, we now have a wrong population registry, we have the wrong constituencies and we are stuck in a political atmosphere where the much anticipated democratic transformation can’t find a place. Yet all those in office are aware of a constant fact in Sudan’s politics, and it is that,   all previous elections where precisely partially carried out, as the people of the south were all through under a protracted war situation. It was in such partially conducted elections that   today’s opposition strongman, Sadiq al Mahdi made it twice to become the Prime Minister of the country. Many so-called gurus of the Sudanese politics still today insist and continue to misname al Mahdi’s last term in office as Sudan’s second democracy, though the whole lot came about in an election when vast areas of the south were deployed with bullets and not ballots. Anyway we shall come to that another time.

Now we are hearing so many confusing statements from the delirious SPLM leadership, none of which is of course new to anybody. The dual SPLM policies of being both a southern party and national one again it is as well as a partner in the government and a leader in the opposition can never be missed even by anyone who has never set foot into a Psychiatry class. The gut feeling is that there is a terrible mental instability in play, somewhere right inside the decision making body of the once greatly applauded movement. One day they want a full boycott, another day they go for half a boycott, the next, it is pull-out from the presidential race. More surprises to come, just keep tuned.

Cdr. Yassir Arman blew off his only historical opportunity to possibility beat the spoiled boy of the al Mahdi family or even together bring under his foot, the Islamic giants of Omer Bashir, Dr. Nafie, Ali Osman Taha……………..etc. However Arman himself knows why I thought so, and he is not in any way disillusioned with the dislike al Mahdi has for him, nor the open hatred that he has although suffered from the NCP. I will be crazy to envy him for that. Yet Arman shouldn’t have used Darfur as an excuse for his withdrawal from the election race.

It is no longer a secret that the NCP is keen to find a settlement to the Darfur issue, but a one that will continue to guarantee the Northern Riveran Arabs the domination of the centre on the Sudanese politics. This can only be achieved in a setting where the south shall no longer have a share in the Institution of the Presidency or any other arrangements of the National Unity Government. If Dr. Khalil Ibrahim is demanding a full control over a united Darfur and even with some appetite for Kordufan, while he also intends a vice president’s position, you can see now how power ambitious the JEM leader is. With a big Dr. Khalil , a big incumbent Salva Kiir, both Omer Bashir and Ali Osman Taha will for sure find that institution of the Sudanese presidency a very tight room to manoeuvre inside.

When the South is final gone in 2011, the NCP or any other ruler in Khartoum will for sure find some ease in sharing the presidency with Darfur. Again should Darfur remain under the current situation, the need to breakaway in an autonomous state or even the less talked off self determination referendum will surely begin to grow bigger and bigger.