By Peter Reat Gatkuoth
November 24, 2011 (SSNA) — South Sudanese had overwhelmingly welcomed the independent day as it has been the interest of every citizens. Tears of joys, excitement and hope of living freely from injustices were noticed as the day was very special, impossible and unimaginable to reach. People who acknowledged the day hold it for the future lecturing to their grand-children and perhaps to the next University students. It wasn’t an easy to reach such a milestone in our life time as the generations that had struggled from bar foots to military first boot in Bilpham and Bonga. However, one thing the generations have forgotten and missed is how far their freedom of speech, and expression should maximize into severe violent and ethnic cleansing in South Sudan.
Day and night, individuals in diaspora release severe press to mobilize public opinion; be it negative or positive intention to cause violent within the society we belong. The new country had lived in negative peace and part of such had been the partial activities of our contribution in diaspora or in the country in order to cause the violent and encourage opposition violent mean to achieve political goals and objectives. Therefore, it worth arguing that those who cause violent either partially or in full context will be brought to justice one day when the institution or society realize where it starts, when and who incited the violent.
Those who fear the laws are the one who learnt the laws morally or legally in the traditional setting, logic or in school of thought. It hurts much when you know the implications of the laws if mistake occurs. I, like the others social activists and international Human Right activists, live in fear of how much those who incited violent and ethnic conflict would go through if the government or society indicted them as the causative and perpetrators of such an acts.
I would like to bring it to your attention that laws and societal call to justice never die in between. “You can run but you cannot hide,” for the whole world is united against the causative and the perpetrators of inhumane act, be it regional or international. The law is obligatory while policy is voluntary. Law and policy are not in the meaningful contrast and their policy relation is not simple, whether in domestic or international level. Law is not an end in itself; even in most enlightened domestic society, it is a means to order, stability, liberty, security, justice and welfare.
It is notwithstanding that the officials who played tit for tat, and mobilized the public opinion to kill certain groups in Rwanda while in diaspora were all brought to justice as an example to you. Crime against humanity is not only the act of killing but mass mobilization of the public opinion toward inappropriate decision and actions are counted as crime. One who called for the killings of the civilians or recruitment of the civilian to carry the act of killing is always subject to criminal investigations and jail time as well. I believe the technological advancement will help in this scenario since documents and press releases may be kept in file for years or centuries.
When the independent of our nation is celebrated and the constitution has been passed; issue of killing or mass slaughtering of the people became the subject of international or national question. One cannot slaughtering all Fangak civilians, and come back to be the President or governor per say. The allegation levelled on whoever committed the act is always subject to criminal procedure.
People must differentiate the time of bush days, and the time the country became a subject of international law with full constitutional rights. One cannot kill people and get away with it or return back to be in the same commandership rank or get promotion in the army. How would the family of the deceased persons feel when in fact they lost the loved one and still see the perpetrators and hidden actors as a leader or commanders?
In this few months after the independent, there are has been a plethora of writing on the growing trends of political interest and issue in the country. People support oppositions or national government in different manners. Some of the supporters encouraged the opposition to launch more attack on the civilian bases or in congregated civilian areas. As indicated in BBC interviews, some of the rebels indicated that they got their support financially outside of the territories of the South Sudan but if these individuals who are financing the killing of the innocent civilians in the country are known, will they also get away with such a crime of supporting the killings of innocent civilians such as the attack of Mayom, Mankien, Atar and Fangak?
The state as an international subject has a power through the Customer law or Human Right law to call upon those who aim to finance the killing of innocent civilians while living in different countries or safe place. “Prevention is better than cure” and therefore, the government of South Sudan should deal with those who cause unrest and the killing of the civilian. Mass mobilization of public opinion to cause conflict or violent against the ordinary citizen is a full human rights violation and therefore, there is no country around the world that could accepted such a person to live with crime in its jurisdiction. He/she should face justice immediately as the government of that state request him/her to show up in national court. If a person who makes annoying, obscene or threatening phone calls is guilty of committing a crime, what about someone who finance and recruit the civilians to launch more attack to the congregated civilian areas? Can the South Sudan use its constitutional rights to call upon those who finance the killing of civilians?
This is just a comment and I leave it to you. Choosing to fight peacefully for political or social change within is better than killing the other human being or innocent children in order to justify your objectives! The author is reachable at firstname.lastname@example.org