For immediate Release
Juba, October 29, 2013 (SSNA) — Today is a sad day in the history of Justice in South Sudan, the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land acted in fear and favor and issued a decision on 28 October 2013 dismissing the Constitutional Petition field on the 7 of August 2013 by Mr. Pagan Amum against the Chairman of the SPLM Salva Kiir for violation of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011.
It is worth mentioning that God created the universe in (7) days, while this petition took more than two months for it to be dismissed summarily by the Supreme Court of President Kiir. Justice Chan Rec and Justice Ruben Madol were advice by Kiir not to eat the fruits of truth tree to avoid dismissal.
The Lawyers for Democracy in South Sudan regrets that the learned Justices of the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner hasn’t exhausted all the remedies available to him. Where in South Sudan, any citizen can appeal against a decision on infringement of Civil Rights taken by President Kiir? If not the Supreme Court asked the LDSS.
Today Judgment explain to the people of South Sudan why President Kiir continue to violate the Constitution of South Sudan and Human Rights of its citizens with impunity, why there is no separation of powers in South Sudan, the reason is that the Supreme Court being the custodian of the Constitution doesn’t understand the meaning of the Civil Rights within the context of a sovereign State.
It is a Judicial notice that the Political Parties Act 2012 is not functional in the absent of the Political Parties Council. How can a sober citizen seek remedy from an agency of government that doesn’t exist? Do these members of the Supreme Court reside in South Sudan? How can a Party that isn’t yet registered prescribe to the Political Parties Act 2012?
As with most legal doctrines, there are exceptions to the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement. A party bringing a Civil Rights action under the Bill of Rights is not required to exhaust any remedies before filing suit in the Supreme Court.
In Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1982), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff—who claimed she was denied employment by a state university because of her race and her sex—was not required to exhaust her state administrative remedies before filing her suit in federal court, because such a requirement would be inconsistent with congressional intent in passing civil rights legislation.