Implications for survival of South Sudan nationhood and minority rights. Produced by. Ma di Technical Resource Group (MTRG), 2014.

Transcription

1 CONSPIRACY AGAINST, AND SUBJUGATION OF, MINORITY TRIBES IN SOUTH SUDAN AND THE COMPLICITY OF THE GOVERNMENT: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE MA DI PEOPLE Implications for survival of South Sudan nationhood and minority rights Produced by Ma di Technical Resource Group (MTRG), 2014 March 2014 Technical Report No: MTRG/2014/001 Co-ordinator (Chairman), MTRG: Victor Vuni Joseph Contact s: and

2 About The Ma di Technical Resource Group (MTRG) The Ma di Technical Resource Group (or Resource Group ) is a Think-Tank group of members of Ma di community. It aims to improve the lives of the community by influencing policies and sustainable community development. It was established in Overall Objectives The MTRG engages the communities through participatory processes, which includes members of Ma di communities at home (in South Sudan) and abroad, local authorities [through Chiefs], and relevant developmental partners. The objectives of the Resource Group are: 1. To influence policies on issues affecting the Ma di communities; 2. To provide a platform for consultation by Ma di communities on technical / professional matters of interest. 3. To liaise with Ma di community leaders with the view of exchanging information and providing advice on technical issues facing the community. 4. To assist Ma di community and humanitarian organisations to formulate plans that will stimulate development and economic growth in Ma di land; 5. To carry out assessments and draw up strategies for interventions by relevant experts from the Resource Group or in light of specific demand for settlement of the impending problems. Acknowledgement The Resource Group gratefully acknowledges the contributions of its members and the leaders of the Ma di Regional Council. ii

3 Target audience This report is aimed at the following audience: The President of the Republic of South Sudan The Governors of all States in South Sudan MPs in South Sudan Legislative Assembly; MPs in States Parliament The Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG-UNMISS) Chief Human Right Section -UNMISS IGAD Mediators on South Sudan conflict Parties to Peace negotiation in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia TROIKA countries represented in Juba by their respective embassies: US, Norway, UK; and EU South Sudan Law Society South Sudan Human Right Commission South Sudan Human Right Organisations Review Committee for South Sudan permanent national constitution South Sudan Civil Societies All South Sudanese Anyone interested in the development and welfare of the Republic of South Sudan and human rights of all its citizens. iii

4 Contents About The Ma di Technical Resource Group (MTRG)... ii Acknowledgement... ii Target audience... iii A note to readers... vii Executive Summary... 1 The Recommendations Introduction Context Location and population The conspiracy The evidence The view of Dinka on settlement in Dinka land The war ( ) promise Resettlement of Dinka Refugees and IDPs in Equatoria The Kakuma Returnees Episode The Northern Sudan Returnees Episode Military Presence and Continuous Relocation in Ma di Land Functions of the Sudan People s Liberation Army (SPLA) Nimule Town Council and the killing of Ma di Head Chief in Nimule The implications of occupation and subjugation of Equatoria by Dinka Why nations fail: Lessons for South Sudan Extractive or inclusive institution: the choice for South Sudan Appendices Exhibit 1: An account of Dinka control in Ma diland under SPLA Commander Malith in Exhibit 2: Letter by the Ma di Community to the President of the Republic of South Sudan iv

5 Exhibit 3: Notes of meeting of Dinka-Bor in Kampala, Uganda on 6 th October Exhitib 4: Response to the Crisis in Madiland: Central government is responsible Exhibit 5: Crisis in Madi, Nimule, is a Government conspiracy to grab land Exhibit 6: Murder of Nimule Head Chief is causing hard feelings & divisions Exhibit 7: Letter of Ma di Chiefs to the Vice President Wani Igga, 15 th September References Acronyms CPA: Comprehensive Peace Agreement ICC: International Criminal Court IDPs: Internally Displaced Persons IOM: International Office of Migration NPA: Norwegian People s Aid ROSS: Republic of South Sudan SPLA/M: Sudan Peoples Liberation Army/Movement SRRA: Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association the humanitarian wing of SPLM UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNOCHA: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs UN: United Nations Administrative names Payam: District Boma: sub-district or location v

6 It's good to speak the truth today to be free tomorrow than to lie today and be in war tomorrow. An Acholi (South Sudan 9 th October 2011) The Ma di Technical Resource Group (MTRG) has reported what it considers are the truths of the recorded accounts of several crises that happened and continue in Ma di area of South Sudan at the time of this publication. This report is revealing the truth so that inclusiveness of grievances of masses that have felt the oppressive forces should be tabled and lasting solutions to the crises should be found in order to settle those crises and prevent them from escalating into tribal warfare in South Sudan. If any successive Government system in the country listens to the grievances of the masses and takes the necessary actions promptly, we believe all will enjoy relative peace. The purpose of the report is ultimately to realise inclusive government where everyone feels equal and being treated fairly, regardless of tribal backgrounds. vi

7 A note to readers This report was mainly written in October 2013 prior to Juba incidence on 15 th December 2013, which spread to other areas of South Sudan. The incident was one of the darkest days for South Sudanese since South Sudan gained its independence in It resulted in the deaths of an estimated of up to 10,000 people, and the displacement of over 700,000, according to reliable estimates from NGOs and the UN. The root cause of the conflict was considered to be political differences within the SPLM party, but it manifested itself as a conflict pitting Dinka against Nuer tribes. The incident is further evidence of a state failure in South Sudan (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2013) Section 5; and one of the predicted implications outlined in Section 4 of this report. The effects of the conflict have been felt across the nation, including in Equatoria where more IDPs had turned up. The Ma di people were requested to accommodate more IDP from Dinka Bor in Nimule and other Ma di area. Past experience has shown that once accommodated, the IDPs abused their hospitality accorded to them, and they threatened the lives of the indigenous population. This experience has taught the Ma di people not to trust the Dinka IDPs. As a result, the Ma di community refused permission for Dinka IDPs to be settled in Ma diland. The Governor of Eastern Equatoria State had offered to accommodate the Dinka IDPs in Kapoeta area, but the IDPs refused to go there. This further heightens the suspicion of the Ma di people, of the intention of the Dinka IDPs in Ma di area. Therefore, the presence of forceful occupation of Dinka IDPs in Ma di area remains a security concern, which must not be ignored. vii

8 Executive Summary 1. The objectives of this report are to collate evidences regarding the issues of subjugation of minority tribes in South Sudan; to highlight the implications of such behaviour to the masses in achieving peace, prosperity and national security; and to recommend actions for creating a just society in the country. 2. As a typical example for other South Sudanese tribes, this report focuses on outlining the experience of subjugation of the Ma di people in Nimule by the Dinka tribe (majority tribe) in South Sudan. 3. The Dinka tribe may not allow any other tribes or clans to settle in their homeland without permission or good reason, but they have shown double standards and are forcefully occupying the land of other tribes in Equatoria. 4. The subjugation of minority tribes especially those in Equatoria, appears to be a conspiracy by the leadership of former rebel movement, the Sudan People s Liberation Movement / Army (SPLM/A), for settling the Dinka [majority] tribe through occupation of Equatoria region [i.e., West, Central and East] following the war: the war promise. 5. The subjugation programme against the minority tribes by the government agents included the following: the forceful occupation including displacement of the indigenous people from their ancestral land, forced marriage, arrogance, undermining traditional authorities of the land and customary laws, and destructions of agricultural lands [with crops] of the host communities by grazing cattle in the fields of the indigenous citizens. 6. In addition, the local chief of the Ma di people had been killed, but the killers have not been established, but the innocent Ma di people were arrested instead. The Ma di community suspects the involvement of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the occupying Dinka tribe. 7. The subjugation of the minority tribes, as in the case of Ma di, is reinforced by the Government having heavy military presence within the community in order to intimidate the indigenous people. 8. The political leaders in the current government of South Sudan might be fully aware of this war promise and as a result, the government has ignored to address the 1

9 peaceful plight of the minority tribes, such as the Ma di people. Hence, the Government is complicit in the forceful occupation of Ma di area by Dinka IDPs. 9. The implication of subjugating minority rights has serious negative implications to achieving a peaceful and prosperous country in South Sudan. Such a trend will lead to future conflicts among the tribes, eventually resulting into fail state, if not addressed by the government, and the legislative instruments. 10. A number of recommendations are made to ensure the protection of the rights and needs of minority tribes in South Sudan are addressed in order to realise a peaceful and a prosperous nation that co-exist with all its tribes in harmony. 2

10 The Recommendations The following recommendations are made to address the experiences of land grabs, occupation and subjugation of minority tribes by the majority tribes; and to create a just and lasting solutions to the crises affecting ethnic groups in the Republic of South Sudan: Majority tribe 1) Leaders of the majority tribes should undertake self-reflection, especially among its political leadership. They need to reflect on their attitudes towards other minority tribes in South Sudan and being mindful that the attitude of superior tribe is neither in their best interest nor that of the country at large. The prevailing norms in the modern world are: respect for humanity, tolerance and to fight against discrimination. Discrimination according to UN Charter of rights and freedoms Article 7 refers to: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. As we deduce from the preceding definition of discrimination by the United Nations Charters, should any of the mentioned norms be violated; national and international laws will apply in finding lasting solutions to such behaviours. According to UN Charter of rights and freedoms Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Moreover, the majority tribe may not want to violate the United Nations accepted laws. We believe that any government does not operate with the idea of we are the majority tribe concept and therefore, it is the responsibility of the government to abolish such attitudes, as superior tribe and born-to-rule sentiments, which are counterproductive to nation building. 2) Displaced communities in South Sudan should be repatriated to their ancestral homes when there is peace. This should allow the IPDs to develop their land, rather than for them to forcefully imposing their occupation campaigns on other communities, which are counterproductive to nation building. 3) It is our believe that there are some members of the majority tribe who are of good will and intentions that wanted to address and stop the practice of land occupation by their occupying tribes in order to achieve relative peace with other tribes in South Sudan, but their intentions have not been heeded to by their ethnic groups. Therefore, those individuals must not keep quiet to dissuade their fellow tribesmen who want to pursue their claims of superiority and subjugation of other ethnic groups who are citizens of the Republic of South Sudan. However, those individuals with right minds shouldn t keep quiet in the midst of such injustice, if they ignore their roles in addressing the issues; they are considered by default, as complicit in the issues of land grabs and occupation campaigns; and intimidation of indigenous populations of the occupied land. The Government of the Republic of South Sudan 4) The government of South Sudan should not ignore and let the occupation of Equatoria by majority tribe to continue under their land grabbing and occupation campaign 1

11 supported by government agents. The government should champion the repatriation of all the internally displaced communities to their respective ancestral areas, for example Dinka Bor who are internally displaced in Nimule back to Bor. The Ma di people say No to enforced occupation of Dinka in its area; just as the Dinka themselves would do the same if any community groups wanted to forcefully settle in Dinka land. 5) The Governors of Jonglei, Eastern Equatoria, Central Equatoria, and Western Equatoria should work together in coordinating repatriation of Dinka IDPs to their ancestral homeland in order to avoid future ethnic violence that may escalate into national crises. These are IDPS who are forcefully occupying Equatorian States in towns such as Nimule, Yei, New Kush and other States or regions of South Sudan. 6) The imposition by the Government of Nimule Town Council on the Ma di people should be stopped immediately until grievances of the Ma di people are addressed and implementation should proceed after acceptance of the programme by the community after obtaining their full consent. This argument is in line with the UN Charter of rights and freedoms Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 7) The Government should disarm all civilians in the country, including IDPs in Equatoria. 8) The demand of the Ma di Community to have a County for the Ma di people must be granted and established. 9) Future population census must include an item about tribe of individuals in South Sudan to help with a fair constituency allocations. TROIKA countries: USA, UK, Norway; EU, and other International community; and UN 10) To pressure the Government of the Republic of South Sudan to ensure the rights of minority tribes are protected, and if such violation continues with the complicit endorsement of the Government, then the International community should consider appropriate forms of sanctions against the Government, including withholding bilateral support. South Sudanese / Civil Society organisations / Human Rights organisation / MPs / Negotiating Parties to the current conflict 11) South Sudanese need to condemn oppression of one tribe by another in the country; including the notion that one particular tribe is superior among the rest. This requirement needs to be enshrined in the permanent constitution of South Sudan as being illegal. UN Charter of rights and freedoms Article 21 supports this argument, as: 1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right to equal access to 2

12 public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. The oppression of minority tribes can be examined through government Ministerial positions where it is predominantly dominated by one tribe, which is not representative of national aspirations nor is it reflective of an inclusive institution. 12) A federal system of governance should be established, which gives more authority to states where participatory leadership is exercised. We the Ma di diaspora have noticed that the current government enforces programmes on citizens without consulting citizens. 13) The oppressed minorities in Equatoria and elsewhere in South Sudan must fight against any efforts that advocates discrimination in every governmental institutions because there is no one tribe that is better than other tribes. The UN Charter of rights and freedoms Article 23 advocates that: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 14) A fair and robust system of allocation of constituencies needs to be identified and agreed upon by the national legislative assembly as a basis of parliamentary representations (MPs). There should be re-definition of constituency boundaries in the country from which MPs are elected. This will ensure a fair representation of communities in South Sudan, thus ensuring that no communities are alienated intentionally by unfair democratic system in the country. 3

13 1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to present evidence related to the conspiracy by the Dinka tribe [who claim superiority] in their programmes of occupation and subjugation of the people of Equatoria and other ethninic minority groups in the Republic of South Sudan. The objectives of this report are: 1. To collate the evidence in relation to the plan of Dinka to occupy and subjugate Equatorians, focusing on the experience of the Ma di people. 2. To highlight the implications of condoning the behaviour of oppression practiced by one ethnic group against other ethnic groups of the Republic of South Sudan. 3. To recommend actions needed for the achievement of a just society in the Republic of South Sudan where all tribes feel equal and proud to be citizens of South Sudan. The Ma di people with Equatorians (West, Central and East) in general, had accommodated their fellow country-men and women [Dinka tribe] in their region during the two decades of war. However, their hospitality has been abused by land grabs, occupation and oppression by those [Dinka] whom they hosted. Furthermore, the occupying tribe have been supported by government agents by arming them, which resulted in harassment, cruel torture, and detention without charges of community leaders. The UN Charter of rights and freedoms Article 9 warns of such violations that: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Also, UN Charter Article 5 also states that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 2. Context 2.1 Location and population The Ma di people are found in South-western part of Eastern Equatoria State bordering Uganda (See Map 1). Nimule is the economic hub town, which is the main border entry point at the South Sudan and Uganda border. Currently, Ma di is officially part of Magwi County. The people and land are called Ma di. In the last census in Sudan (2008), there were fewer populations of Ma di people who lived with internally displaced people from many South Sudan tribes, but most of the population were still living in exile. Therefore, the official population of the Ma di people needs to be established in a census.. This should be the same exercise that needs to be carried out for other tribes in South Sudan. However, the census of 2008 recorded the population of Magwi County at 169,826 (South Sudan Centre for Census 4

14 Statistics and Evaluation, 2009). Relative to the Dinka tribe in terms of population size, the Ma di are a smaller tribe. It is also important to note that Equatoria consists of many tribes, of which Ma di is one. Map 1: Map of South Sudan showing the location where the Ma di people live: Source of map: (UNOCHA, 2012); 5

15 Map showing tribes of South Sudan, Source (UNOCHA, 2012): The conspiracy The experience of co-existence between the Dinka and other tribes in South Sudan; and the experience of Equatorians in particular, have been difficult. For example, there have been instances of tribal anarchies since the 1980s with tribal sentiments of We Are Born To Rule, which was a political attitude projected by the Bor Dinkas and even during the SPLA (Sudan People s Liberation Army) war ( ) there have been instances of harassments practiced among the SPLA soldiers who are non-dinka. Furthermore, even after South Sudan gained her independence in July 2011, the status quo of subjugation has continued, but truncated by the current civil war (from 15 th December 2013). The practice of subjugation against non-dinka tribes was tolerated among the Equatorians in order to achieve the greater objectives of independent nation (Republic of South Sudan) from Arab dominated Sudan. The subjugation took the forms of: forced marriage, torture, killings, and any forms of violation of human rights. Moreover, after the independence of South Sudan, there is a continued subjugation that is felt harshly among the Equatorians. The harsh experiences take the forms of: arrogance, intimidation, brutal torture, arbitrary arrests and evil conspiracy plans of occupation or displacement of Ma di people by the Dinka tribe [specifically Dinka Bor], which were all directed against the Equatorians. They claim that they are a superior tribe, born to rule, and that they have fought and liberated Equatorians, hence they are 6

16 entitled to occupy and settle anywhere in Equatoria by all means and including the use of force. The assertions and assumptions of the Dinka tribes are great concerns for many Equatorians, including the Ma di people who have hoped for a just and equal society in an independent South Sudan. It undermines the objective of the long-struggle for independence, justice and equality. However, such assumptions and arrogance could eventually have led to armed struggle because many tribes have already been pushed to the brinks of tolerance. In the following sections, evidences of Dinka conspiracy against the people of Equatoria are outlined. Also, the evidences show how those plans will be implemented, which are now taking place at the present time, as witnessed by events on the ground in Ma di area. This conspiracy is best summarised and illustrated by the following plans, which were outlined during a meeting of some Dinka Bor in 2009 in a hotel in Uganda: Create political instability by carrying out bushes attacks and make the principal Equatoria land belong to Dinka Bor cattle for grazing, attack and burn villages and force them out of places / villages to be IDPs. Minutes of Dinka Bor meeting, Chaired by Brigadier Ayuen Alier Jongroor, on the 6 th October 2009, Ark Hotel, Kampala, Uganda (see details in Exhibit 3, Appendices). 3. The evidence 3.1 The view of Dinka on settlement in Dinka land It is important to get an idea of the requirements for anyone who wanted to settle in Dinka land. This section is to educate readers about the double-standard some of the Dinka display in Equatoria. Just before the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between Sudan and South Sudan in 2005, a research was conducted in 2004 in South Sudan to understand how each tribe view land issues in their respective communities. The research was funded by the Norwegian People s Aid (NPA). The findings of the research revealed that tribes all over South Sudan had strong believe in respecting and safeguarding their motherland (Okuk, 2008). The views among the Dinka are illustrated below by some quotes from members of the respective communities. It affirmed that for Dinka Bor, after the war ended, each returnee would go back to their family land, according to their custom and that they do not give out their land to non-dinka: The refugees left from their land and they have to go back to their land when peace comes. Those who do not know their places will be directed by their relatives. 7

17 Sale of land by individuals has never been heard of in this community. There is no such a thing as selling of land in the Dinka community. The land cannot be sold even to the members of the Dinka themselves. One is allowed to sell or batter his tukul/lwak house but not the land. We do not give out Dinka land to the non- Dinkas. (Okuk, 2008) This is the same understanding among other Dinka tribes, such as the Nyuei [Dinka from Lake State]: But everyone who returns must go back to their own clan land. They go back where they came from the land of their clans and ancestors. Everyone from Southern Sudan, every community have their own land. Akot belongs to the Nyuei and it does not belong to everyone in Southern Sudan. The Nuer, the Bor Dinka, the Anuak have their own land and their own airports where the returnees can be taken. The origins of those being returned must be established before they are brought back, so that they are directly taken back to their places. If some people do not want to go back to their communities, there must be an acceptable reason. Otherwise why would the person refuse to go back to his own clan? We do not want such people to be settled among us, for we do not know why someone would not want to go back to his family if there is peace there. If we are in Akot we shall say NO. (Okuk, 2008) Guests in the community were accommodated temporarily, as long as they did not cause trouble in the community: A friend or guest can be given land to stay for a period of time as long as he does not bring about quarrels to the community. Foreign investors will not be allowed unless they consult with the communities. Otherwise, this is what brought about a quarrel between us and the Arabs. They came with tractors taking our land and only leaving us with small portions and wanting only to make us their servants. This will not be acceptable anymore. (Okuk, 2008) The Dinka acknowledged that the responsibility for their land rested with the whole community and not with the government nor politician nor those in the pay roll of the government. This is further illustrated below: We will not accept illegal issuing of our land to the foreigners or adjustment of our original land even if it is our own children who will try to do this. We would like our customary practices to be our guide in the management of our land. The protection of land is the responsibility of the whole community; not individual. This is why the community volunteered to fight the enemy for over 21 years because foreigners invaded our land. (Okuk, 2008) This is clearly a customary law that has to be respected, but the behaviour of the IDP Dinka against other tribes land violates the international law. The UN Charter of rights and freedoms Article 12 states clearly that: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 8

18 In summary, the above views by the Dinka are equally shared by the Equatorian tribes, including the Ma di people whose land the Dinka are now occupying and refusing to vacate in order to give way for the sons and daughters of the land who are returning from exile to develop their land. The Dinka have been accommodated by the host community [ies] in Equatoria during the war period. During peaceful time, it is the expectation that those who were displaced and settled in Ma di should go back to their ancestral land in Bor or elsewhere in Dinka land. The Ma di also say No, like the Dinka of Akot, IDPs in Nimule and Ma di area who do not want to go back to Bor should now be repatriated to their land. The same sentiments of Dinka for protecting their land are the same sentiment the Ma di people share with all Equatoria tribes. Therefore, due to their harsh behaviours, the Dinka IDPs have caused great troubles to their host communities, which aggravate peaceful existence with those citizens. They have shown no respect towards citizens of the land with their cultural values and customs. 3.2 The war ( ) promise The troubled relationship between the Dinka and the native Ma di people in Nimule can be traced well back to At that time, a group of Ma di community leaders petitioned against intimidations and all forms of discrimination to late Dr John Garang in vain. The request of the Ma di people in Nimule was to established an effective administration in Nimule in order to have a form of governance where law and order were to be respected by all segments of society living in Nimule, but this request was undermined by the military (SPLA), as shown by extract from the petition letter dated 8 th May 1999: 1. The lack of clear administrative demarcation between the SRRA [Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association the humanitarian wing of SPLM] and the civil administration. 2. Disregard of, and interference with, the civil administration by the military and paramilitary authorities. This is particularly clear in cases concerning marital issues and court system. This is one of the cores of the administrative crisis in the area. The community leaders recommended the need for clear reference and adherence to the judicial system, which was to operate in relation to court system and in tackling marital cases. Forced marriage of Ma di girls by Dinka soldiers was a major concern at the time. Also, the community recommended that the military and paramilitary authorities should not interfere with the local administration. In addition, they also recommended that in order for the local authority to relate easily with the organised forces and other institutions in the area there was need for the indigenous persons to be in charge of the military, paramilitary, SRRA and other institutional services in the area. It appeared that the Ma di community was deliberately excluded from the leadership of SPLA/M, SRRA, and from holding leadership positions in 9

19 the civil administration in Nimule. It was evident that the Ma di community under the SPLM/A administration in Nimule in 1999 were living in a state of fear and lack of confidence in the system, as they concluded in their petition: If all these recommendations are in place, it will remove fear of intimidation, harassment, torture, looting, forced marriages, forced recruitment into the army, and will regain the confidence of the people. The above statement was evidence, which the Ma di people were trying to actively take part in the struggle for the liberation of South Sudan to an independent country. It is now dawning among Equatorians that during SPLA war ( ), which was dominated by the Dinka, that there was a hidden agenda of a promised made by the leadership of the movement (SPLM/A) to the Dinka people. The promised was that after the war, Equatoria would be their (Dinka) promised land to occupy and settle in. The evidence for this are found from various sources. Among some of the Ma di residence of Nimule who demanded the Dinka internally displaced persons (IDPs) vacate their land following peace agreement in 2005, some of the Dinka cited that in order for them to leave the land in which they were settled in, late Dr. John Garang should be brought to life. [Note: Dr John Garang died in a helicopter crash in 2005]. The conspiracy to occupy the land of Equatoria was enforced by SPLA commanders in Nimule, as illustrated below in 2008 by a non-ma di in Nimule: There is nothing like peace here. The Dinkas are having overall control over the local people. And the recent distribution of guns is so scaring. One of the SPLA Commander called Malith, had already declared the actual Dinka intention in the Ma di Land and the guns are distributed to guard against conspiracy he said. He talked with authority on behalf of GoSS [Government of South Sudan] that Ma di land is a promised land for Dinkas, the civil war is over, but protecting these promises is another agenda among the Dinkas, because they don't want to disappoint their local leaders who made those promises. Exhibit 1 (see Appendix) The Ma di community had appealed directly to the President of the Republic (see Exhibit 2 dated 19 August 2011) for intervention to repatriate the Dinka IDPs from Nimule and to prevent genocide taking place in Ma di area. No Government effort to repatriate the Dinka IDPs was witnessed after the appeal letter, thus implying the Government s complicity to let Dinka IDPs occupy Ma di area. A depiction on Sudan Tribune website is also consistent with the conspiracy theory of Dinka s plan to subjugate Equatorians and turn their land into a Dinka colony or Dinkatoria (South Sudan Nation, 2012): 10

20 Source: Sudan Tribune, Another evidence of occupation by the Dinka in Ma diland was revealed by one Dinka man in Nimule as detailed in Exhibit 2. In an apologetic voice, the apologist or sympathiser says that the coming of Dinka in Ma diland was not a peaceful one, but was part of the Government enforced plan, as it involved arming the occupying Dinka, which further caused panic among the Ma di people: The Ma di elders initiative to repatriate Dinka from Nimule is not in line with the government of South Sudan. Our coming to Ma di land was not a peaceful one. We were forced by SPLA/M politicians to come and settle here. Today the same politicians are quiet when it comes to Dinka going home from Nimule. In series of meetings held in Bor demanding Nimule must be secure for Dinka settlement, we knew in the nearest future Ma di from exile will come home and our stays here will be in a big question. Our elders in Nimule did not attend the meetings initiated by Ma di elders, instead they met with ROSS [Republic of South Sudan] officials who are also members of Dinka community. In 6 hours meetings, some fire arms will be flown to Nimule and some SPLA soldiers will be deployed in the Corridor. To me as a Dinka, this is not politics; it s a plan for genocide. Exhibit 2 (Appendix) The initiative for arming the IDP Dinka in Nimule came about in response to the call by the Supreme Leader (Lopirigo) of the Ma di Community Council, former Ambassador Angelo Voga Morgan who attempted to engage the Dinka IDP elders through dialogue by calling for a meeting that was scheduled on 8 th July 2011 in order to facilitate the repatriation of IDP to their home land. None of the 20 Dinka elders who were invited for the meeting turned up. The Ma di Supreme Leader remarked in his letter to The Citizen newspaper in Juba and quoted in Sudan Tribune as follows: 11

21 We also decided that we should meet our brothers and sisters, the Dinka IDPs in Nimule, and indeed, in the whole of Ma di area to alert them of the independence of South Sudan and also to find out what are their plans now that we are embarking on a new war which is the development of our country, But to our surprise and dismay the Dinka IDPs elders never showed up for that meeting despite the fact that they did not reply to the chief s letter that they would not come for the meeting and why, (Sudan Tribune, 2011.) The attitude shown by the IDP elders could be interpreted by the host community [Madi], as hostile in character, especially in regards to the arming of IDPs by the government forces or agents, as shown in Exhibit 2. In October 2011, two serious incidences occurred in Ma diland within a space of three weeks, which were both linked to SPLA. The first incident occurred at Moli-Tokuro in Ma di area, where two members of Ma di community were killed by SPLA soldiers. This incidence came as a result of suspected order from Brigadier Johnson Juma Okot, an SPLA officer belonging to Acholi tribe. The culprits of the killings have never been caught nor brought to justice. The link between the murder and SPLA is articulated by one individual, as: Ma di officials working for ROSS/SPLA too have spoken nothing yet dead bodies are still lying unburied for days now. The current situation is that, it remained that Ma di people were killed by order of J.J. Okot and order of Commissioner of Maqwi County. I want we Acholi community to understand that ROSS wants things in Ma di land but the government officials are using people like JJ. Okot and the commissioner to achieve their objectives. An Acholi, 9 th October 2011 While the second incident happened about two weeks later on 24 th October 2011 where there was massacre of 4 Ma di staff, and subsequent evacuation by UN of 20 staff from Ma di tribe who were working in Magwi, the Head quarter of Magwi County. Both Acholi and Ma di shared the same County. On the surface, this appeared to be a conflict between Acholi and Ma di, but on a deeper examination, the root cause of the conflict pointed to Dinka IDPs instigated incidence to protect their interest in Ma di Area; the Dinka IDPs were considered to be using key influential people among the Acholi to achieve their goal of occupation in Nimule (Ma di area). This is outlined below by an Acholi: It's good to speak the truth today to be free tomorrow than to lie today and be in war tomorrow. What we should know: JJ. Okot and the Commissioner: 1. JJ. Okot and Commissioner are acting for ROSS/SPLA 2. They are the ones supporting IDPs to remain in Nimule 3. They are the ones who perceived confiscation of Madi land together with IDPs, 4. They are the one settling Acholi from Uganda in Ame and Kit 5. It was by their order that those Madi were killed 6. It is they to take responsibilities of their actions. Hiding in Juba will not save JJ. Okot, neither surrounding himself will SPLA soldiers will save the commissioner 7. Above all, it is ROSS/SPLA pressing IDPs to remain in Madi land permanently The government must stop using our people-- JJ. Okot and the Commissioner in 12

22 particular as puppets. They must think about our future and backup immediately. The history of land in South Sudan is documented. SPLA regime will never succeed in rewriting it if ROSS is all about changing tribal land history. Madi or Acholi will do nothing to squeeze each other. Our history shows that Acholi in Ame and Kit immigrated from Payikwara as a family and were welcome by Madi as a family not a community. As of today, it does not make that part to be Acholi land. Neighboring communities know some of this history as well. JJ. Okot. the Commissioner and ROSS will not push Madi away from Opari, Ownyi Ki Bul and Ame, Kit. Neither ROSS will settle Dinka IDPs in Nimule. I looked at these as plans by ROSS to keep our areas in crisis. Acholi, (9 th October 2011) The economic and political oppression of Equatorians by the Dinka-dominated government of South Sudan was documented by other independent researchers from Universities of California and Columbia in USA (Branch and Mampilly, 2004). Branch and Mampilly warned that SPLA/M could win the war, but might lose the peace if oppression of Equatorians continued by the Dinka. Some arrogant views among the Dinka supported and justified occupation of Equatorian states. The citizens whom they displaced could be sent to live in exile, as one Dinka remarked (1 October 2013): The Dinkas have decided to immigrate to greater Equatoria as they immigrated to South Sudan many years ago. Cousins, the Dinkas who are presently living in Equatoria are the SPLA veterans. They fought and kicked out the Jalaba [Arabs] from those areas when you were busy sweeping and cleaning the Jalaba s Kitchen and Toilet in Khartoum. They [Dinka] have been living there since 1983 and they are not going anywhere. So please stop calling them IDP because they are not IDP as the Equatorians claimed. Anyone who will attempt to attack them or force them out from those areas against their will; they will join the Rwandan Hutus in Goma, Congo for good. The Dinkas are not leaving the Equatoria even if the leadership changes in South Sudan. In 2010, researchers from the Norwegian University of Life Science confirmed threats posed by Dinka IDPs to the Ma di returnees who found their land was occupied, as was in Shanmugaratham s writing: I can start with my own story. I returned in 2005 on my own. When I came back I found Dinkas settled on my own land. I told them that I had returned and wanted to resettle. They told me that the land didn t belong to me because they fought for it. I went to my brother s place and got a plot. The Dinkas said the same thing to others who returned You ran away from the war...so.. the only option (you had) was to go to your brother and ask for some land. John Akim, Chief of Olikwi Boma, Nimule, quoted in Noragric Report (Shanmugaratham, 2010). 13

23 It is worth exploring claims of the Dinka that they fought and liberated specific places in Equatoria, which gives them the legitimacy for occupation of targeted areas in question. Firstly, the SPLA war was not fought by tribes defending their tribal territories. If that was one of the reasons, the sons of Equatoria could have not fought elsewhere in other parts of South Sudan and Sudan. The Dinka IDPs now occupying Nimule plots of indigenous citizens were themselves victims of the war who were displaced from their ancestral land, Bor and other Dinka regions. The current IDPs occupying Nimule were unable to defend their regions during the war period, but sought refuge to Nimule and other parts of Equatoria. Secondly, if occupation of land was based on who fought for the defence of their ancestral territories, then we should have witnessed Arab continuation of ruling many parts of South Sudan and therefore, south Sudan couldn t have achieved peace. The subsequent conclusion of the CPA allowed for each community in South Sudan return to their respective ancestral homeland. Therefore, the insistence of Dinka occupation of Nimule or other States of South Sudan is a cause for a continued conflict with the Ma di people and waging war against Equatorians at large. Also, we would want to bring to your attention that the whole community of IDPs settling in Nimule or other States of South Sudan has displaced many indigenous populations or caused ethnic violence. The occupation and land grabs is characterised by continued trend of displacement that has heightened security threats in the whole Ma di regions. Therefore, we are not talking about a few individuals who want to live in the area for work related purposes, but a massive and aggressive dislocation of citizens has been observed. A meeting of Dinka Bor held in Kampala, Uganda on 6 th October 2009 at Ark Hotel revealed the true nature and intentions of Dinka-Bor in annexing Equatoria under their authority. Based on the theme of the meeting He who succeeds is never in the wrong, it can be deduced that delegates that presided over the meeting believed in their conspiracy plans, as a grand secret. They saw no difference between SPLM/A (leadership) and Dinka Bor. The group outlined the following five objectives for detail see Exhibit 3 in Appendix: a) To attain self-reliance. b) Provision of Dinka Bor services to take control over the Mundari land; c) To develop Dinka natural resources and annex the pastures land and rivalry for territory with Juba capital of Southern Sudan and have political influence in Central Equatoria State. d) To create Dinka Bor a class society which is superior to any other tribe at national level. e) To attain national recognition and defend plan to annex basically part of Equatoria. 14

24 The minutes of the meeting concluded by asserting that any true follower must pledge love, respect, obedience and loyalty to John Garang: Every true behaviour must pledge to John Garang our emperor love respect obedience loyalty military service God be with him in peace. Dr John Garang had visions (good or bad) for Sudan / South Sudan. If his visions included the subjugation of one tribe by another, then such a vision was an evil one that should be condemned by the world and people of goodwill and it should not be allowed to be pursued. From the above evidence, it can be concluded that the Dinka had a plan to occupy and subjugate Equatorians, and that such a plan was conceived during the war period ( ). By lack of Government s action to tackle the matter of Dinka occupation in Equatoria such as in Nimule, but turning blind eyes to arming them instead, the Government had made itself complicit in the Dinka plan to subjugate Equatorians, including the Ma di people. The Dinka IDPs are also instigating and supporting tribal conflicts between Acholi and Ma di in order to advance their interest of occupation in Ma diland. 3.3 Resettlement of Dinka Refugees and IDPs in Equatoria The Kakuma Returnees Episode The signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 ushered a new era in Sudan and South Sudan in particular. The aspirations and hopes were high among the people of South Sudan after the 22-years long civil war was finally over and many people of South Sudan who have been living in refugee camps in exile and within Sudan mainly: Uganda, Kenya, Congo, Ethiopia, internally displaced persons in Northern Sudan and within South Sudan finally returned home and reunited with their lost families. However, during the 22-years of civil war, people from all parts of South Sudan left their ancestral land and sought for peace, security, health services and education for their children in exile. Most people from Bahr Ghazal and Upper Nile regions moved southwards and settled in Equatoria. The areas that saw most IDPs were Kapoeta and Magwi counties in Eastern Equatoria and Yei County in Central Equatoria. According to the UNHCR/IOM, a returnee is a refugee or an internally displaced person who is returning to his or her home country. Majority of refugees or IDPs preferred to return home as soon as it was safe to do so after the conflict was over. All returnees aspired to reunite with their families and rebuild their lost lives once again. The United Nations with its humanitarian entity, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) facilitated transportation of the returnees to their home land (ancestral home). However, there were some technical faults made by these organisations. For example, unsupervised registration of 15

25 Dinka from Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya and other refugee camps in neighbouring countries registered, as Ma di and destined for Nimule. This practice has to be reviewed by the United Nations/IOM lists of returnees destined to Nimule in order for proper repatriation exercise to be conducted. When relative peace returned to South Sudan and in the run up to the housing and population census in 2008, the United Nations and IOM facilitated the repatriation of thousands of South Sudanese who were exiled in Uganda, Kenya and Northern Sudan. As part of UNHCR repatriation programme, most returnees went back to their ancestral homeland, but some did not. In February and March 2008, the first batch of returnees from Kakuma refugee Camp arrived Nimule, Eastern Equatoria by bus. The Ma di Community in the area raced to welcome them home. To their surprise, the people were not Ma di. They were Dinka from Jonglei. The Commissioner of the County by then was Mr Emilio Igga, he questioned the IOM and UNHCR officials as to how the people ended up in Nimule, and the response was they said they are from Nimule, Magwi County. This was the first wave of returnees arriving Nimule from Kenya who were not Ma di. The Commissioner told UNCHR and IOM not to make such errors again because it was causing tension and insecurity in the community. He advised them to develop better mechanisms to ensure that this is avoided in the future. Thereafter, several other buses on different occasion also brought Dinka Bor from Uganda and Kenya and dropped them in Nimule disregarding the orders of the Commissioner who told the UNHCR and IOM not to make the same mistake again. Therefore, we the Ma di in diaspora and within South Sudan will want to table the confusion that led to UNHCR/IOM registration of Dinka ethnic group, as Ma di, which has caused ethnic feuds and further aggravated by support from government agents. Also, we want some explanations to these issues from the UNHCR/IOM directly to our community The Northern Sudan Returnees Episode The resettlement of Non-Equatorians in Equatoria particularly in Central and Eastern Equatoria did not end with those from Kakuma. It has been observed that the resettlement continued far too long with impunity from relevant authorities [i.e., UNHCR/IOM and government agents] even after they were informed of the negative impacts returnees had imposed on the host community; neither the central government nor state government sanctioned such resettlements. Most of the returnees from the North were transported to the South by buses or steamer. Those who went to Bahr El Ghazal were mainly transported by bus while those destined for Upper Nile and Equatoria where mostly transported by steamers though there were some who were offered flight tickets, particularly those for Juba with children. When the steamer took off from Kosti going southwards, it stopped at several points along the Nile. The main destinations were Malakal, Adok El Bahr, Bor and Juba. When the steamer arrived Juba, 16

26 some Dinka Bor (Jongeli) who were supposed to get off in Bor decided to make Nimule, as their destination. Also, most of the Dinka claimed their destinations were Juba, Nimule or Yei. When the Dinka returnees were not provided with transport from Juba to their homeland, their military relatives provided them with military trucks and loaded their Dinka returnee relatives with their properties from the port in Juba and transported them to Nimule or Yei. This operation continued throughout the repatriation process. Although the commissioner of Magwi County and the Community leaders made several attempts to stop the mass migration, the federal governments did nothing to stop the migration program. When the governor of Jonglei state [Dinka Bor state governor] was informed, he made an attempt to visit Nimule and spoke with the IDPs, but nothing tangible happened. The governor like all other government officials did not want to facilitate transportation of the IDPs back to Jonglei. And to add insult to the psyche of the Madi people, Interior Minister, Gen. Aleu Ayieng Aleu who accompanied Vice President James Wani Igga to Nimule on November 13 th, 2013, gave a speech in support of IDPs saying that: There are no South Sudanese IDPs within the country. You cannot be an IDP in your own country. This statement was meant to understate his full support for the aggressive land occupation by his Dinka ethnic group. In October 2013, the IOM started transporting thousands of South Sudanese who were stranded in Renk, Upper Nile state for years. When the steamers arrived Juba, again there were several Dinka families who listed Nimule as their ancestral land. The Ma di Regional Council (MRC), an organisation that represents Ma di people in Diaspora, informed the IOM office and the state government of Eastern Equatoria about this malice. Hence, nothing was done in that regard and the IDPs were transported to Nimule. Mamphilly et al. (2005) wrote in their research paper that: Until now, serious conflict between the Dinka-dominated SPLA and the non-dinka Equatorians has been deferred, as the SPLM/A has depended upon foreign states and especially the UNHCR to accept and take care of these exiled populations. In this way, the UNHCR has allowed the SPLM/A to put off dealing with its internal ethnic exclusivity for over a decade. As a result, the construction of a representative, inclusive, and autonomous civil authority has not been essential, nor has the SPLA made a significant effort to build such a local government. But now, with the return of refugees, the SPLA will have to address these issues, for if the current peace lasts, the mass repatriation of Equatorians to Dinka-occupied areas will produce a dramatic political challenge for the SPLM/A, as the returning refugees, and those Equatorians who remained, demand rectification of perceived injustices. In the near future, these demands will centre on two issues: first, the return of Dinka-occupied land to Equatorians; and second, equal access to foreign-provided development and reconstruction resources. 17

27 The events unfolding in some major towns in Equatoria such as Yei and Nimule could have been managed, if the government had heeded to the advice of many organisations including Mamphilly, who wrote in his report that: The anecdote that begins this paper is symptomatic of what will probably be the most serious stumbling block on the way towards a successful political and social integration of returning Equatorians: the settlement of hundreds of thousands of Dinka on land claimed by returning refugees. SPLM officials and NGO workers alike recognise the severity of the issue, but all present the same solution: Everyone will move back to their original places, as the commissioner of Yei County put it to us (Lokule int). Indeed, this settlement has become the core composite of misunderstanding, aggressive land grabs and occupation; intimidation and harassment by the Dinka settlers abated by the government mercenaries. This was something the tribes in Equatorian States felt should have been dealt with at the CPA while the treaty was negotiated. Unfortunately, everyone was convinced that the issues of land occupation, intimidation, forced marriages of occupied tribes girls or women to the occupying Dinka and harassment could be settled once the country was split from the North, but this has proved to be an agenda that was to be fulfilled by the Dinka-led government. The harsh experiences of the Equatorians with regards to land issues arising from Dinka land grabs and occupation was articulated by Mamphilly, during a discussion with Commissioner of Yei in 2004: Concretely, land redistribution will take place within the pattern of decentralisation chronicled above. The process will provide an important first test of the local government structure: if local government succeeds in redistributing land to the returning refugees in what the returnees consider to be a fair manner, it could see its authority and legitimacy consolidated significantly; but if it fails either because of internal insufficiencies or because it submits to outside pressure from the SPLA and Dinka to leave land in the hands of the current occupants this could rupture the SPLA political project in Equatoria and reproduce the conditions for further violent South South conflict. (Mamphilly, 2005) The continued resettlement of Dinka returnees in Equatorian States two years after the independence of South Sudan abated by the government apparatus in Equatoria clearly tells the story narrated by the new settlers, as Dinka Bor. Some say Nimule was given to them by Dr. John Garang, others claim they liberated Nimule pointing to the date he/she wrote on the walls of the house he/she has occupied (Mamphilly, 2005). Since the government is not preventing the IDPs from occupying and grabbing land from the indigenous Ma di people, it can be concluded that the government is complicit in resettling Dinka Bor IDPs in Nimule and other parts of Equatoria. 18

28 Map illustrating Dinka IDPs conspiracy of occupation of entire Madi land. Source (UNOCHA, 2012): Military Presence and Continuous Relocation in Ma di Land Functions of the Sudan People s Liberation Army (SPLA) According to the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011, Part Ten Chapter 1, the mission of the national armed forces, in addition to its other national duties, shall be to: (a) uphold this Constitution; (b) defend the sovereignty of the country; (c) protect the people of South Sudan; (d) secure the territorial integrity of South Sudan; (e) defend South Sudan against external threats and aggression; and (f) be involved in addressing any emergencies, participate in reconstruction activities, and assist in disaster management and relief in accordance with this Constitution and the law. As enumerated in the constitution, the primary function of the SPLA is to fight and win wars against external aggression. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in Ma di area where there is no war or insecurity that necessitates the presence of such an army. Since the last group of LRA [Lord s Resistance Army] exited their assembly point in Owingibul, Magwi County in 2008, there has not been any insecurity in the area except those that are caused by 19