S. Sudan opposition sides with SPLM against amendment of constitution Article Comments (7) Email PrintSave --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 23, 2011 (JUBA) - The leadership of one South Sudan’s opposition political parties on Thursday announced it was siding with the region’s against voices calling for scrutiny and amendment in the Draft Transitional Constitution of south Sudan. Tong Lual Ayat, the chairman of the United Democratic Party (UDP), said in a press release that powders given to president of the government of south Sudan during interim period to relieve state governors and dissolve state assemblies are conditional. “The Draft Constitution of South Sudan is acceptable. It has all type of freedoms and international treaties to cover basic human rights, good governance and transparency. It has bill of rights. It defines and demarcates powers which belong to three organs of government. It talks about independence of the legislature, the Judiciary, executive powers which comes through the elected presidential system”, explained Ayat. It also talks about independence of the organised forces and the system of the local government and the banking system, he adds. “Isolating the president from the parliament, Judiciary, Security or the State governments is not rational criticism. The president should be granted powers because there are cases where a president is required to take prompt decision on behave of either Assembly or judiciary especially when it is something related to national security. In such as cases none of the citizen would expect president to wait approval of his decision by the parliament. There is nothing wrong with this interim constitution. It is clear and acceptable. It should not be opposed for the sake of being opposition political parties”, said the leader of an opposition political party. “Take a critical look at political developments and events taking place across ten states of south Sudan. You will definitely find that other governors, in spite of having been elected remain authoritarian. They disrespect the very institutions with which they are expected to share power and good governance. They have forgotten cooperation with other independent institutions. They have taken rule of laws into their own hands and have embarked on threats and arbitrary arrest of their opponents; there by paralyzing the democratic institutions. In such cases who do you think can intervene on behave of the public. No one expect the President elected by the whole country. This explains why the president must be given powers to protect public interest, security and democratic principles so enshrined in our constitution”, explained Ayat. South Sudan is set to become an independent State following the conduct of an internationally monitored referendum on self determination for people of the oil-producing region in January 2011. The vote was one of the provisions of the 2005 peace agreement which the former warring parties, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Sudanese Government represented by the ruling party, the National Congress Party, signed to end the over two decades long of civil war between the north and south. Over two million people are believed to have died while four million more were uprooted from ancestral homelands to displaced camps in Sudan and in neighbouring countries. The 2005 peace agreement allows return of internally displaced persons from the north and gives six years of interim period during which the south would govern itself under united Sudan. However, Akot Aguer, a law Student at Juba University opposes voices supporting giving president more powers. "Something is absolutely wrong this constitution. I read it almost every day and I find a lot of things needed to be corrected. They must be amended, said Aguer. The terms for president and state governors are not clearly defined. They have indefinite terms. The constitution does not say anything about terms of the president and the state governors," he said He gave an example of one of the constitutional powers that allow president to remove and replace the state governor and dissolve the state legislative Assembly. “I find in the constitution that president can declare a war with or without approval of the national legislature. No public leader should be subjected to trial while serving in the office. The decision by the National Council of Ministers on any state and national proposed policies is final and binding decision. I also find that the three levels of government must conform to the national constitution except the traditional leaderships. State governments must take care of basic education minus higher education”. “The amendment to the national constitution is the work of the national legislature without involving members of the state parliament. Women rights are unquestionable and that force marriage is punishable, yet our constitution did not set out marriageable age. Various special head commissions are subject to removal from the office except the head of the anti corruption commission whose removal from the office must be approved by the national legislature. These are few of the observations I think needs to be corrected. It is completely unacceptable to leave all these untouched because of our love to president Salva Kiir Mayardit”, said Aguer explaining that leaving constitution untouched for the sake of appeasing president makes the system of governance undemocratic. Timothy Tot Chol a member of the South Sudan Legislative Assembly in May became the first official from the South Sudan’s ruling SPLM to speak against amending draft transitional constitution of South Sudan, arguing that the powers given to the president in the constitution were conditional. “We found that in the interim period, from 2005 until now, some governors sometimes misuse these powers to the disadvantage of people of that state. There were quarrels; there were disagreements which sometimes led to lack of stability in some states. Now, it was thought by the drafters of the interim constitution that there must be a power above the states and governors who can intervene in the event of any quarrel in a state. By the way, those quarrels could even jeopardize the tranquility and the harmony and even the national security of the new republic unless there is a super power which can intervene.” Article 101 (R) of the draft transitional constitution says that the president has the powers to remove a state governor, and/or dissolve the state legislative assembly in the event of a crisis in a state that threatens national security and territorial integrity but said the president cannot exercise this power unnecessarily. “It is a conditional power which is rarely or which will be rarely used, you see. Unless there is this situation or this situation arises where the national integrity and national security is being threatened, I don’t think the president can exercise such a power. So there is unjustified fear that the president may use it to get of the people he does not like. But I don’t think it can happen because in the first place, the governors are elected by the people with the consent of the president himself.” Tot said the constitution does not specify whether a state governor relieved by the president could contest in elections. He however said that logically, a governor, when relieved under such circumstances could not contest anymore. (ST) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD info" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
