Insecurity in Juba of concern to law abiding citizens .




.
By Jacob K. Lupai

Introduction

June 25, 2012 (SSNA) -- “Things that are not said divide people”. The
implication and the opposite of this quotation is very clear which is
“Things that are said unite people”. This was what precisely happened
in the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) leadership
council meeting in Rumbek in 2004. In the meeting commanders and heads
of commissions spoke their minds, heavily criticizing the chairman and
commander-in-chief of the SPLM/A for running the SPLM/A as a one man’s
show and his inability to address issues. The commanders and heads of
commissions poured out openly their grievances to the chairman and
commander-in-chief without mincing their words. At the end one
commander observed that the meeting had saved lives and added that if
there was anything which was not clear was said then. This clearly
suggests that problems should be put on the table for a dialogue in
search of solutions.

Insecurity in Juba is so rampant that no one can be mussled for
speaking out openly about it. Everyone is aware that insecurity in
Juba is indeed worrying. An accusing finger has been pointed at the
police in uniform for aggravating insecurity by participating in night
crimes such as robberies. On the other hand the lack of clearly
defined responsibilities between the police at the state and national
level is blamed for the rampant insecurity in Juba. This, however,
suggests that we may have to revisit the concept of decentralization
and devolution of powers in addressing the menace of insecurity.
Insecurity in Juba is taking a high toll and is a cause of great
concern to law abiding citizens.

Insecurity a challenge

Insecurity in Juba is indeed a great a challenge to anyone concerned.
People are very uncomfortable putting up with rampant insecurity close
at home. They constantly fear for their safety. This may affect
performance as people’s concentration is on constant fear instead of
on their jobs. This may not be difficult to understand why this is so.
Two days ago a manager of Eden money exchange institution was gunned
down in cold blood and robbed of money at dusk not far from the black
uniform police unit in Nyokuron. Strangely enough the South Sudanese
public seems to have become apathetic. No one raised the alarm when
the manager was shot several times before the killer drove away with
the money leaving the manager mortally wounded and dead. This is one
typical example of insecurity in Juba that instills fear in people.

The enormous challenge is apprehending those criminals who are the
perpetrators of insecurity. It is the absence of capturing those
criminals to face the law that sends the worst fears through the
spines of people. Such criminals should be captured and face the law
with heavy penalties as a deterrent. How often are these criminals
caught is not clear? Nevertheless, short of catching these criminals,
rampant insecurity with horrific crimes committed will become part of
life in Juba with unknown consequences to the stability and
development in this new nation.

Decentralisation and devolution of powers in South Sudan

Decentralisation and devolution of powers in South Sudan as a
mechanism of stability and unity is revisited. The SPLM political
programme 2008 – 2013 aims to transform a secular South Sudan to a
nation of peace, freedom, unity, equality and prosperity for all, and
the programme highlights decentralization and devolution of powers.
Also, Article 47(b) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic
of South Sudan 2011 stipulates that South Sudan shall have a
decentralized system of government.

On devolution of powers Article 49(1b) is helpful in that it sets out
how the link between the national and state government should have
been like. This makes it difficult to understand what the confusion is
between the national government and the state when they are supposed
to provide the same services to the same people. For example,
insecurity is blamed on the lack of clearly defined responsibilities
between the police at the state and national level and the absence of
land to establish police stations. For land there is a police unit in
Nyokuron with transport facilities but some of the most grueling and
horrific killings are occurring in Nyokuron. How can this be explained
where there is a police unit on a secured land yet people give lack of
land as an excuse for rampant insecurity in Juba? To address
insecurity in the short term which is urgently needed is to rent a
place in a residential area as a visible security measure while a
piece of land is being sought for a long term solution.

Adhering to a decentralized system as conceived by experts but not by
politicians would have eased insecurity where it is the state to train
and deploy its police force. However, what seems to be happening is
that the national government trains and deploys police to the state
which seems to have a minimum role in the deployment. This is
unfortunately mistaken for decentralization which is in fact
centralization contrary to the concept of decentralisation. The
national police service should have been a support to the state police
service instead of being separate and overriding on state police
service. This is where the confusion arises as there seems to be a
competition and duplication of effort which drains the available
meagre resources. Also, lack of clear zoning to locate where each
police service should have operated adds to the confusion. Zoning
would have been helpful to identify which police service was
responsible for an area for accountability. Politics may be to blame
for the confusion. However, for now a better way forward is an urgent
mechanism for effective coordination, collaboration, cooperation and
teamwork between the state and national police service as a solution
to the prevailing rampant insecurity in Juba.

Community-police relations

Ideally the police are there for the community where the community
looks to the police for protection and justice. However, in Juba more
often the police and men in uniform have become suspect of some of the
most horrendous crimes. For example, in a Nyokuron residential area a
woman was shot dead at night in her home and the killer was suspected
to have been a police. The following morning the lamentations of
community members touched the hearts of police officers. Now there is
a contingent of police stationed in the area mingling with people. The
illustration is clear. Night police patrols were seen as dangerous
when killings and robberies occurred with impunity. It is obvious that
stationing the police in the community is helpful in promoting good
community-police relations. The community is likely to have confidence
in the police when the police are close and discuss issues of interest
to the community. This may warm up community-police relations which
will be helpful to the community and the police as confidence is built
up.

When community members and the police mingle in an atmosphere of
trust, friendships may develop. This is useful in creating mutual
understanding that may make the police as suspects of crimes a thing
of the past. One problem may be that night police patrols are made
haphazardly with no clear system in place. For example, a police
patrol may start off without a clear plan of routes and areas to
patrol. The police move at their own convenience without any focus to
protect the community. This may explain how police are suspect of
crimes in their night patrols. The police are also known for their
brutality. They take the law into their own hands when sometimes they
beat up people and harass them to their satisfaction, making the
police look sadistic. More often police brutality goes unnoticed or
even ignored completely. This suggests that the police are sometimes
the first to violate citizen’s constitutional rights instead of
protecting them. However, with good community-police relations things
may improve for the better.

Police complaint unit

When the police or members of other security organs brutalise citizens
what happens next is an open question. The citizen may have nowhere to
lodge a complaint against police or indeed any other security agent’s
brutality. For example, a police may be reluctant to investigate a
fellow police. Also, when an officer brutalizes a citizen a mere
police may take no action against the officer with the possible claim
that their rank is lower to handle the case involving an officer.
Often citizens are left bitter after an experience with crude police.
There may not be any way out to lodge a complaint but for the citizen
to shallow his bitterness in silence. This may be where the public is
likely to be distrustful and even hate the police.

One way of addressing citizens’ grievances against the police or
indeed any other personnel of security organs is for the
institutionalization of a police complaint unit. This unit should be
mandated to receive all sorts of complaints against the personnel of
any security agency regardless of the rank of the personnel. The unit
can also work as a bridge between citizens and security organs in
promoting mutual understanding for a better way forward in
citizen-police relations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, South Sudanese are people of one destiny. They
struggled together, navigated the route to freedom together and
ultimately achieved independence together. A failed South Sudan is not
in the interest of anybody because none will be left immune. South
Sudanese will all sink together to the bottom. Divisive politics of
intrigues is therefore a recipe for disaster. Decentralisation and
devolution of powers is a mechanism well thought out by experts and
revolutionaries for sustainable unity and progress of any country on
planet earth. However, the opposite is a catastrophic disaster in
waiting.

The author can be reached at [email protected]

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" 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 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to