The Sentry Report is a caricature of the truth on corruption in South
Sudan Posted:
September 20, 2016 by *PaanLuel Wël* in Ariik Atekdit
<>, Columnists
<>, Opinion Articles
<>, Opinion Writers

Rate This

*The Sentry Corruption Report on South Sudan is far away from the truth and
Unscientific *

*By Ariik Atekdit Mawien, Juba, South Sudan*
[image: clooney-with-kiir-and-riek-plus-igga]

George Clooney with President Kiir, Dr. Riek Machar and VP James Wani Igga

*September 20, 2016 (SSB) —* Last week the famous friends of South Sudan,
Mr. George Clooney and John Prendergast of Enough Project published their
two years’ corruption investigatory report that detailed how Dr Riek,
President Kiir and colleagues have deepened their wrong hands into South
Sudan’s money and resources and used them for luxury and their comfort with
their family members typically in foreign lands.

A lot of luxurious mansions and villas have been posted by the report
featuring how these valuable properties are associated to the claimed
individuals in the story. As a South Sudanese who have been in this country
since the conception of Juba administration. I cannot for instance stand up
and challenge the report. I can’t deny that our leaders might have ruined
our resources and our economic stability. They might have misused our

I can’t give detail either of how the money is being misused. However, I am
only not pretty sure if the photos used in the reports are really the ones
that justify the corruption in South Sudan, they might be the ones or there
might be still more photos and banks’ accounts to reveal.

 South Sudanese are a people that are not so much dim-witted as professed
and claimed of them by others. They are more than smarter and they almost
know everything happening now inside and outside about the destruction of
their resources. Since 2005, South Sudanese became conscious that the
management of resources was not going as expected but had been enduring
because they were longing to create their own country and to remain alone.

Juba and Khartoum before referendum have been in negative politics
especially when it came to the implementation of Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) and indeed South Sudanese persisted and waited for
independence to be pronounced.  This case of CPA implementation and post
independence issues made South Sudanese not to be so much critical of their
dishonest leaders; anyway we never quickly realized that we gave them (our
leaders) too much chance of the benefits of the doubts.

Nevertheless it was all a risk against time, so no blame to make, we had no
alternative. The situation got us that the SPLM leaders were the only
reference the South Sudanese had and used them for getting rid of Khartoum
administration. Today we have no roads, schools, hospitals and government
offices across the nation and we don’t blame lack of resources but our very
leaders who are managing the resources.

Last week I saw a report naming some few generals and officials of being
among the top corrupts but not limited to Gen. Kiir and Gen. Riek Machar
who are the two rival principals of South Sudan conflict. However, what
impact can that report make among South Sudanese? Do you want to tell us
that we don’t know that our leaders are corrupt? Is it new for South
Sudanese to know?

Is it correct to believe that South Sudan corruption history starts only
with war in 2014? Why do you choose to publish the report especially this
time? We thought this report should have appeared long before now and
indeed to involve some members of the regime who have today disown the
movement they formed more than 30 years ago.

The report does not carry any value: First because it came at wrong time
when South Sudanese are divided over individual politicians and so they
can’t jointly and cooperatively pursue these suspects.  We should be
focused now to bring peace and reconciliation in the country.  Second, we
don’t expect the corruption list to be that short like the way it is now.

Thirdly, it makes no sense for The Sentry to publish a two years’
corruption scale instead of the research centre to set up from 2005 to date
all the corruption cases individual by individual this means that those of
G10 or former political detainees should be investigated.

If The Sentry was really interesting in saving South Sudan as a nation and
its people from the corrupt officials they cannot heavily make this
one-sided corruption list dominated by few government officials and
generals. They are supposed to reveal the list of the entire cancer of
corruption. The 66 pages corruption report has not done enough to be called
a sentinel report because it has not brought the beginning of corruption.

I believe more money is lost from 2005 to 2013 than from 2014 to 2015. If
this is true then there was no any scientific reason supporting the two
years’ corruption report on South Sudan. George Clooney needs to know that
SPLM leaders in 2013 got differed and separated because of corruption
related issues.  This is what a researcher and an investigator can dare
reveal. As a researcher you need not to begin your report from an angle
that leaves behind a lot of questions unanswered.

There should be no reason of starting such a report at all. For instance:
does corruption starts in South Sudan only in war time in 2014 to 2015 or
has it existed before that date? If there has been corruption before 2014
why has the report chosen to detail out about 2014 corruption only? Tell us
who should be the first corrupt officials in South Sudan government.

Riek Machar for instance was investigated for KK Security Company that was
under Bading Machar’s corruption case. Bading Machar being a relative and
connected to Riek Machar is said to have hijacked and control KK Security
Company and dismiss all the Kenyans board all from 2009 and 2010. How do
you connect that case 2014 or 2015 during war period?

This information is unscientific result because it doesn’t fall under the
research period in query.

The report should inform us of the amount of money that has been embezzled
by the officials in detail not just mere photos of houses and individuals’
faces. Yes, the companies with the single signatures can tell us that
somebody is corrupt but they cannot answer the question of: how much are
they corrupt?

To us South Sudanese, we know that corruption has started long in 2005 in
many different forms. So we continue to accuse the first cabinet of
President Kiir of corruption since then until 2013 and we thought that The
Sentry report should have answered for us some questions about that.

In 2012, President Kiir accused and wrote to 75 colleagues to return about
US $4 billion believed to have been stolen by government officials and
former officials in South Sudan government. The Dura Saga had been reported
long before 2012 and our common citizens need to know who these people
responsible of that scandal are. These incidents can correctly inform the
report that South Sudanese have known this corruption case long before 2014.

Why should The Sentry only narrow down their report to 2014 and 2015? We
are too big to be blindfolded this time by such reports. What happens is
that Mr. George Clooney had wanted to re-tell to South Sudanese what they
had already known but he only does not know how to go about it.

I am against this Sentry report not because it tells me who is corrupt. I
am against it because the report is trying to make some individual corrupt
officials more innocent when they have badly participated in smuggling our
resources into foreign bank accounts yet they are kept out by the research
date. Why should the report legitimize the corruptions that occur between
2005 and 2013?

There should be no any legitimate period for stealing public resources. The
laws of South Sudan rule out corruption entirely and if there is any report
to should be inclusive bringing along everybody that is suspected of having
participated in the awful transaction of our money into private accounts.

The Report itself is corrupt and it does not qualify to investigate any
corruption case. It is corrupt that it has segregated the years that should
have been included into the investigation period but it did so in order to
make sure that some people are avoided not to appear in the list so that
they should be qualified for the government of Post-Kiir era.

The report should be inclusive of all South Sudanese corrupt officials so
that we can best know who are those not corrupt and correctly choose not to
ever go for them when they want us to bring them elect them to public

*Ariik Atekdit can be reached via: email
<> *

*The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity
of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël:
South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion
article or news analysis, please email it to
<>. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before
publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country
you are writing.*

To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Visit this group at
View this message at
For more options, visit
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit

Reply via email to