Role Reversal : Aldo Ajou Deng And Elders Loss Value
"The only way we can end tribalism is for elders to form National Council
of Elders that can speak with a unified national voice and speak up against
01 December 2016 By Kuir E Garang
Note from Jacob J Akol, Editor:
Gurtong does not generally get involved in publishing or amplifying inter
and intra ethnic conflicting views, for that would be very much against its
uniting mission and objectives. However, this article by Kuir is a timely
warning, not only to Uncle Ajou Deng, who has my sincere respect, but to
all of us to be extremely careful and err, if err we must, on the side of
the positive aimed at uniting our peoples. The historical corrections in
this article are worth amplifying as I think they are as close to the facts
as they can historical be.
I’ve written a lot about elders acting like young people and young people
acting like elders. This is embarrassing and it shouldn’t happen in any
But this is sadly the reality in South Sudan where elders are the ones
beating the drum of war and division while young people beg them to speak
the language of peace,inclusion, and inter-tribal togetherness.
Given the fact that the country is now in turmoil and risks descending into
a genocidal mode as United Nations has recently warned, one can clearly see
that elders and the senior intellectual class have lost their way.
A number of young people, including this author, have been accused of
targeting one self-proclaimed, infamous group of tribal elders’ whose
language and agenda are divisive, abusive and myopic. These group, commonly
known as Jieeng (Dinka) Council of Elders (JCE), came to political and
public prominence after December 2013 mutiny and subsequent civil war. They
became so vocal and tribally divisive that their writings and interviews
became too hard to ignore.
While supporters of JCE, most of whom tribally motivated, claim that these
elders have both democratic and constitutional right to air out their views
like any South Sudanese civil society groups, one needs to note the kind of
messages they pass along and the motivation behind the existence of such a
None of us would have much to say against JCE had they focused on Riek
Machar and his politico-military activities without targeting Nuer and
Tribes in Equatoria. Undoubtedly, these elders have every right to
criticize Riek Machar or any political party they deem unacceptable given
political affiliations they embrace.
However, they have gone above and beyond what could be considered a
democratic and constitutional right. They resorted to the denigration of
non-Jieeng tribes in the states of Equatoria and the former Upper Nile
region; something that is contributing to more hatred and tribal division.
Vilification (as Anei did on his book tour in Australia) of other tribes,
no matter the motivation, is not only morally wrong, it also contributes to
national instability. Given the powerful role these elders play
in government, and given the fact that the president is Jieeng, any
denigration of Non-Jieeng tribes becomes inexcusable.
I have written and posted videos as respectful as I could, urging these
leaders to use their organization to bridge the gap between and among
various tribes in South Sudan. And more importantly, I have also urged them
to be the ones to advise youngsters against impulsive actions or
tribally-charged utterances against other tribes.
Surprisingly, there are people (including JCE) who accuse this author of
having instigated hatred against Jieeng. Really? Asking my own people to be
responsible and inclusive in order to avoid fueling tribal hatred is being
considered, bizarrely, by some people as ‘garbage.’ That's really
But no article, from JCE, has garnered much attention like the recent one
by Uncle Aldo Ajou DengAkuey. Notable in the article is the divisive and
abusive language, historical inaccuracies and a manner of speaking not
expected of an elder statesman, intellectual and seasoned politician. Our
elders, essentially, have lost their way.
ELDERS VS. YOUNGSTERS
The first thing that horrified me and many others is the simplistic and
embarrassing level the elder statesman has gone in his abusive and divisive
I expected Uncle Ajou to correct young people he believes have gone astray
without mentioning where these young people come from and without being
abusive. Pitting different sections of Jieeng against one another is not
advisable to anyone leave alone an elder and veteran politician.
I have my critics and to some extent, ‘haters’; however, I have never
resorted to calling them out by where they come from. I either call them
out based on their own personalities or by their political affiliations.
Tribes or clans are things I avoid when calling people out in terms of
political differences unless I feel part of the group I'm calling out. The
only people I have called out on clan basis are leaders from my own Jieeng
section, the Twi of Jonglei state.
Charity begins at home and that’s why I criticize leaders from my own
sub-tribe or tribe. I cannot criticize leaders from other areas of South
Sudan when leaders from my own tribe are at fault.
Ajoudit could have criticized his young critics without referring to
Jonglei or Bahr El Ghazal or any tribal associations for that matter.
Besides, he could have also done so without calling them ‘foolish’ or
people with ‘blocked’ minds who ‘skipped’ history in school. Where can we
[youngsters] go if elders are the ones holding up the big, red flag of
division and abusive language? It’s darn scary!
It’s very true that Ajoudit has been in Sudan’s and South Sudan’s political
arena longer than many of us have been alive. However, that doesn’t mean we
should take his historical narratives as true at face-value. Like any
learned persons, we need to fact-check his historical claims. This is
neither to disrespect elders not is it an assumption that ‘one knows it
all.’ We are educated to think for ourselves, to find out truth by
History is not formulaic. It’s usually twisted by people writing it to suit
their sociopolitical or socioeconomic agendas as long as no one subjects
their historical narratives to facts-check. Please fact-check all the
historical incidences I’m citing here.
First, I have not seen anyone serious young South Sudanese person, who
would downplay the contribution of the Jieeng of Bahr El Ghazal in the
SPLA/SPLM war. Unless anyone wants to rewrite history, their contribution
is both unquestionable and worthy of historical appreciation.
All of us should call out anyone who believes that Jieeng of Bahr El Ghazal
didn’t contribute significantly in the liberation struggle. Those of us who
grew up in the SPLA/SPLM know the in-our-faces contribution of ‘mïïth ë Bar
Ka Dhal!’ I even wondered, as a little boy in Itang Refugee Camp, if SPLA
soldiers where mostly recruited from Bahr El Ghazal. It’s important that
silly people should be dismissed with their silly, self-serving rewriting
Secondly, Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. John Garang finally reconciled in January
of 2002 not 2001 as Ajoudit mentioned. A man who’s claiming that ‘we’
skipped history in school shouldn’t miss that simple fact.
Ajoudit also claimed that the first major disagreement among South Sudanese
was in 1983. However, Ajoudit knows very well, or he doesn’t know I’m not
sure, that differences among South Sudanese preceded August 1983. It’s
important to note that the first South Sudanese civil war had a dividing,
ideological and tactical line between the military wing (Anya-Anya) under
Emedio Teffeng and the political wing, Sudan African Closed District
National Union (SACDNU) under Joseph Oduho (and later Aggrey Jaden).
The party would later change its name to Sudan African National Union
(SANU) in 1963 in Kampala. Between 1962 (when SACDNU was formed in
Leopoldville, now Kinshasha) and February 1972 (when Addis Ababa agreement
was signed) there were more than five political wings formed by different
South Sudanese politicians.
And these parties resulted from disagreements among politicians. Among
these parties are SACDNU, SANU, Azania Liberation Front (ALF under Oduho -
1965), Sudan African Liberation Front (SALF under Jaden - 1965), Southern
Sudan Provisional Government (1967 under Jaden and later Mourtat), Nile
Provision Government (NPG under Muortat - 1968), Anyidi Republic (with
Emedio Teffeng- 1969), Anya National Organization (ANO), Anya-Anya National
Armed Force (ANAF) and Southern Sudan Liberation Movement (the latter three
under Joseph Lagu). While Southerners managed at different times and levels
to reconcile, differences were persisted and they were obstacles to the
It's also important to note that Emedio Teffeng and Joseph Lagu (then the
Eastern Equatoria area commander until June 1970) didn’t see eye to eye.
Lagu would later take over the overall leadership of the liberation
struggle from both Muortat (of NPG) and Teffeng (of Anya Anya). And this
‘coup’ in our contemporary South Sudanese parlance, resulted from tactical
and political differences.
Another significant difference occurred when Joseph Oduho, the president of
SACDNU, was detained in Uganda. William Deng Nhial used the party laws to
suggest Oduho’s deputy (Marko Rume) as the interim leader. Father Saturnino
objected for he wanted Natale Olwak as the interim leader. This would cause
a disagreement when Father Saturnino accused Deng of trying to ‘divide
Equatorians.’ Father Saturnino, as many historians have noted, had a knack
of siding with Oduho against Jaden, who'd later lead SANU and SSPG (for a
Another significant difference occurred in the March of 1965 at the
Round-Table conference between SANU-Inside of Deng Nhial and SANU-Outside
of Aggrey Jaden.
After the military government of Abboud ended with resignation in 1964,
William Deng (and many Southerners too) believed that they could work with
the new government of Sirr Al-Khatim Al-Khalifa. At the Round-Table
Conference, Deng settled for a federal system within a united Sudan.
However, Jaden stuck to his guns and demanded a total independence of South
Sudan.All these formations and divisions affected the liberation struggle
in a very significant way.
The wrangling among politicians didn’t help Anya Nya I soldiers for there
was no proper, unified political leadership to steer the liberation
So to say that the first time differences among South Sudanese came up is
1983 is not only misleading, it’s historically inaccurate.
South Sudanese have always disagreed and formed different political parties
just as they would do after 1991 Riek-Lam rebellion. This is what Bona
Malwal, a member of JCE, wrote in his book:, Sudan and South Sudan: From
One to Two."Unfortunately, [William] Deng took the same position most
South Sudanese politicians take in the face of internal debate and
exacerbated the split within the Anya-Nya Movement. Political debates in
South Sudan never end in consensus building - it ends in further splits.
Feuding South Sudanese politicians never take time to reconcile their
opinions with those who disagree with them. Everyone insists on being right
and having their way. "
In 1964, after the overthrow of Abboud military regime, it seems the Umma
party, led by Sadiq Sediq Abdel Rahman Al Mahdi, had established secret
contacts with Deng in East African and offered the South federation in
negotiation.Whether Deng then informed his colleagues in the Anya-Nya
Movement of the offer is not clear. Deng Later claimed that the had
informed Jaden and his group about negotiating with Khartoum and that Jaden
refused. That much I can confirm, because I was very much part of the
political leadership of the Southern Front at that point." (Malwal, 2014)
As an elder and veteran politician writing to the younger generation, it’s
advisable that Ajoudit be as explicit and as accurate as possible. Not all
of us are push-overs. And certainly, not all of us would take your words as
you write them.
ADDIS ABABA AGREEMENT
Ajoudit also claimed that the February 1972 Addis Ababa agreement was
‘embraced’ by all South Sudanese. This is historically inaccurate. One of
the people to denounce the agreement was Gordon Mourtat Mayen (of Kinshasa
group), calling the agreement a ‘sell-out.’ I can give Ajoudit the letter
if he doesn’t have it.
Besides, John Garang, then a young man in 1972, also wrote a letter to
Lagu with conditions that if not accepted then the agreement should be
rejected. John Garang would later say:“We tried to oppose it. But
realizing that it was not going to be successful and opportune because the
masses of the people of Southern Sudan were not prepared to support our
move to continue the war we stopped the opposition…we calculated that the
clique in Khartoum would erode the government in Juba because its basis of
the agreement was first to absorb the Anya Nya into the National Army,
second to integrate it after absorption and third to destroy it. So you
have the process of achieving a cheap victory over the Anya Nya Forces.”
Not all South Sudanese ‘embraced’ the agreement. Even those who accepted
the agreement were just tired of war. The implementation of the agreement
itself had problems as early as 1973 when some Anya-Nya forces decried the
way they were being treated by the Sudanese army. The same disagreement and
dissatisfaction led to the Akobo mutiny of 1975 by Vincent Kuany Latjor and
Bol Kur Alongjok.
So it’s irresponsible for a veteran politician to mislead young people by
presenting inaccurate historical facts. Perhaps it’s time for Ajoudit to
refresh his mind by reading a number of books, even those written by his
Both Jieeng of Jonglei and Jieeng of Bahr El Ghazal are noble people,
who’ve contributed very well to the liberation of South Sudan alongside
other tribes in South Sudan. There’s no point in creating unnecessary
antagonism between them. JCE was supposed to unite Jieeng people but it now
seems to be resorting to its very division.
The only way we can end tribalism is for elders to form National Council of
Elders that can speak with a unified national voice and speak up against
ethnic targeting. These various tribal ‘council of elders’ and their
tribe-centered writings and agendas lead to more tribal division. Unless
these tribal councils are engaged in socially important issues, their
political meddling and ethnically-charged language are only fueling tribal
divisions and disintegration of South Sudan.
SOUTHERN SUDAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT and ARMY
When Dr. Lam and Dr. Riek rebelled against Dr. John Garang, they didn’t
have any special name change because they thought they were merely removing
Dr. John in order for them to remain the leaders of a ‘democratized’
SPLA/SPLM. However, to differentiate Riek’s group from Garang’s group, the
two sides were referred to [informally] as SPLA-Nasir and SPLA-Torit
respectively. Riek and Lam would later change their name to SPLA-United in
1993. When Riek decided in their Akobo convention that SPLA-United be
renamed Southern Sudan Independent and Army(SSIM/A), Lam didn’t go with it
and decided to remain with SPLA-United by proclaiming himself the leader.
It’s therefore crucial for an elder and an intellectual to be explicit
about historical facts instead of merely throwing out historical facts in
an irresponsible and misleading manner. SSIM/A wasn’t formed in 1991 but in
1994 leading to the disagreement between Lam and Riek, the disintegration
of SPLA-Nasir group, and their eventual journey to Khartoum.
THE ROLE OF ELDERS
It looks like a role-reversal has happened in South Sudan. I am appealing
to our elders and senior intellectuals to stop tribal hate speeches and
self-praise. History has been documented and we all know who did what, how,
when and where. We shouldn’t use our contributions during the liberation
struggle to divide the country and tribes. I would advise elders like
Ajoudit and all the members of JCE, to start uniting the country instead of
being agents of division. You don’t have to tell us your historical
contributions - or lack of them - because we all know them. Pitting Jieeng
of Jonglei against Jieeng of Bahr El Ghazal is something that shouldn’t
come from elders. If young people are the ones cautioning elders against
being divisive, then what values are we left with? We are screwed, as we'd
say in North America!
The interviews JCE members conduct with SBS Dinka Radio are horrifying.
They are divisive and dangerous for the future of South Sudan. Whether it
was Ambrose, Ajou, Joshua Diu, they are all horrendously divisive,
short-sighted and conspiratorial. Unfortunately, this is the divisive
language Ajoudit is now using to divide Jieeng people. It’s possible for
Ajoudit to criticize a few individuals without pitting different sections
of Jieeng against one another. I have always criticized JCE without
accusing any one section of Jieeng. Whatever one section of Jieeng does,
it affects all of us. Incitement of the neighbors of Jieeng of Jonglei
should not come from an elder.
As I have always reiterated, JCE needs to reach out to other tribal elders
in order to bridge the tribal divide instead of resorting to not only
dividing different tribes but also dividing Jieeng itself. What has become
of our elders?
PS. Dr. Majak D’Agoot and Madam Rebecca Nyandeeng are politicians and they
should be treated as such not members of Jieeng of Jonglei. They can carry
their own cross as individuals.**************
Kuir ë Garang is the author of South Sudan Ideologically.
Posted in: Opinions
- See more at:
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/southsudankob
View this message at
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
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 SouthSudanKob@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob.
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.