Radio Miraya
2659: Roundtable: Options for ending the transitional period from Civil Society perspective
[Music] The round table. Everyone, welcome to Radio Mariah Roundtable with me, Yachikran. We are very sorry. We have technical issues in the studio. That's why we had to delay for about seven minutes, sorry for that. With nearly nine months to the elections, in accordance with the roadmap, the parties to the article as well as the other political parties outside the government of national unity are bracing themselves for December 20, 24 elections, while already they are into pre-election's preparations. The technical commissions meant to prepare elections, namely the National Election Commission, the political parties cancelled, the National Constitutional Review Commission and the National Bureau of Statistics are into their works after their reconstition. But the diverse positions are clearly coming out from the parties to the article. On whether the election should be conducted in December or not, whilst South Sudan opposition alliance, other political parties, OPP and the SFLM argued that elections should happen without necessarily fulfilling some conditions. The SFLM I/O on the other side of the polar made its position clear that it will not be part of December 20, 24 elections unless all prerequisites are accomplished. The SFLM let allies and the SFLM I/O position are clearly and thoroughly asymmetric and once again recalled to minds the uncertainties prior to the roadmap extension regarding the future of much-wanted elections in South Sudan. The voices of civil society organizations and that of the academia are equally critical in the debate. So we are discussing today the options, what options or options for ending the transitional period from civil society organization's perspective. And in the studio we have Ms. Alokir Malwal, Chairperson of Civil Society Alliance, member of the NCRC and the Chair of Technical Committee for CTRH. Welcome to the studio Alokir. Thank you. Good morning. Then we have Santina Yuel Lungar, Associate Professor of Law in the School of Law, University of Cuba. Welcome to the studio detail. Thank you, James. And we have advocate Molana, Jima Moboar Mariel, Executive Director for Alamats, who is joining us shortly in a minute. Thank you. Yeah, Molana welcome to the studio. Thank you. I think these technical issues in this is making me blind. Now as we, the topic of our discussion suggests, what options that are available for civil society to talk to political parties or parties to the art signal so that elections are done or at least transitional period is ended in a manner that is agreeable to all the parties in the art signal. And let me begin with Honorable Alokir. You will forgive me. I will be switching Honorable and all these things because we have all these titles. Now position of SPLM I/O and the position of the SOA, OPP and SPLMs are quite clear and that one site says elections must be conducted as it is in the roadmap. Then the other side says no. We have to do one, two, three before elections. And this debate has been going on for almost a month now. What is the position of civil society with respect to this? Thank you for this opportunity. Also to be in this round table this morning and one of people also I want to just throw a congratulation of our day, of years a day for international women day, so every woman there could lose an hour into Taibim. Southlam. Southlam. In fact, nowadays we are facing a lot of conferences. And there are really different messages going on and I think we will try as a civil society in our own way also to bring up what are we saying at that level because people are part of this process. It's not only about the politician who are now already putting their issues on the table and we have also noticed the contradictions and people were expecting to get information and news about this long time ago. For us we see the time is very, very, very tight and debating on these issues at this particular moment is an issue for the citizen of South Sudan. As a voiceless people sometimes they don't even get that opportunity to be part of it. We feel like being in this preparation for the election is what had been given as a mandate of the agreement. All of us now live in this era is a time to implement the agreement and everybody is expecting this one to come but the contradiction of the message is where we are now and how should we look into these issues. People feel there should be an earlier contact with them on the issues of the election. Our worry is a time but it's a mass and it's something we have to deal with it because if we are looking for the democratic process and trying to find out how people should exercise this fight which had never been done before and I think this will be the first time if we are going to reach that level. The doubt is the time are we having enough time with all the preparation we have. If we think we can do everything on time then it's okay. People are ready to do but the awareness and how prepared are we is where questions come and we feel like we need to say something about it. So as a chairperson of the civil society alliance and I live alone your responsibility in NCRC and CTHRH as a member of civil society organizations with all the challenges that you have mentioned in your views, do you think that elections should happen as scheduled in the roadmap? You know every time you can't predict what is happening in this roadmap or what is happening in the implementation of the agreement but if they feel because everything is not in the hand of the civil society we are not the only people who are implementing this. It's a joint effort and we need all of us to come together and make sure that all the necessities are available for this time to take the election on its place. People want the election. They want the exercise but are we prepared enough to do this? I cannot predict now at this particular time. From civil society perspective, honorable Loki, take a deep breath and I will come back to you. I know there are two Molanas in the studio, let me go with the Molana in the academia. Molana in the academia, Dr. Santino, with all the challenges that are located as the alluded to and with all information on your desk, do you think that elections should happen as scheduled in the roadmap despite the debate that is ongoing among the parties? Thank you, James, for the question. People of South Sudan have been fighting for a very long time to have a circular democratic country. 3.5 million people have died including the leader, Dr. Jangarang Dumabure. I think the country that they dreamt of is a democratic circular one and the events that happened after 2013 and 2016 were very tragic in nature but the agreement sought to propel the country in a new direction and so since the agreement made it very clear that after three years of the implementation of the agreement, the country will transition to a democratic government. There are benchmarks that were supposed to be satisfied before these elections take place but we also know that the parties have been flexible enough over the last five years in terms of what they could do beyond the agreement. If you think about what happened even before the formation of the executive government in 2019, the president actually issued a decree you know reverting the country to ten states and administrative areas that the president by doing that basically violated the agreement because the agreement made it very clear the mechanisms that would be used to determine the number of states and so but the parties were okay with that. The parties also made the agreement that you know through the roadmap that since certain benchmarks were not met, it was important for them to agree that the government be extended and so it happened. So that is the fact that certain benchmarks have not been met is a testimony to the fact that there are difficulties in implementing the agreement and I saw the press statement by I/O saying that they won a 24-month extension for the met benchmarks to be fulfilled. If you take for example the issue of the unification of forces, you know in 2018 and September, they said that the unification of forces would take eight months and that it would take place before. It was a pre-transitional issue but it didn't take place. Five years down the line the same thing has not been done and so for I/O to say that in the next 24 months the same matter can also be satisfied, I'm not sure whether that is political will on the part of all the political parties to be able to do that. And so for us the people of South Sudan, we are tired of transitional governments. We want to move beyond this transitional government. You know the problem with an elected government is that there is no accountability. You know when people elect their own representatives they are able to say you know what, we are electing you to stand up for us, to speak for us, to represent our views. And so when their representative doesn't reflect that, they say you are not speaking in the manner that we expected you to. You know in some other jurisdiction they have a so-called recall provision where people can say our member representative is not speaking for us, is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with what we expected of, so we recall them. So the problem with an elected government is that there is no accountability and there is no you know development. So we are stuck. So people of South Sudan want a transitional government, the transitional government to end. And so I believe that I/O has a legitimate position in saying that this bank mark should be met. It is a legitimate position but the question is given that this bank mark were not satisfied in the last five and a half years, in the next two years, is there any expectation that this bank mark will also be fulfilled? So I believe that there is a middle way that the parties can agree if there are bank marks that have not been fulfilled, those things can also be deferred to the post-election government. And so from academic perspective, from academia perspective, elections should happen with some agreement. Well yes, the parties have always acted in a way that show that they can compromise. And so if they have the best interests of the country and the people are hard, they can actually reach a compromise and hold elections. Now I will come back to what you call as well as I/O having some legitimate arguments in saying that elections should not be conducted. I will come back to you. But let me go to Molana in the civil society. Molana Juma, with all your colleagues who you colleague have said and what your colleagues in academia have said, Dr. Sal, in your own views, do you think with all these challenges surrounding the prospect of elections, do you foresee or do you say elections should happen? Thank you. Yamis. And also thank you to the listeners that are listening to us around this conversation. And I really appreciate the fact that you have invited us to, above our opinion on this difficult transition that our country is going through. And I will not be very different from what my colleague, my Leonard colleague, Duttora Ewell, and also mama, an okay rep said with regard to the issues of benchmark. This debate of election or no election has become a very difficult one. And I have always referred to it as the question of egg and chicken. What come before the other? Is it the egg or the chicken? And if you look at the exchanges and the French releases from the political parties, especially the mainstream political parties, the SPLMIO and the SPLMIG, you begin to worry and see yourself being caught between a rock and a hot place in as far as the exit on this transition is concerned. But to answer your question, I just want to say, I don't want to be conditional on the issue of benchmark as a refer to by by by by Santino Ewell. With regard to the issue of security arrangement, the issue of population sense, the issue of arbitration of refugees and ID fees to their consequences where they should be able to vote. But as your introduction, we have talked about nine month, nine month left for people to go for a lecture. And if you look at this issue of nine month, I just want to go direct to the basic electoral perforation, very requisite, just forget about this other benchmark and now look at the political parties registration, as it started, if you are looking at nine month and when you are supposed to do that, because as we talk legally, there is no legitimate political party that can go for a lecture as far as the new political party can say, even those that are in the political, in the agreement now, even those that are registered already, they have to go through rise registration, so that they are able to meet the electoral criteria, as said out in the election arc, 2022 as amended. Now, when you look at those things, there is no registration of the political parties. The voter registration is supposed to have started, if you are serious about election data coming up in December, 2024, you also look at the primaries, you know, the primaries is not the party, that's it, and do the primaries alone. It is the political parties cancel and the electoral commission that should be able to guide these people, because that is the start of democracy at the party level. So when you look at all these things, and people are talking about the election in 2024, December 2024, you begin to wonder that what are people talking about, because election is not an event, it is a process. And that process has to start with some of the things that I have seen, including the political parties, the registration, the voter registration, and also the primaries. And therefore, unless we want to do it traditionally, just we wake up, like the way they wake up and did the roadmap, we just wake up one day, and then we say, now we are in December 2024, let's go and vote. I think that is where election can be possible. Otherwise, there are no prerequisite, leave alone those other benchmarks, but this prerequisite should be met. To me, there is no election. From your perspective, as a small animal, with all analysis that you have given, putting aside all the major benchmarks as stipulated in the agreement, these other requirements, like registration of political parties, just for all listeners to get it right, then for what is the registration, and all other preparations concerning elections, they need some months. And in a workshop, I think last month, I was in a workshop where a political party's council chairperson says that for political parties to be registered, it needs at least six months. And if by the end of this month, no political parties registered, political parties are not registered, it will be very difficult for that political party to meet all the requirements before the month, June, and they will be eligible for elections. So with all these, you say, it is not possible practically for elections to happen. Let me come back to Mamalock here, we have so many titles here. Now, Dr. Santina has mentioned, and even Molana Guma referred to these other benchmarks. SVMIO has given as proposed 24 months for constitution making process to be completed, and 24 months from when, it is not as it is stipulated in the agreement as per the position, which is 24 months from the time funds are released. So if funds are released today, then 24 months for constitution process to get one issue to start. Then they have also proposed that eight months for transitional security arraignment. And Santino said earlier that eight months were not enough during pre-transitional period of 40 transition security arraignment to get completed. They also proposed 16 months for population census and eight months for judicial reforms. All these things must, will start from the time funds, related funds are released to related commission. So with all these, what are the implications of this position? Because as I said before, some legitimacy in this argument, what are the implications of this honourable allocation? Thank you once again. I think we are coming clear now to the situation which is putting us even. How should we confront all these obstacles which are facing us? And as I said earlier, the issue of the time, why the issue of the time because of the other related activities which are supposed to be done pre-the election time, or why even we are processing and preparing the nation for the election. All these things are not prepared earlier. We know that. And this is where, like for example, the I/O is looking for 24 months, but when we go to the exactly agreement which was signed, how longs of the time which was given? What prevent us to implement all these time tables accordingly, or when we were putting the matrix of the process of the implementation of the agreement? So what is so new now will happen at this particular time after we have already exhausted and completed the real time for those activities to be done. This is where the normal citizen is like, "Our leaders are only for their own interests, more than the interests of what we need as the people of South Sudan." Look at the situation now. Look at where we are. You can't get a small, whatever, for water, for less than 1,000. Some of them only get like celery, which is less than 3,000 for a month. Do you think this situation is really peaceful enough to make you reach? People have to talk about security arrangement. Are our forces even trained and prepared to take care of the time of the election, time of compromise? To provide security? Are we even prepared to know which limit, which map consequences of everyone as we had been elicited by some of my colleagues here? Do I know if I want to contest, where is the border of my time limit, which water should I target at this time? And we talk also about where are the South Sudanese scattered all around inside. They are also displaced outside, they are refugees, issues like this are always there. So whenever they talk about time, what's clicking our mind as citizens is that they just want to maintain sense. Look at the conflict of the messages they are now giving the people at this time. And they had been there, doing the process since 2018, sitting every time, council of ministers, parliament is there, leadership meetings are there. Are we really serious to do something which will benefit the people of South Sudan? They fought this war together, they were also dreaming like them together and at least everybody needs his own peace at the limit of his family or his community. But when you consider the leader, he should be the one to look for all of us, to look for all the communities, to consider them, see the welfare they need. So whatever is said, it will be done later on according to that is the power of the boss's right or the leadership and the one to drag the country wherever they are taking them. We don't have that power now. So Honorable Al-Gulakir, as a member of civil society, you always say in civil society that you have voice of the voiceless and you aliased it in the introduction. Now with all these challenges and having a diagnosis, the problem and the problem is with the leaders, as you say. What is civil society organization doing? Civil society is trying their level base even. By doing what? By talking to the people, let them know which time is good for them according to the agreement timetable or the rights. They have the rights. They have to be aware of it. Our leaders are not even in direct contact with the grassroots people, whom they want them to vote for them at the time of voting. So the orientation which is giving even the limit way of how we can access and get interactives with people is also determined by the leadership. Sometimes you cannot get the access to expressing yourself to talk. We have heard from some of their statements that even freedom of expression will be an issue so that we talk and let them know exactly what is it you can be called as I had also earlier, one of my colleagues have said one day in the morning you will be asked to come and vote. But will you do that comfortably with your choice or also you may be forced to vote at the time which you don't feel is okay or is comfortable for you or maybe that candidate is not your real choice. This is what we want people to know at the same time and we thought according to the timetable of the agreement, we could be doing this a year ago. Not now. Honorable Lockair, you are in the civil society organization. You have talked to leaders before the liberalized agreement or before artists and you have talked to them during the agreement in negotiation, you are still talking to them and talking, talking, talking, talking is not doing the work. So what options is left for you now that people are debating on whether to go for elections or not to go for elections and you being the voice of voiceless, what is the option, the main option that is available for you is what we are driving at here. Honorable Lockair. You are bringing me again to that point, you know, we said that's the only weapon and method we have, talking, talking, talking because you cannot force them, you cannot force the leaders, we cannot force ourselves and we are not for violence, behaviour so that we achieve what we need. So in a nutshell, you are saying that you in the civil society have failed to speak for the people. No. No. Now, don't take it like that. I am talking to my people, they know what they want. Is it we fail to talk to our leaders or they fail to understand what we want? Okay. I failed. I would say Molana, Molana want to say something. So Molana, a civil society organisation failed, they failed to convince the leaders and act in the interests of the people. No. The civil society have not failed and that's why we have continued to remind our leaders of their responsibilities under the peace agreement and the difficult situation is that our leaders see the civil society as an enemy to their progress in as far as the political interests are concerned. But civil society are always there to bring out the larger interests of the voiceless as you have stated and what we need to do is now re-strategize on how best we can be convinced our leaders to understand that even governing on transition to be harnessed in jimmies for the last 19 years this country has been governed through transition from 2005 up until now and people have never been given the opportunity to elect their own leaders and there is no way you can continue with this monopoly because at the end of the day, people may get tired and then they will just leave you to do whatever you want to do and this is where we are now because people have talked and everybody has decided to do whatever they want to do and nothing has come out of it. So this call for leadership, this call for political will, this call for nationhood said that people feel patriotic about what was the vision of them being in their leadership because as a leader you need to understand that you are not leading yourself, you are leading the people and therefore you should also take time to listen to the people. So the civil society considering our contacts are trying their best to convince the leaders and have a conversation and maybe when we come to these strategies and the approaches that we are using later on, we want to convene a conference where we shall be able to discuss with the political actors on the way forward after the transition or even as we head to at the end of the transition because most of these things that they are talking around are not realistic and are not practical in as far as the exit out of this transition is concerned but before you take it maybe tomorrow and let me address the issue of I/O. I have read through the I/O position in as far as the election and the end of transition is concerned and I/O has not done anything different, it's just a summary of the agreement that they are trying to put in place and I can say here without fear or contradiction that I/O has been a toothless bulldog in all this process because as a opposition party in the comparative studies that I have made and also in the political situation around the world, coalition government are the government that deliver a lot than directly elected government. Why? Because the opposition and the government are in the same government. These are an opportunity that the opposition will always use to leverage on the delivery of services such that in five years that they have been in this transitional government I/O should have used that opportunity to tell the IG that we need to do ABCD because at the end of the day they can be able to vote within the parliament or in the cabinet against anything that is into the violation of the agreement but they haven't done that. They have just been sleeping, running around and feeling that somebody will talk on their behalf and you could see from the devotee's picker when he was relating that to the statement that I/O will not participate in the election that throw away the peace agreement. So their interest is just on the peace agreement because their live line is the peace agreement. The moment you remove the peace agreement then they die immediately and that is why all the politicians are struggling to see. So the I/O had made the opportunity for the last twenty-four, five years and now it's suggesting twenty-four months, suggesting eight months, suggesting all those months. Then you are extending the transition and that is the interest of all the political parties by the way even the IG, you know the IG is using we must go for election as a smoke screen but their interest is in the extension of the transitional period and that is where we need now to come and talk to them. What is this silver bullet? What is this magic bullet that you want to use so that if we extend the transitional period like a purpose I/O was saying, what do you want to do that you did not do in five years that we can be able to do a BCD even after the extension or after the election. So these are conversations that we need to have and as civil society we are going to engage them and if they accept our milestone that we are going to set we will ask the view bring your position paper. Suppose you are given six months or one year after the transition what do you want to do in that one year? If you are given 24 months what do you want to do the IG will bring the I/O will bring the other political parties will bring and then we see and we agree what will be the implementation mechanism not like the way that things have been happening. So this is a very difficult situation and the I/O does not have anything different according to my reading. Malanit is interesting to know that even the IG with allies that allies in the position of elections not allies politically. The SOA and OPP are saying the same thing as the IG you say that elections must be connelled. So it is interesting to learn from you that even this parties that call for elections and say elections must happen as scheduled in the roadmap are not having an intention of extension as you say Dr. Santino what is the obvious on this is it the case that as diagnosed by Molana humor that even those calling for elections are not ready for elections given the challenges before them. It is difficult to conclude that the parties calling for elections intend to extend because if you look at the you know the dynamics around the country the SPLM has an upper hand in terms of mobilization other parties have not done outreach to mobilize their voters. So SPLM seems to be more prepared than other political parties but it is could also be true that you never know the outcome and so the SPLM IG is going the international community and the citizens of South Sudan to believe that they are more interested in elections so that they think that this is you know a legitimate position but it could be an underlying you know attempt to make people believe that they are the legitimate speakers for the people of South Sudan. So it is either way but the thing is the parties in my opinion are not really ready for elections as my colleagues have said that if you look at the behavior of the parties you know opposition has continually you know accused the SPLM of violating the agreement sweeping you know ministerial positions here and there and you also see I/O for example like the fighting that is taking place in there and you see what happened for example in Hunkur in Ruwein County a few months ago when the I/O are tax civilians and took the cars you know and Dr. Rick Machar who is the head of the SPLM I/O was conversing with the situation and so if you see the way parties are acting it seems they are not ready to bring the people together for elections to take place. So the parties are not really because they are benefiting a bloated government we have 650 members of parliament in both the legislatures like the National Assembly and the Council of States and then you have in each state we have 100 members of parliament that is about how many? A thousand, ten thousand, ten thousand, ten thousand. You can see plus a demonstrative area and this is a government that is actually consuming every dime and the people of South Sudan are not getting any benefit from the development so the people of South Sudan are saying okay you fought yourselves now it is time for us to have a say in terms of who governs us in terms of where our resources should be used for development. People are interested in elections but the parties we are still in uncertainty as to whether they mean this or that and I have seen the international community coming up with a lot of contradictions for example I read the Norwegian ambassador said of people of South Sudan are not ready for elections I read the position of animist chief saying that the South people of South Sudan are not the people of South Sudan but South Sudan is not ready for elections but I have also seen the position of the U.S. ambassador saying the elections should be held this year without fail so you can see there is contradictions within the international community and within the country itself we as ordinary citizens who are just on the sideline are watching players making statements that contradict each other and resources are not being availed to make sure that election no who is saying which one is true is the government ready for elections where is the money you fund the National Bureau of Statistics you fund the National Constitutional Review Commission you fund the political parties election commission all these so for us to believe that what they are saying is true that should be conduct that should be action that speak to what they are saying so the failure to act towards elections is indicative of then underlining reason of not going for elections correct that's what an ordinary people would read since people say things that they don't much with action probably they don't mean what they say exactly Dr. Santino from academia perspective you have done comparative studies illegal and political science related things and you might have found a way that to a situation like this this situation is not unique to such as such. So with all these contradictions from international community as you say and also from political parties the normal citizens are waiting so what would be the way out here if you are given opportunity to a device and here now you have the mic talk to the people of South Sudan talk to the government of South Sudan the options that is that will bring us together I may be in the transitional period in a manner that we all want now it for us to be able to move this country forward you know this time when when national interest is more important than your political interest in in most cases that is the case and I think that the people who are our political leaders have been in this political arena for the last 40 years they have seen how people have suffered they have seen our people dying they have seen our people having no access to a you know a minute is such as education health care they have no road they have no food these people are suffering you should not subject our people to your political interest you know if you think that you have a political interest you should you know reconcile it with the public interest that is what politics mean public politics mean you know being consistent with with public interest I remember Bonamal while defining politics in his South Sudan democratic gazette saying that the reason for being in politics is public interest if if you cannot you know be consistent with you know advancing public interest then you're not a politician so I believe that the people of South Sudan are hell hostage to political interest but what we want it seems is different from what political political actors want because they want to stay in power they want a system in which there is no accountability in which even a single individual is given a sovereign commodity like oil so and so take this commodity this time go and sell it that's for you for you this is not the system that we want so the system that we want is a system in which the members of parliament are able to speak for the interests of their people in which the executives are able to execute what is in the law not what is it consistent with their own personal ambition so I think for this country to move forward I think politics has to give way to you know public participation well that's what you are advising the leaders politics should give way to public interest now in which manner because with all these things because they still there will still be the one to make to make decision to give way to public interest or services yes but they hold the pain so in which manner can they do this by resignation hopefully not a pressure you know the way the way you know a system that is responsive a system that is accountable is a system that listens to the voice of the people and so if the people of South Sudan are organized in terms of calling upon their leaders you know I don't want to say that people should go to the street to demonstrate that is not what I'm calling for but that is a way for people of South Sudan like the civil society to organize workshop seminars and to put position papers together to say no what no we are fed up with the way things are being run you know listen to us we need elections now and prepare make people move to that to conduct elections the conduct of election I think that's the only way you can do we also need the international community to to help the ordinary people we are people are dying every day well with humanitarian international community maybe doing its best I don't want to speak into that they can pressure they can't they can't they can't put pressure to bear on on leaders so that they can act differently that does continue will agree with me that during the negotiation I never before the negotiation of the 2015 peace agreement and the revitalize peace agreement up to date you have been seeing international community coming out clearly calling all all all the possible with with all the possible terminologies that they have calling on our leaders to act to add the interests of all the public that has not that has not been hinted to and you did this is the same thing with with what I said before the civil society organization have used all the the weddings that they have in there in the in the dictionaries but that has not made sense to to to to to the political leaders to act to the public interest so what is available for international community to act now what is to to to to to to to to to say in your own suggestion that is something that there are there are several ways of dealing with this and and the first thing you know if if you look at what the internet the writing of of dr frances day talking about responsibility to protect the the concept of responsibility to protect is that every country has a sovereign responsibility to protect the interest of its people and when the and a country fails to advance the interest of its people the international community comes in and says you know what we are we see that you are facing a number of challenges and we want to work with you we want to tell you that there are each areas where you have failed and there are areas where you are doing well where you have failed we want to give you a hand and work with you you know language I know what I want to underscore is that when the international community speaks to leaders of a given country in a way that is persuasive it tends to be more effective but when you push the leaders against the wall and threaten them with sanctions and tell them that you are you know bad in such a way that they feel inadequate it makes them more reconsidering it they become hardened and they fail to act so I think the international community should use all the tools that it have they call it's you know carried in the state right they can use these tools to be able to exact compliance on the part of our leaders okay here we are Molana yeah you want to this position of international community is indeed very interesting and I think Molana ULS really elaborated upon it very well in the sudden that we are not blaming international community for 100% being reluctance on supporting sauce so done because they have done their best in terms of extension of humanitarian assistance in terms of sunshine in terms of amin bago but then also they have they are feeling this piece fatigue yeah and they are so confused about the contact of sauce so done how to handle it because they look at the citizen decide and then they look at the politician decide and the whole situation is so fragile but what is required of the international community of course not with the standard the global crisis you look at Sudan you look at the velocity and then you look at the Ukraine or Russia so their attention has been driven away from this but the people that should have been leading the international community in understanding the context of sauce so dance at the feast granted such that they are able to tell people every time throughout the five years that they parties to the agreement we're missing any milestone in the agreement they could bring it to their attention and say this is not happening and then the international community comes in and then the international community should be unit in its voice and that is why I am as confused as the Torah you are in what I am hearing from UMS what I am hearing from U.S what I am hearing from Norway because they are not sitting down and say as international community or actors in sauce so done let us sit in one room like where we are sitting now and then decide what our position should be you know you agree on one position inside that you also don't sign our contract victory messages on what should be done in as far as that country is concerned so in my opinion what I was requesting the international community to do is maybe to sit down and give clear message between these two process election or no election and then they state their position that because of ABCD we don't think the election should happen in sauce done by December 2024 and if the election do not happen what are the scenarios what do we need to do we need to do ABCD said that they said the guideline for the government you know they are fighting as to the government so the government may listen to them more than they are not listening to us and then they tell them okay for you not to go for election but to go for this alternative these are the characteristics that you need to make I think with that using now the stick and current the partners and the actors political actors can be able to find a position so I am a feeling once again to the international community to have one pen position on elections in sauce done and the end of transition in sauce done so that our leaders can be able to know this the position of the international community because we are seeing based on this contradictory statement we are seeing the international community as being different political parties with the insoles done because they are not leading us to any direction yeah. Honorable Alokir where are with all these international community the international political leaders with their interests and so forth and so forth where is the common where is the common South Sudan is not you as a member of civil society where is the where is the where where are you locating my mother there in the village your mother in the village your uncle there in the village somebody who do not have touch who can handle Mike and express her or his grievances to to to to to to to the nation and maybe to the world that I'm feeling this and this and this as we are doing now what do you look at this people yeah talking about this issues in this way is really putting us nowhere good if you have noticed as part of the people of South Sudan that how do we look into our people who are there in their places and their villages if if it is about we who is them in the center we even we cannot trust where are they taking us to what do you think about them there abandoned and ignored there is nothing like them in anything and I was like the other time people are talking about this issue of women and women and how important and not important and people are talking about election to come and they need the voices do they or not they will ask you now to come and vote the same thing they will ask the mom the grandma anybody in the village there we need you to come and vote what for what they don't know what for who they don't know how many what is they don't know what type of what even the one what is still new in our normal life as South Sudanese we had never been practicing a lot of our rights and this is where I said the rights are not even given when we try as a civil society is very difficult even to reach them the access to reach your people to let them know what is happening is an issue so that they can have that voice and if we feel that the international community or the friends or the region itself I took it because it is very important we start with the partners and then we we also have those guarantees if they are not even involved until now I feel like I don't hear the voices what are they really saying maybe maybe we can hear the international community more than the region leaders in this perspective being part of the neighbors being also the direct grant us of the agreement or the situation of making peace to their countries world or the states where they are committed it's another issue so if if these themselves are not connected do you think my mom there or grandma will be really connected of what is happening they are ignored they had been nothing and I guess they are for the sake of that they are still breathing and they are in the map of South Sudan and they are called South Sudanese but nobody knows them okay we know the only like if we talk about political parties they go and address the one who are also following them for their own interests not for the interests of what they want at that level okay to all my guests in the studio and our listeners let go for for a few minutes break and when we come back we shall pick up from where Honorable Laker is speaking the failure of the state to protect its citizens and this is what Dr. Santino referred to as earlier responsibility to protect let go for break and when we come back we shall pick up from them. Casting from the heart of the nation's capital this is Radio Mariah 101 and 101.5 FM Radio Mariah the voice of peace the round table welcome back from break you are listening to Radio Mariah Roundtable with me Yaj Gran and we are discussing options for ending the transitional period with from civil society organizations perspective and in this studio we have Dr. Ayul Longar professor in the School of Law University of Cuba we have Molana Duma Moore Mariah is executive director of Alams and we have Honorable Laker Molowal a chairperson of civil society alliance we are discussing the options that are available from civil society perspective and you will be able to call us on the lines that are available 0 9 1 2 0 6 2 9 5 0 or 0 9 1 2 0 6 2 0 7 9 or Texas or send your message on our what's up I mean what's up Facebook page available online Dr. Santino Honorable Laker was explaining how the state has failed to protect its people not from physical harm only but with all the services health education and so forth is all about the security of the people and within inter-communal conflict that is ongoing instead has done less to protect people and this is what you prepare to before in the writing of a professor adding the responsibility to protect the responsibility to protect is holistically on the allies on the states it is the responsibility of the state the international community its intervention is limited by 1648 treaty and there's West Palin treaty that grant the state sovereignty to do to operate within its bodies but with responsibility to protect it has a limitation so to how far as in details as the state of South Sudan fail to protect its citizens in linking it to elections Santino there are two dimensions to sovereignty one aspect is legal sovereignty and the other aspect is in relation to the ability of the state to provide for its citizens so when it comes to legal sovereignty South Sudan is a member of the international community a recognized member and it is a member of the United Nations is a member of the various international organizations suggesting that it is a recognized entity under the law and it is over on its behalf of its people it is over the other aspect is what you touched on responsibility to protect which is in relation sovereignty means also the ability of the state to discharge its sovereign responsibility providing for its people providing food providing security providing education providing all those other needs that are important for a nation to be a viable one and we have seen that over the past few years South Sudan has been struggling in terms of its ability to provide for its people if you look at the UN development index you see South Sudan ranks at the bottom in terms of health care in terms of education in terms of health in terms of child mortality so many things South Sudan ranks at the bottom in almost every category so we can say that South Sudan has really been unable to deliver and so if you think about state failure which is the inability of the state to provide vital services to its people South Sudan is struggling I cannot say that South Sudan is safe it fails state I cannot we cannot say that because there's a semblance of statehood that is still there right it is only the political will that is needed for it to be able to deliver so the government has been challenged in significant ways and it is not because South Sudan doesn't have resources it has it's only that resources are not distributed in a way that everyone is able to enjoy to get access to the basic necessities so I think we have failed as a people together and I think the government has not shown political will to provide but this challenge is not a single person's responsibility it's not a single party's responsibility I think it is a responsibility for all of us as a people because if we ordinary people are seeing that an oil cargo is being given to a particular individual to sell and we keep silent then we are also complacent in what the government is doing and so this is a collective responsibility so for us to be able to to to be a respected member of the international community we need to be very serious in terms of holding our leaders accountable in terms of our citizens also exercising our right as provided for in the constitution. You said before that the state itself has these issues and is unable to provide all these santina explain the the the the the pillars that gives a state responsibility to protect this citizen elections is part of sovereign activity that santina might have not mentioned now failure to elections failure to conduct elections as stipulated in the agreement means continuation of the transition as a Marana said before and this leads to more suffering because the accountable government will not be in position until elections are conducted so as a member of civil society organizations how do you make sense in this what is the bridging scenario that you can provide to to the government so that they can listen to you? Yeah thanks once again you know there is an issue which we put ahead every time the link and the connection the link and the connection how far we as stakeholders in this country were connected together and when you talk about pillars of government do we feel that we have to do a joint work together or not civil society is like abandoned isolated because even if people are coming for a turning point of a nation exercising their democratic rights for example people were talking about dissemination of the peace agreement itself so that the people should understand what is there that link is missing this consideration is missing between us and our leadership or our government as civil society i had never heard of that space where we had sometime come and sit in issues together when we were for example connected it was about peace process where we were having that chance of sitting together and trying to put our point of view which would direct from the people or from the grassroots or from any other voiceless uh uh presentation in the peace process time this was avail as the other partners were also part of the process as they called us like the international community or the division now home alone for ourself this connection is nowhere to be found yeah unless you are only in any other political or constitution position you may get the access to have that opportunity of addressing issues and talking to them when you take your own space being the right citizen of the right sovereign country then your voice is wherever you put it it end up there and die there this is another part of work we need we need that connection with the leadership we need them to listen to us and we listen to them either they convince us that this thing should be done like this and we follow them we do it the way it is because we are convinced or they also listen to us and then they adjust what they are doing as to what we need and how the people need it you know when you put the leadership as a leadership it is somebody who will give that services to the people and try to enhance and change the life to the better position but not only to maintain yours this is where we are always using this words and maybe this is what they don't like but the truth is painful it's hurting them but that is what is going on the connection is needed otherwise we have to sit there should be a space for the civil society for the academia for other stakeholders to address issues together with the leadership maybe because as people are accusing for example they are representative in the house of speaking when you talk about that there will be slayer and so forth what they are saying there they had never been doing that connection with the people that this is what we want and this is how they are going to say they should be supposed to be a messenger then going and sing on behalf of the people they are and talk on behalf while they are not even taking the information from the people and you say I represent them you represent them then you have the right to say anything your own way or we have to consult each other and then talk together and you take the voice as a messenger this is what my people are saying at the graphic this is how they want it thank you we are not getting their voice those representative in that house and which are we going to vote for them we don't know what they are saying okay they are the leaders who are speaking leadership is different from the representative of the people we want also to hear their voices thank you so much let let let take this to to Molana to give us his contribution with regard to the question and then we shall give our chance to call us and also I have a number a number of questions here from our Facebook page and some text messages here I will forward them to you Molana what is the way forward here from civil society perspective the way forward from all these trap we are in yeah the way forward is to have a very critical conversation among different actors in this also the needs of us and I want to revisit the question of the failing state and not failing state and people have been trying a way from discussing this because people don't differentiate you know the moment you start talking about it's also done being a failing state people don't differentiate it whether the government is an entity minus the people that are leading it seem like you are talking about people being the failures people look at themselves individually but they don't look at the social contract theory whereby you are delegated by the people to represent them such that you can be able to deliver services to them and and if you look at the sample that you know that the professor was talking about it is there but if you look at the indicators some of the of the state we have a state which is not failed but then if you look at the indicators then you conclude that we are a failing state and this has been scientifically improved by different indicators and indexes but then the way forward would be let think about social done let me be try to step backward and say from 2005 or even from independent what is it that social done that we envision to have as leaders you know there are these things calling the spiritual aspect of our life call meditation you know you sit back and be detained on yourself you lock yourself in you think very critically about your life even without talking or without any noise and then you think about what is it that I so you want to take the old South Sudan territory so the leaders need to be detained okay about what is the South Sudan that they wanted out of Sudan and where do they want it to go to and this can happen at the individual level of the president and all the vice president that we have and then after that you scale it up to a conversation that involve a number of stakeholders what is really affecting us so much is that we are excluding ourselves from discussing issues that affects the country we think that there are people who have the monopoly or where this country should go to and you could even see the kind of press briefing the reckless press briefing that some of the government official do in this country where do you tell people if you don't like what is happening go away where do people go this also done is their country there is nowhere anybody can go so this issue of exclusion need to be sent out the discussion and then we consult every single social that is we have an opinion and that is why at civil society we try to make sure that that is inclusivity in terms of developing policies in terms of sharing information in terms of decision-making so that at the end of the day when you make any decision even this transition we are to discuss on how it should have been done or even the roadmap by the way gemist the roadmap was very exclusive in nature and that is why it came out in a very funny way where we could not be able to meet all the milestone of exclusible civil society as exclusively or even the political parties themselves themselves because somebody just woke up from the wrong or the right side of the debate and then came up with a what they call the roadmap and I now think they are going to do the same thing and that is what we don't want to do so the only way out is if there is any way forward for all of us is to have a intensive consultation on the direction this country should take before we could even think of any other extension or liberalisation of the roadmap so a critical meditation a critical meditation dialogue among South Sudan is beginning with the leaders to ever citizen of the country indeed before any extension he thought of yes okay let me post discussion to you from our from our online listeners is a top top top fun it's called Gemist Rye my job is from Unity State Bentayo Town what are the key options for ending transitional period while worrying parties did not put any implementation in good places yeah seen they are they seen we have started to implement this peace agreement I'm reading as they are thing is yeah as it is written then the pal Costa from Gudela West Block 3 from the looking of things even if the transitional period is extended nothing will be implemented in state it can prolong the suffering father this what Alokir said before then what roles can the civil society play to make sure elections are not postponed this question will go to Molana Mobor then taban sebede gildo and I'm reading this part my options if possible let the president himself should president himself should come to the radio as as other president there are that they are doing so as other president that are doing so I think that's what he meant so that it address the public on on public on is what is needed I think I'm reading as the messages come to to to us and then we go or to job job job job your call job call your call mayom did from quite quite sparse by arm do you think do you think elections will be conducted while the government should not address the issues issues of communion violence across the the nation and firearms in the hands of civilians do you think elections will happen when the government has not addressed the issues of of arms in the hands of civilians and there is this message from from our if listener did not indicate the name he said if you fail as a leader why don't you give room to other people from Makouri as Makouri why I joke in ramshell hotel university of gibber is in ramshell hotel in university of gibber here in in gibber town and then we have this common I mean question from Adi Adi Samuel will it be possible for the so-called peace secretaries to step aside and leave citizen to come up with civilian rule expert team to run up the country and organize credible elections this is this this question will go to Santino then Malone I will detail my my time my time do we have president in this country it's a serious question if yes and then he he said do we have president in this country if yes why would why would he graduate necessary forces and it was not implemented and then a second question what are the soldiers from the opposition group not receive why are soldiers from opposition group not receiving salaries is a question then civil society organization is beneficiary like so on IO so you may have a civil society organization here saying that you are beneficiary this is the point that you will have to clear to you let me begin with a dr are you a long hour with all these comments some questions if we correspond to them as we wait for other callers to come in uh Santino oh okay so which one do you want me to address because um uh if you have been writing down some you can address any question and add a question that I'm not handle will will go to a local consumer okay so um the one question says that will it be possible for political actors to step aside to give way to a technocratic government yes right uh someone asked that question I think this is an idea that was actually floated I mean what is during the uh was brought up during the negotiation negotiation because some people were saying that the current political actors were too controversial were too difficult to to work with and that for South Sudan to be stable a government formed by technocrats should be established the the problem is that um rational actors tend to pursue their personal interest and if you have a way in terms of resources in terms of power you will not easily step aside and allow someone else to take over that has to be some kind of pressure for someone to feel that if they continue to be on the throne then they would be under serious um scrutiny and that they would not be able to um to enjoy a secure uh exercise of leadership so that is the only way someone can step aside and say I'm not I'm not continuing while the idea is is good um it is not practical in the sense that the current political actors who are holding guns you know they have their own separate armies you cannot tell them go away and and and allow someone else to go now that's the on well it is a good idea but it's not possible in the context of our country that's that's that's what I can say uh the other question was um do you think uh will be the uh do you think the elections can be held with many arms in the hands of civilians of civilians with ongoing communal conflicts and so on going communal conflict yeah uh the challenge here is is is the inability of the security uh sector to be able to exercise uh dominion over um you know the they say that there's a theory that says that the government has monopoly over the exercise of of power actually right so this can only happen if a person who is acting outside the law is able to believe that if they continue to act that way there will be serious sanctions and that is when the government has the power to threaten lay down your arm otherwise you will face serious consequences the person will be able to surrender now if you we look at our context like what happened in warrup in 2022 where a a full convoy of of tanks and and personnel where attacked by civilians and the the the case them away they destroyed tank and then killed the the the soldiers so you can see that there is no balance that that there is almost a balance of of power in terms of civilians and and then and the army so it's it is almost impossible for the government to uh carry out an effective um uh disarmament but it it's also possible if there is persuasion in terms of of leadership being able to convince the ordinary people that these elections are important and that for us to have a peaceful country you should surrender your arm that is possible but our country is unpredictable and so no one can actually um say with a definitive conclusion that it is possible to conduct elections with arms in the in the hands of civilians because one thing is that if one of the political parties who are vying during elections loses and the people in that particular area tend to support that political party they can react and and and and can lead to another episode of violence so it's it's it's a good thing to conduct the disarmament but it's also difficult to conduct that disarmament without serious consequences so we are left as what Molana was saying that south Sudan is unable to exercise governmental authority and therefore is a failed country it's something that is not disagreeable someone can actually admit that it is a an authentic statement thank you so much dr. Sal let me receive this call before i come to alokir and juma hello radymraj. morning uh your name and your question uh telling the truth the thing that we were expecting is a citizen of this country my question is as the polarization of these agreements they made an agreement as uh once a while from a day down seven the government remaining power without bringing it back to the citizen as the civil society what will be the way forward exactly uh for the citizen to get the power because it becomes very hard that those of the guns are the one who are right in the country when you kill people in this country they were in good position but when you play with peacefully without killing people without fighting you will not be a dead power what will lead to alternative exactly as a civil society or boys or boys about this number one number two the i/o is opposed to for the government for the ruling party to develop the country but the i would now become an obstacle for the government not to make development and not to go for election the economy become completely zero and that is the politics that build the economy so what will be the alternative of this thank you okay the second question will go to to madam alokir while the the first question from debit magok will go to juma and the first question is is is emagok is saying that the the the the the the government has captured the the the the the welfare of the citizen and the citizen uh do not to have a way an entryway in how in order to claim back that that is the responsibility in in what you said be your affair to before other social contract so the relationship of the two parties to the contract are all captured by one party so he's saying what what what what is the way forward how can you can can can the other party reclaim its right on on on in the contract this was from debit magok later see another call hello Adam right uh yeah your name and your question is ganging wow oh from wow yeah ganging from wow ganging ganging from wow yeah go ahead my question to the debt is uh as long as elected is concerned and some of us the members of the party we are saying we must go for election no matter what happened so i wonder uh the civil society point of view if this government is not ready to take people's political elections and there was a question of uh technocrats government to be formed how you how are you going to civil society going to organize this and i believe the only uh party to do this in civil society together with the public who are supposed to activate if they're doing the government is not ready they will put it aside and inform the new government to make a new transition in the state of the same government to attend that is one question another question is going to Dr Ayul right along according to the low perspective according to the low perspective these agreements are supposed to be in parliament in the three years and they'll uh which say it's people fail this party spell to inculment agreement it does not say that they don't fail they fail and they are at on on on on transition attention and on transition extensions of anti-driven they state when they see the time is almost near for a for a election they'll put for another attention so you know in little perspective what do you what do you think can be done in case if you take on the court the fact is to agreement i'm not saying that if you pass into something you need to be i'm actually trying to so are we faffling our thousand that is not in needable to uh i feel hope the case again if the government we take them to the court why they don't sell the country and why they put the country to the supreme okay yeah another question is yeah the last thank you very much gyan has raised a very big legal question that now can do a citizen have a right to take this government to ambit your politician to court for failing to to to deliver and failing to to lead them to elections and he said elections must be conducted no matter what happens so what is civil society organization how are you going to help us so that elections are conducted no matter what happens which i i sent in a year longer will be the last let me come to to melana i want to give you each one of you two minute two minutes each to respond to the questions okay then thank you gimme sir the question now so many and you know it is sometime an ethical to ask question and then you are not answered yeah yes sure you you try to respond to them or we'll try to uh to respond to some of them in bullet form and i really appreciate the callers for these uh critical questions and these are the questions that all of us are asking citizens of sauce are done just to begin with the question of gyan deng prong wow citizens have the right to take the government to courts and especially parties to the agreement challenging the violation of any provision of the agreement and this should have continued from 2015 up until now unfortunately some of us are practicing advocate and we know these status of our court they are as mess up as the government because they are not working so you can take a petition to court on your constitutional matter or if he's a grammar related matter and no determination can be done and therefore the courts are not independent and they are not doing anything in as far as the accountability is concerned and that is why the i most of us are not even taking these cases because it is an exercise in futility you don't do anything you just take with your time putting your money there putting your time there and nothing happened at the end of the day and then the the issue of going for election of course everybody want to go for election and that is a mess after every five years people should go for a routine election and fortunately our leaders have made it very difficult for us to achieve that democratic goal and of course all of us have to be honest to each other these are our seasonal politicians there is no way somebody was coming up last time and i was challenging this one of our purposes that there is something called the exit it is generational exit and this thing does not happen in any political philosophy whereby you wipe away everyone these are the people who are holding power they are holding resources they are holding the security of this country and therefore there is no way you can tell them get away and we have to do this one so what we need to understand and also then is is that we need to have a conversation with them conveying them that this is for the general well-being of all of us including the politician and i think that is a conversation in a civil society that we are trying the question of uh taken a corrupt government has come up separately from different people who are having questions and this is something that is associated with the regime change you know uh and that is also a hot kick that we have to treat with a lot of caution because sometime we are just taken a corrupt we are not saying even the government does not have taken a corrupt they have taken a corrupt but what are they doing so what is the magic that you think will come with these other people that will change the way the things are but i want to go direct to some of the question that were asked to the civil society especially the question of phosphate david monguk he talk about phosphate that they have found the agreement to the password where they continue to remain in the government sometime people can forget the phosphate and that is where the problem is now our politician forgotten the first word about the transitional government and the extensions of this agreement because they are very confused now what do they tell sources that is again after the roadmap because it is extension after the extension and that is why they are trying to create confusion so that the people are saying your election the other party is saying no election so what we are trying to do now is to create an environment for dialogues where we can bring in everybody and then we create a framework on where we need to go as a country you might just just let me interrupt you on this this you see you have stock of dialogues and coming up within a conference form or where all should sit down and talk and talk uh who will be the host of this who will be organized this civil society will will will the will the politician attend it we are trying to consult with the politician now okay at different level okay we are trying to consult with the politician at different level and hopefully by next week we shall be able to have that and we will involve a radio miraya and the UN team said that they can also be able to share in their opinion we shall be available yeah now uh somebody was asking the question where why are they opposition soldiers not being paid not everybody has salaries everybody does not have salaries so it is not only about the opposition soldiers there are no soldiers that are called opposition soldiers and they come on soldiers the only thing is that there is no money but uh i want to also answer somebody who asked about uh civil society being beneficiaries uh so uh and also OPP and i also want to return that question who is a civil society civil society are all of us who are not in the government including the one who is asking the question so it has to come out very clearly how are we benefiting i know there is this uh concept that the civil society received money and then they use them to reach themselves and they are not speaking for the voiceless but there are those civil society everybody is not the same but then again you cannot forget the mandate as to what you are supposed to do speaking for for the people okay all that we do is to make sure that when you get that money you use it to raise awareness among the people on the civil political and and civil crime okay last but not the least is that somebody was asking especially uh uh on uh communir and uh violence arms in the hands of his hands of civilians that is all about the security arrangement when we have security in place then people can be able to give up the arms because people are making use of the arms now to protect themselves you know seeing the government does not have the ability to protect some of these people they end up protecting themselves and that is what promote the acquisitions of fire um so that communities can protect them thank you so much Honorable okay two minutes please yes thank you so much uh i think most of the question had been answered by my colleagues and i i really thank my citizen who are really interested in following this conversation i felt at the beginning that like people will be like what is election what are you talking about do we know anything in this country and think but they know something they know exactly that they have the right and this is what we have said from the beginning that everybody wanted election we want the election but how should we reach that time how should we do it is are we really prepared and ready to do that my my my my citizen who are talking they are all of them they are the side of the civil society you know either they are a student or any other junior staff and citizen these are the people who are interested now asking question and they want to know the way forward isn't not an indication that people are concerned in this country and they really want something good for them that is that is a great achievement i feel like my people are really worried and this is opposite the way of other speakers we heard from the people who are in the position or the authority we have heard them as we have started our conversation i owe what they say i do what they say other agenda or correlations of other political parties we had their voices it's very clear but look at the people here everybody is worried everybody wants them to be fixed in a right way i think this type of question will let the leaders listen and and and find something out of it let them know that people feel things i'm not good others are talking about taking them to the court do we have even this type of uh constitutional courts or supreme courts where they look into these issues and these are the rights where they can do things like that people are talking about with communal violence violence which means the country is not secure it's not safe it's not stable this they have to listen to what questions come from it means something it's not correct if they are talking like do we have a president in this country there was a question like that yes we do it's a president whether he's doing it right or doing it wrong whether we like it whether we don't like him he is a president is there this is an estate is there this is a country is there and why the question comes like that now whoever in the in the position of this should ask him say why my people are saying like that what is wrong then you read adjust and revisit your own self but we are here this is the voice we are saying as if we are here ready we want to connect we want to talk we want to that we want to give you what we have you may listen to the other partners because they also support what they do with with with with material support with financial support but we have the idea we have the look we have another vision in our mind which is coming from our own people can we have that opportunity to do it together again our honor jama is coming with our ideas that we should see we have the the the conference because civil society had made some of the attempt to sit together to dialogue among ourselves to analyze the situation in this country so that we come out with a position which will support which will help them which will make things more good and easy for them we press them we feel good that we are proud of them but otherwise it's not going that way it's going the other way and this other way we don't see it sometime do you know you cannot see it because things are overpowering the way of the citizens and the people they have also talked about you know guns in the hands of the citizens this is one of the issues we put up as a challenge an obstacle to the election because that gun can be used in your head and you are asked to vote and put your vote this way that's that's those are the issues we feel we need the election but how should we do it with guns in everybody hands yeah you even if you are not the one doing it like the direct leaders themselves but i had been in in posing away or another or i need so and so i can also use my guns and come to the village and tell you you have to come this way and vote for so and so these are issues which are facing us and we need to work on them together and if the dialogue continue and if the opportunities are continuing them things will be okay now we know more about what people want how do they want that and we are really trying as a civil society in other stakeholders the academia and the other groups they want things to go the right way and we want to support our government we want to support our leadership we want them to listen to what the voice of the people is down there thank you thank you so much this is this is this is this is the opportunity where we interact with the citizens and it helps you civil society to get information and and try to consolidate them and bring them to the attention of leadership that's all yes um i think my colleagues have clearly articulated response good responses to those questions i just want to emphasize to put an emphasis on the question of whether the agreement is supposed to be implemented in three years and does it well we know the agreement is drafted to be implemented in the six months but there is also provision in the agreement itself that in the event that parties are facing difficulties in terms of implementing the agreement they can reach it can re-compromise in terms of what they can do with the implemented provisions and that is what led to the to the roadmap so when parties are unable to implement certain provisions because of time or because of other constraints then they can extend the agreement but that that is a yes to yes the parties have the right to extend the agreement but is also a note because the parties are not supposed to abuse that provision because you cannot extend the government indefinitely the way they have been doing it and and the reason they are doing it is that we must be clear that transitional government is has become a lifeline for certain political actors so these actors cannot be expected to support the conduct of elections and that's why we are seeing political actors coming up with a different position and i'm making very clear if you look at the press released by the SBLMIO the you know the they have our line and number of of of issues that they think are bankmarks that should be satisfied but there are other areas that they have also left out for example the agreement says that the the the the the parties should adopt the federal government during the transitional period but they have left it out is it that because they are not interested in transition in federal government or is it because they are picking and choosing what they want from the agreement so we can also see that there is an element of maybe a not so good faith in in in articulating this issue so there are concerns on both all sides thank you uh dr sal there's a question of of citizen being able to take the the leaders to court for failure to take them to election for failure for for a series of extension that had been done and the failure to deliver services and maulana earlier answered but the in his answer it seemed like a the civil society organization citizen have reached a dead wall they cannot go the other side what i want you to ask as a law professor is is is is the the the the the the the the permitted on which the legal system in South Sudan works is it the only legal system in which citizens if they they feel dissatisfied with the government can take the government to to court or there are other other other avenues first of all there are two things to to the question one can the people do they have the standing to take the government to court and and second are if if they take the government to the court if the legal system responsive to cite legal issues the first thing is that yes people when you know government has failed to deliver as maulana and honorable alakir we're saying that the government are form as a result of social contract right and so if the the actors the government fails to deliver then they have bridged the the social contract right and so people have the right to take the government to court to say no we agreed that you would implement a bcd when you fail to implement it i think this is a violation of the agreement and therefore uh our contract and therefore we need a legal redress so they can take the government to court but the maulana gave maulana gave a very definite answer is the legal system in south seudan capable of handling cite questions the answer is is is is no and whether it is a lack of of legal philosophy or is it a lack of capacity in terms of the courts being uh understaffed or lack of resources we don't know so so the other question is you ask you you added whether if the system is unable to to handle this matter is there any other avenue right there is a principle that is called the principle of last resort you have to exhaust local remedies to be able to go to the next level so there are administrative matters there are legal matters if the system is unable to respond to all these challenges then you can go to the next level so we have the east african court for example can can we go there it is also possible but you know i say jay from my experience can you go to i say jay you can go there after you can go there so so so so so i i have experience my where i come from there is a lot of oil pollution and people and children are being deformed with born with deformities that is a high rate of infertility a lot of illnesses trees are not growing cows are dying everybody the population is dwindling and so we try to submit a petition to the supreme court here that has been four years since we submitted nobody's responding and so we use other avenue to reach to the other level which is the east african court now we heard recently that the file has been retrieved from east african court why it's because some actors within the system has gotten there to do shady things and the file is thrown out so this is the dilemma we are in you know so the last resort would be icj i i don't know whether i see jay because if you look at the question of legal standing icj would handle the matters between states yes right and i don't i'm not going to give you an answer because i'm not so sure whether citizens have a standing to stand and to bring a case against their own okay i think this is a question research question that we leave exactly what is your last word to our listeners say dr centeno my last word is that while i understand the concerns raised by the splm you know position uh objecting to elections i think i i should call upon the leadership to uh reach compromise because people are tired of transitional elections compromise has been the hallmark of this country second uh there are uh bang marks that the splm io has underscored that are not necessarily related to elections for example census census is required for a location of resources but senses are not needed for elections you need registration for people to vote for elections so this that compromise can be reached in that regard repatriation of refugees repent coming back to your country is a voluntary thing you cannot go to that country and say come home you have to make the environment the country induces for people to say i am willing to come back so we cannot force our people who are living in another country to come back and say that if these people don't come back we don't hold elections so some of the bang marks that the the the are articulating are not so relevant to election and second i call upon the international community step in in terms of pressure and also in terms of providing resources to electoral institutions such as national bureau of statistics um political national constitutional review commission and other relevant uh thank you electoral institution uh honorable okay in one minute yes i think this is a great chance that we have to read just and look into the issues which we want to do alternative had been given like now my colleague have talked about it that there are some technical steps we can do which can also give us that chance of exercising the election in this country the other thing is them to unite and come with a very clear vision to the people they are distracting in fact the direction of going to the election now we are seeing a direction for a conflict among our leaders and the people who are concerned to consider this because what is happening up between them it will affect us down here and what is happening up between them this is what will drop every systematic environment we need in the country so please please we are your people we want you to be there with us we want to continue uh nursing this country and that you benefit and we benefit to please and and at the same time we nobody want war anymore nobody want conflict anymore and we are not here now to make accountability of what you have been doing all the time alone can we just pass these steps like opening the door and start to continue building the country this is what we are looking for and this is what we want and the civil society with their academia and every a person who have a knowledge of something to give i think they are ready to do that and they change in navy jama okay yeah i need it thank you so much maulana your last remarks yeah one i want to call upon the political leaders from all the political parties to start engaging in dialogue these boardroom meetings are pressed releases cannot help in this situation that we are heading to so it is about time that they start reconciling their positions and give the country the direction that it should take thank you and thank you very much uh my guests in the studio and all to all our listeners we apologize for a few minutes that we lost and that is responsible for why we are unable to give you more calls and read your messages but we we we welcome you and we we want to let you feel at home thank you very much you have been listening to right around table with me yaj karan and we're discussing the options for ending the transitional period from civil society organize perspective in the studio we have a uh a local mobile a share percent of civil society organization member of ncrc and a share of the technical committee for ct r h and we have uh santina auf lonard a law professor university of uva and is a regular uh contributed to this program and we have uma mo gore mariel practicing advocate and he's an executive director for alum is an organization thank you so much for all our listeners stay tuned next program thank you bye bye thank you thank you so much the round table the round table [Music]