Radio Miraya
2693: Federal System in the context of South Sudan
Hello and welcome to Democracy in Action. My name is Saani Martin. You are coming to life from Juba. And today in our episode, we are going to be discussing about federal system. We are going to be educated about how it works and what are the advantages and disadvantages of federal decision. And also looking in the context of South Sudan where an agreement is being implemented and the federal system is also being talked about within the context of this universalised peace agreement. And I am joined here in the studio by two resourceful persons. That is Lorna Maricaje, who is the executive general of South Sudan Democratic Engagement Monitoring and Observation Program. Sunday morning and welcome to Red Mira. Good morning. And thanks for having me. And also we have Dr. Abraham Cole, Yoon, who is the Dean of the School of Social and Economic Studies, University of Juba. Welcome to Red Mira. Thank you. First of all, some people will be asking a very simple definition of federalism. What is a federal system? Maybe let's begin with Dr. Abraham from the way you understand because you have done so much paperwork on this topic. Thank you very much for the opportunity given to me once more to come to brahavam. And talking about the issue of federalism, this is something that mostly many people are always talking about it. But I'm not sure whether the general public understand what it means. Putting it in a layman language, I would say it, federalism is about dividing the power between the state and the central government. Which means in this context, there are areas where the national government will be limited not to do other things. And the areas that those powers will be given to the lower government so that now there will be two distinct separation of powers at the lower level and the upper level. Okay. Let's find out also more from Rona. When you talk about a federal system, what are the process of this federal system compared to other system of governance? Because we are told we already have a decentralized system right now in South Sudan. Well, thank you very much. I think before we go to the pros and cons of the federal system, as Dr. Abraham has said, I would like to expand further on that federal system. You realize that in some places, it's different autonomous entities that come together. But in other contexts, it's an entity that initially was together and decided that, you know, the best way for us to move forward is to give some of the powers and give autonomy, semi-autonomy, and autonomy to the sub-national levels, which is the federal levels. And I think that's the model South Sudan is looking for, and South Sudan is working towards. When we talk about the cons and pros of federal system, is that you realize that it is expensive. It's expensive because structures are supposed to be functional and at different levels, and it depends on the units and the tiers of the federal system or the spheres of the system. But the con is that you realize that there's freedom to decide by different states on issues that affect them, and that is contextualized. And for example, in the South Sudan system, if we go federal, you realize that there are laws that will be relevant in states which are pastoralists, and there are laws that will be relevant in states which are basically agriculturists. And if you allow that autonomy, then you realize that people are able to decide for themselves what works well for them. And I think that facilitates faster development. And one thing before I maybe pause is that a federal system has to be constitutionally established, and those rights have to be enshrined in the constitution so that they respect. And Dr. Abraham is a professor in the University of Juba. Looking back in the history of the quest for federal system in Sudan, and now we are here in South Sudan right from the Juba Conference in 1947 up to date, still there is a quest for this issue of federal system. What is the general history of federalism driving in from way back in Sudan up to where we are right now? Well, thank you very much. In fact, I could say the concept of federalism could be traced back to the colonial period. And during the colonial period, you understand indeed that the two regions, which is North Sudan and the South Sudan, were diminished separately. At some point, you need a tribal document to come into South Sudan when you are living the North Sudan, or you need a tribal document to live in South. That means each of the sides was administered with its own internal policies and laws as said by my colleague. But now, coming into this, with the South Sudanese might have not been pushing for federalism, but they had always been pushing for some kind of autonomy at a certain point, which begins as far as Juba Conference in 1947. Okay. And this is the same thing that came as a result also of mostly CPA 2005, we have now got independent in 2011. Now, at the independent, the question is, we have 10 states. And these 10 states were supposed to go federal-wise. Some of these states were supposed to be given a certain maybe a certain limit on how to do their own thing. But there is one problem here. We were already opioid by the independent that we have, thinking that the issues of trying to segregate powers between the state and the central government is not very important. And as a result of this, we end up having a state that doesn't have my powers. But now, we are trying to have like a kind of federalism through the structures. Because if you look at the structure that we have in South Sudan now, they could even be federal. The only thing is that they are not given the essence that can make them to be federal, which is the power. Okay. Yes. In addition, Lana, to the history. Yeah, thank you very much. I have been really researching on where is this quest coming from. And I think it's a legitimate quest. And in my last presentations and last conversation about the question of federalism, what Dr. Abraham is talking about, actually, that's the southern policy. And if you look at the implementation of the southern policy, by then, that is during the colonial period, actually in South, it was implemented differently. How southern policy was implemented in Barakazal is different from how it was implemented in Crater Equatoria. So that already shows us that this country is quite diverse. This region is quite diverse. Even the colonialists appreciated it for their interest. Now, I think for us as South Sudanese and for our forefathers, they realized that that kind of separation worked very well. And they were asking what exactly is it? What could it be? And they stumbled and eventually reached to a point where they were like, yes, actually what we're looking for is a federal system. And I appreciate that. And I think the best way for South Sudan is to try and work out a federal system that responds to our reality. And I think one of the biggest things that we have faced, the challenges we have faced with decentralization is that decentralization made an attempt. But the constitution is not being respected. So again, what needs to happen is that if we design this fully federal system or federal country for ourselves, one of the things is to educate the entities about their rights, but also the center must respect the rights of the periphery. And the question people will be asking, I'm sure when we open our lines later, they will be asking why is there a kind of a divided opinion when we talk about federal system. People understand federalism in a different perspective in South Sudan, but the others who are advocating for a federal system, they are just saying, look, we don't know what kind of federal system should South Sudan adopt. These are some of the questions lingering in the minds of many South Sudanese. Why do you think so? Let's begin to deal on that. I think it's because there's no much knowledge out there about exactly how the federal system would look like, and the quest has been politicized. So sometimes it's for political reason that some people would say, we don't want a federal system. But if they are educated about the benefits and about how it will be designed, I think there's no problem about it. And at the moment we are past that sunny. Anybody who at the moment is saying that they don't want a federal system, it's a bit too late. What I would advise is let them understand and rather join the conversation of how do we design a federal system that fits to our context. And I would like to add that there's no federal system on this earth which looks exactly the same as the other. Yes, Dr. Abraham, what should be done is do you think there is a need for more awareness across the country on the issue of a federal system? Like I said, when you talk about federal system, there's some people who may understand it in their own way. Others also say, okay, let's go for it. But now majority of the people say, okay, let's go for it. And I say, no, we should not go. We have already decentralized system. Like I said, we don't know which kind of federal system should also then adopt. Well, thank you very much. I would like to say it here that, you know, we saw Sudanese, we like debating new things. And we like talking about new things that we are not being aware of. A good example is that you could see when the current artist was signed. I was privileged to be the one that was doing a lot of induction of the state government across the country. And when you as somebody will wake up and say, you see, this is what the piece agreement we say, when you ask, we chapter, we have no idea, say it is in there. Okay. So what I'm trying to say here is that as we are talking about federalism, we are just overjoyed that this new animal is something that we expire for, and it's something that we need to do. So what the government should be able to do, and the internal community is to let the people understand what are the available option for patriotism that are there. So that now, whenever we debate, as as lone as say, because that the best option that we have, as we talk about it, we could be able to have choice from what we have. But now, one thing that I don't like about aspect of some people pushing for capitalism, is that some people want more power to themselves. Okay. And as they get into the state, you become a governor, you need to be like a governor ruling your own territory. And looking at the current scenario that we have in this country, if that thing is, we are not careful about it, it can be a lead to more disintegration of this country. And this is where my fear is. And looking about, talking about the issue of disintegration, federalism has become one of the important tool of conflict resolution in the past two decades. More specific countries that has also gone through a lot of challenges. Take, for example, Bosnia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Nepal. And should federal system be used as a tool of conflict resolution in a country like South Sudan that has also seen its share of conflict right from 2013, let's not go very far, let's begin from 2013. Because if you go to 1955, up to 1986, it will be too long. Time will not be enough for us. Alona. Well, thank you very much. I think if you look, it depends on how you define the 2013 conflict and how you define the 2016 conflict. But I think, apart from those two conflicts, I may not say how federalism would have resolved them or prevented them. But I think in my opinion, federalism could be a conflict resolution mechanism in that the states will focus on what actually benefits them. And they will have less, less, less space to interfere in what happens with other states. And usually, if we were to talk about a federal system, as I said earlier, there has to be constitutional provisions and there has to be robust legal framework which defines even the interstate relationship and defines the relationship between the center and the states. So basically, that will help resolve some of the problems that we're having in South Sudan. I think definitely federalism in South Sudan, if it's designed well, it will reduce some of the conflict. Okay. Yes, Dr. Abram, how can federal system contribute to a democracy and political stability, say, for example, in South Sudan? Thank you very much. You know, I will go back to the history of what happened in 2016. Remember, in 2016, the president issued an order of by creating 28 states. That thing, in my opinion, by that in my political analysis, it was done to decongest the center so that now people will be able to go back to the state and fight over their own supremacy along that line. So the problem we have among our politicians, this country, is the issue of supremacy, the issue of positions, the issue of powers. How much power do we have? I have always been saying, if you appoint somebody, a governor of his own family, they will think that they are made governors. When they don't know, they were all husband or wife in their own house controlling their own house, as long as they get that title. Okay. This is the process that I think it is only going to help in this country. If we have federalism, that is trying to give powers to those states, but now those powers should be done. How can they be, maybe being things that will be able to benefit people, but not the politician themselves, but it will also come with one problem. That problem is, you know, resources in this country is only being provided through the national government. And the resources that we have is only oil. And in the event that there is no oil, then some state will end up collapsing because people think that there will be money or oil that will come without knowing that there will be a development to see the possible way of them regenerating their own resources at their own capacity. That is one. Number two is that some state will think that because they're independent and their resources, those results need not to be distributed with other state, which is also going to create another problem. Because if my state is self-sufficiency in terms of resources, why should I hear of them when I'm independent? Okay. So those are the kind of questions that we need to ask ourselves now. Right. If you have just joined us right now, you are listening to Democracy in Action. My name is Ani Martin. We are coming to you live from Juba. And our lines will be open to you shortly where you can call on 092-96-86297. Or you can send us a sort SMS to our SMS number 091-217-141. Those are all our lines. You can call and be part of our discussion. Today, as we have two guests here in the studio, Dr. Abram Kolignon, who is the Dean of the School of Social and Economic Studies in the west of Juba. And we have Lorna Maricaje, who is the Secretary General of South Sudan Democratic Engagement Monitoring and Observation Program. So, we are looking at federalism in its definition and the context of South Sudan. We have a full ministry for that just here on the airport road when they are saying they are working hard to make sure that those have a conference sometimes here this year or next year, depending on the available resources. You can call us and ask your question to my two guests here as our lines will be open to you shortly. First of all, let's come back to Lorna. And I will also get the opinion from Dr. Abraham. Looking at the federal system across the region and in the whole world, what lesson can we learn from successful or failed examples of federalism? Thank you. Thank you very much. I think what I would say is that if you look at the countries that have implemented federalism successfully, there is one thing, discipline. Discipline is a very important characteristic of successful federal system because then what has been constitutionally agreed is respected. But also those who have been given powers by constitution, the different entities that have been empowered to do a particular role, do their duty as they are supposed to do. For me, I would say that for success of federal system, there has to be a culture that is developed, a culture of constitutionality. I was just looking at the constitution and I was, oh my goodness, why is this the national government issuing licenses? For example, because constitutionally, licensing of vehicles belongs to states is a state power. It's actually in schedule B of the constitution, which is the powers of the states. But now the national government has taken it without any amendment to the constitution. That is what I call in discipline. In discipline has pulled the powers that state would have been having and it comes to what Dr. Abraham has said. Because of that behavior, this fear that some states may not have resources, may not have a ability. But if the rights of the states are protected constitutionally and there is discipline and the institutions are clearly defined, then I think it will succeed. So basically those are prerequisites for success. Okay. And Abraham, look at the issue of example where maybe federalism has failed around the region or around the world. And what lesson can some of them learn from them? Well, so far I may not say that I have some of the best practice where federalism has failed. But in some of most of the state where federalism has been implemented, it has come with a challenge because this is generally in terms of political science. You could see in theory that there is nothing that is 100% absolute right in politics. Abraham has become its advantage and disadvantage. And you could see in theory that some of the African countries that we always give as an example is like let's say Ethiopia and Nigeria in Moscow. Those are the big countries in terms of population. But also Kenya recently, which has also tried to create a devolved system because a devolved system is an aspect of terrorism. Because there are different aspects also of all these kinds of things. So as we look at it now, I would like to say looking at the East Africa community, the Kenyan model is a kind of model that has become in fact, but it's actually because it has given powers the counties because the next level is the county. And at the county level, the different assemblies that are there, the governance system of the county level, and also more resources given to the county level. Okay. And at that point, we bring it back to South Sudan in our country whereby even the small division of the Grand Disbasement to the state of women's payment of the civil society is always a problem. Now assume that the devolution is made or maybe we had a federal system where powers are given to the state. And now the governor will come back to the central government and say, look here, I need money to go and develop my place. Then they say, no, how do we give you money when you are already independent thing or where to get your own money? And now for the people have the money, the central government will be able to say it, it is either we dismiss you or you let that part or even your comeback here. Okay. So it will be on and forth some kind of things that there will be a little bit problematic. And to finish that point, my sister said here that the issue of powers, as she has put here in the, they issued the constitution. There's always this popular thing that I always say that in South Sudan here, there are only powerful individuals and less powerful institutions. What does that mean? More powerful individuals and less powerful institutions? Yes, less powerful institutions. What does that mean? It means into it that always South Sudanese like to iconize the leaders of the institution. And they like to idolize them in the sense that if I come to the institution to load today, I become the law of the institution. And that is what led to such a kind of thing. That means the law doesn't work. It is only what I say that's what work. And this way you see orders are very important. You see everybody like because the president has been giving decree, which is a best practice all over the world. The president been issuing orders. Now all the governors, including the county commissioners and the Chiba demonstrators and you look at it, even the boomer ship, everybody need to have a decree. And I've seen it has even gone to community as a session. So it has been institutionalized. That as a leader, it is what you say that is what is the law, not what the law says. And once you leave, and that's the end. That's the end. Then the next puzzle come and pick the powers now. Yes. Okay. Yes, our lines are now open. You can call us on 091-2079 or 091-609950. That's all our lines. You can call and be part of our discussion. We have in the studio here too. I guess and we are discussing about federal system of federalism. And we have a law in America, Jim plus Dr. Abraham Cole. This is my two guest here. You can call us and ask your question or you can send us your question also to our SMS number 091-217-141. Two questions already coming in here by our SMS number. Then from topping in Juba is asking Dr. Abraham, somebody who is well versed about the politics of this country. What will it take the country South Sudan to adapt a federal system? That's from then in topping Juba. Another one here is coming from Ustas Simon, a court, a court from Pariak in Northern Baragas State. And he says, I know that federalism exists in types. What type of federal system is best suitable for to the context of South Sudan? That's from Ustas Simon, a court a court from Pariak in Northern Baragas State. And then another SMS here is coming from James. James is writing also from Monique, block A, and he and Juba. He says, my question goes to Lana as somebody who is well versed with the law, the way you speak. Why do you think some of these provisions are being violated like the example of just mention of number plate? What can be done to rectify that? That's from James in Monique, block A here in Juba. Yes, let's begin with this question going to Dr. Abraham from Dang. What will it take South Sudan to adapt a federal system? And the second question is from a court, Simon, a court, a court. What type of federal system of federalism is best suitable for South Sudan? Well, thank you very much. I could say that what it needs to be done for us to adapt a federal system is for us to be able to believe in ourself as South Sudanese, which means currently the country is almost disintegrated as a result of conflict. And there is a lot of tribal descents that most South Sudanese nowadays, they don't love themselves. There's a lot of tribal affiliations, which is being headed by the political ideology that if you are not part of the government, then you must be able to tell your people that the government is mistreating us as a tribe, not as an individual. But when people are appointed, they are not appointed as a tribe, they are appointed as an individual. So the first thing that we need to do is to make sure that we believe in unity of South Sudanese. That means you see somebody who is not from the same community as yourself. Is that possible? It is possible because if we were able to do it from the time of colonialism up to the time of liberation, then we can still do it. Because you know that up to maybe 2014, South Sudanese were one group, they were one unit, and they were living together as brothers and sisters as one family. Now what has gone wrong is a political ideology. And that political ideology is that all over the world, people are appointed the government based on their competence. People are appointed the government based on their maybe regional representation, and that regional representative will involve also issues of personality, of how you do your work. Now, which has been happening, but obviously anybody you see today, and that is why you see the faction here and there, because politics has been monetized in the sense that there are always a lot of hands-out to your people from your tribe, to people from your clan, to people from your community. So the only thing is that we don't need to monetize issues of politics, and as a result of this, this is how we could be able to reduce that. And if we were to do capitalism, one thing is that we need to see that whether we are going to go into kind of tribal, kind of federalist, because you look at our state setup now, they are more of a certain tribal state. In one way or another, but it was not intentional. And you see into it that I always give an example of three administrative area. You know, people at the administrative area were thinking that they are going to, when they are going to give their autonomy, their problem will stop. Their problem did not stop. We look also at when a demonstrative area, they thought that when they are given autonomy, their problem will stop. It has even increased some of their problem. We are also looking at a BA, which is contestable in Sudan, and so Sudan, there is still more problem there. So is this pure example, what is bringing those things? Not because federalism is a bad thing, giving you autonomy is not a bad thing, but the problem is our ideology, our way of thinking that once we are made a little bit separate, then it is a no-go zone for other people. Then that is how the concept of disintegration is going to come in, because I remember during the Saturday state, I was told that some state you could not even cross to go and sell your units in the United States, because they were told no, you already have your own. Your own state. So do think in your own place there. And you know, sad imagine, I would say they are at an addition, you know, like America. America has a federal system, okay, which could be one of the best practice all over the world. But if I decide today to change my status from this state to another state, the process as simple as six months, okay, and it will not create me problem, nobody will discriminate me to go to another state, because I belong to this state, because they are all Americans. So now, before we hear from Lona, the question also, someone is asking from Lona, but in Paria cases, what type of federal system is best suitable for South Sudan? Well, for the time being, I think Lona could be able to pick up and then I will be able to come in. Yeah, thank you very much. That's a very interesting question. The question of what type of federalism would feed for South, federal system would feed for South Sudan. But I was just listening to Dr. Abraham, and I was like, yeah, you know, it's the beauty of setting rules. And actually, as an academic Dr. Abraham, one of the things you might need to also commission study on how the ranches from Texas, if the ranch owner wants to move to the upper states, what do they do? How do they carry their ranch and the animals to those states? What are the laws around that? I think those are things that we need to look at as we design this. And coming to the question of what kind of federal system we need as we feed South Sudan, I think we still don't have it. It's a heavy task ahead of us that we have to invest a lot of thinking into. That's why they need to have consultation. The people's aspiration have to be listened to and considered. Number two is that we need to get into the culture of making decisions based on scientific research. I want to say that all along since when we got independence, after CPA, we've been struggling with an issue of data and decisions that are made in South Sudan, I stand to be corrected. But some of them are made based on emotion, political stance, and individual decisions. I think that is counterproductive for development of the country. So as we get into designing a federal system that fits South Sudan, we need to have a mechanism that helps us to further understand. And this button goes direct to the Constitution Review Commission because the Constitution Review Commission will have to work with what is coming from ministry federal affairs and what is coming from different stakeholders to be able to design a model that fits for South Sudan. And one of the biggest success for federalism in terms of this issue of ethnicity or representation, or we want to see our faces, 64 tribes want to sit in one office in countries like Nigeria, there's what they call the federal character, which clearly looks at what is it that matters for the country in regard to representation. And that's why you see if the president is from this region, this side, you know that kind of a thing. South Sudanese need to face it. I'm hearing it. People are complaining. Those are some of the things South Sudanese want to be long. I think it was also one of their results for the National Dialogue. Exactly. So let's, as we get into Constitution making process, those are tough questions that we have to deal with. And I hope our representatives in the Commission are already researching on some of these issues. But the other thing that needs to be done and we need to really be deliberate about it is the question of institutional development. Our institutions, some of them are formed, some of them are just in the name. But when you look deeper, the institution itself has actually not been formed. And that's why when one leader comes in, they run the institution in the way they want. After that, they go, the new person comes in. Again, we need to interrogate. How do we appoint people into institutions? Because if Abraham's term comes to an end, and he's exiting and getting to another institution, then Lona is coming in. Abraham, there should be handover. But in South Sudan, there is no handover. And I'm left to suspect that maybe the force that pushes the other is the force that pulls the other one in. The last handover we saw was for the Minister, the former Minister of Finance. It is, yeah. It's a very interesting thing that we need to interrogate as a country. You've been talking about everything, including the vehicles that is there. Exactly. And that is in discipline. And thus, earlier, Lona talked about the expensive nature of federal system. We need to have functional institutions, so that if a minister lives with government vehicles, that minister is to be prosecuted. Because the moment you leave, you leave office and office equipment, you leave office resources for the office. It is not legislated. If that is legislated as one of their benefits, then we will clearly know that this belongs to them. And coming to the question of why somebody has talked about the kind of violations. The kind of violations, I would basically say that that is due to lack of proper governance vision in this country. We need to have proper vision for the governance. Why are we governing this country? And if we know why, then we'll be able to agree or accept why we do particular things. Like, for example, why was it said that states should issue licenses? It's because there's a mechanism of generating tax for the states. If national government has taken that, then the states have been left to staff, because part of their income has been taken by the center. And I think partially that can be addressed through the culture of constitutionalism, because once we have the culture of respecting constitution, parliaments would be doing their role. If such a decision is done, then parliament will someone, whoever is responsible or whoever has hogged powers from the other units of government. Number two, we need to raise the level of civic consciousness. South Sudanese see these things happening, but most citizens don't see that it's their responsibility to flag it out. It is our responsibility. It is our right to call our MPs and raise the issues with them. If they're not seeing it, document it, give it to them. And if they don't raise it, call them out. And the MPs have obligation to listen to the people that they purport to represent, even if they are appointed. And that will generate the demand and supply in this governance system. At the moment, there's no demand and supply. It's only supply and supply is done as per the choice of whoever is holding the keys to the coffers. Right. Another question here from Gartmuk in the unity state and his question is going to Dr. Abraham, how do we ensure that the more powerful leaders, like you said earlier, accept federalism in this country compared to those less of, yeah, less powerful institutions in this country? That's from Gartmuk in the unity state asking you how do we ensure that our top leaders embrace this quest by the people of South Sudan for a federal system. Thank you, one small son imagine. You know, this is a very, very interesting debate. And it will take time for our people to be able to understand. I would relate it to one of the things that I said in some of the forums that when I was asked about what do we need to create stability in South Sudan, and I say the break raise idea, I say we need dictatorship. Okay. And somebody asked me, how do you put a field into the fire, or the field to the fire? Then I said, you know, there are some leaders in this country that are believing that they are owning this country at their personal asset. And they do every bad thing in the name that they are leaders. And what need to be done is that if we have a system that is put in place with our laws, you by late one hour law, you are kept accountable based on what the law said, and that the nature of dictatorship that I'm talking about, making leaders accountable for whatever the mistake that they're making. Let us assume that here, let us assume that a certain person, a certain minister or certain state governor, okay, has tried to execute some people in his own state. Then we come back to say what does our law say about somebody executing people? Then we say, this is what our law say, and then the president will initiate the process of suspension of that person, and then the committee form, and then the results of the committee, some of them, it doesn't mean need to committee need you to be taken to the jail state, and then from there you go to the court. So that kind of tightening the policy of the government, the national law, is what could be able to take us into the new environment, call the federal system. And if we get into that environment of the federal system by what it is, it will be able to make all of us who are already over-tasty with power, to inflict more problem into the citizen. Okay, here we conclude the law, now let's move in India, let's talk about the law, the country right now, so the minister of federal affairs, like I said, they are in the process of doing a conference in Juba here where over 1,000 delegates are going to come all over the country for a conference in Juba. Your final recommendation to the ministry of federal affairs, and also to the top leadership of this country, what will it take them for ensuring that they have a successful process that will culminate into the quest of the people of this country, like you clearly said in the beginning, Lona. Well thank you very much, I think my advice, I don't want to talk about what Abraham was saying, that's controversial, very interesting, but my advice is that as the conference is anticipated, I would urge ministry of federal affairs within the ministry to understand why they need that conference, why are they organizing that conference, and that then will lead to agenda setting, what kind of agenda is set for the conference, and what are the objectives of the conference, before they form a jamboree of calling everybody and people are just rushing to Juba to come and stay and eat in hotels, no, I'm saying this because we've seen several conferences where some of them we don't see the resolutions, and some of them the resolutions are so aspirational and they are not implemented, and this caution goes to development partners as well, those who are helping the ministry to organize this conference, I would urge that they don't have to do it as a trial and error, this might be a job for other people, but to us South Sudanese is a matter of our lives, but it has to be done properly, they have to include technocrats from this country to be able to design the agenda, agenda setting is not a thing that anybody just does it, people need to understand the vision of where the conference is supposed to go. Okay, and finally Dr. Habra in the second because our time is up. Thank you very much, it has been a pleasure being here, I would like to say that let's continue engaging on the concept of terrorism, we try to continue trying to create awareness, and we say it into it by the end of the day, we'll have the best choice as the people of South Sudan, thank you. Thank you very much, and that was Dr. Abraham Kwolnyon, the dean of the School of Social and Economic Studies at the University of Juba, and also Lorna Marikaje, the Secretary General of South Sudan Democratic Engagement Monitoring and Observation Program, My name is Tanya Martin and thank you so much for listening.