Call to fund peace deal elicits public backlash
The statement from Minister of Cabinet Affairs, Dr Martin Elia Lomuro calling on citizens to fund the implementation of the peace agreement, has received criticisms from the public.
On Saturday, during a radio talk show at UN-based Radio Miraya, Dr Lomuro called on the South Sudanese to help the government by funding the peace implementation process as the transitional period is due to end early next year.
Dr. Lomura said: “The world over, people help their governments. South Sudanese can contribute money or food to make the peace process move forward.”
No, please!
However, some citizens said such a statement signals an escape from the responsibility by the government tasked with ensuring funding the implementation of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS).
“The country is not [poor]; the country is rich. We have the oil revenue and income from non-oil collections. On top of this, where will the citizens get that money he is talking about? Does he want to deduct from the SSP 3,000 we received to give for peace implementation? That is the silliest request ever, “a civil servant John (not his real name) said.
He added, “If the peace has collapsed because they have deliberately failed to fund it, let [them] not give us excuses that there is no money and we should help. Which kind of help or support do they want when we don’t have food sometimes.”
In his part, activist Edmund Yakani, Executive Director of Community Empowerment for Progress Organisation (CEPO), said he was caught by surprise by the call of Dr Lomuro.
“That caught me by surprise. It was so disturbing because that is escaping responsibility, and secondly if the government does not have money to implement the agreement, why are we seeing daily renovations of government buildings. … we can see contributions like the SSP20 million and V8 given to King Gbudue recently, “he said.
“Where is that money coming from, and why can not the security arrangement be funded by that money?” Yakani questioned.
He continued: “As citizens, we are paying personal income taxes, which are deducted from our salaries every month.” My question is what are these taxes used for? The taxes are collected from South Sudanese and other nationals in South Sudan. Such taxes cannot be used to fund the implementation of the agreement?”
According to Chapter 1.1.1, ‘‘there shall be established a Revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) in the Republic of South Sudan entrusted with the task of implementing the agreement.’’
In the aforementioned chapter, Mr Yakani said there was no mention of South Sudanese funding the implementation, but they can only own the agreement as the government implements it.
Besides pledging $100 million, which the National Transition Committee is said to have received, other donor countries have significantly funded the agreement, but critical tasks remain outstanding for nearly three years.
Mr Yakani said the current budget under debate in the August House has no allocation for the implementation of the agreement, which alluded to a lack of political will among the parties.
“There is mention of citizens or private sectors to fund the agreement… The budget is supposed to fund the agreement, but there is no allocation for the peace agreement. They should customise the budget to fund the agreement. So why are we asked to pay while the budget is supposed to,” Mr Yakani said.
Though the security arrangement which entails training, graduation, and redeployment of the 83,000 necessary unified forces, and permanent constitution, repatriation, and general census are yet to be fully implemented; the government has reiterated its stance on conducting general elections next year.
But general public opinion, regional and international communities, and some parties to the agreement are averse to the idea of holding elections without implementation of the key provisions. The opposers believe this would spark violence.
In their recently concluded visit to South Sudan, the experts of the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan also warned of potential election violence in the country without implementing critical tasks.
“South Sudan is at a tipping point. The pursuit of elections runs the serious risk of fuelling violence and polarisation if the requisite institutions, constitutional and electoral laws, as well as logistic arrangements, are not first in place.”
“It is also important to look beyond the electoral moment and ask what political system people would be voting for, particularly given the delays in developing a constitution on which elections would be based,” warned Commissioner Barney Afako on Friday last week.
