
Letter: Buzzfeed try to claim that South Sudan’s National Courier and the Newspaper answers (16.01.2017)




African Union letter on the Burundian posistion from December 2016:



Jeg håper en dag at jeg mister mitt statsborgerskap til kongeriket Norge. Det gjør jeg når vi er så kalde og uredelige, når byråkratene i UDI og UNE har så makt at de kan ta vekk alt folk eier og har, som de har jobbet for over ett tiår. Fordi de krever bevis som nesten er mulig å få tak. Det er ikke som de personene som har flyktet for flere tiår siden kom fra stater som var sterke-stater som hadde statsapparat som var velfungerende. For hvis det hadde vært slik så hadde de tatt vare på landet rundt landsbyen, søkt jobber i de større byene og stiftet familie i hjemlandet. Dette er det byråkratene og den blå-blå regjeringen glemmer med de nye krav og retningslinjer. Festung Norwegen!
Jeg håper en dag at jeg mister statsborgerskapet mitt, når staten på ingen tid eller uten tanker på konsekvenser kan sende mindreårige flyktninger til krigssoner uten å tenke på konsekvensen. Dette til land vi selv ikke vil sende soldater til, vi kan sende droner og bombe-fly, der vi bombarderer byer i stykker og ødelegger fabrikker, men vi vil ikke sende Hansen ned med gevær og skuddsikker vest. Han skal sitte i en by i Norge, spise brødskive med gulost og meierismør. For hvis ikke klager han på at Omar eller Hussain har fått jobb på Kiwi, fordi det er et problem.
Jeg håper en dag at jeg statsborgerskapet når man i sin retorikk snakker om at de skal yte og tjene landet, samtidig som deres krav til opplæring og fagkunnskap økes. Der søknader blir dobbelt så dyre over natten. Deler av meg ønsket at dette hadde skjedd med bensinavgiften eller NRK lisensen. At den hadde doblet over natten, da ville det blitt harnisk og regjeringen hadde blitt kalt inn på teppet. Kongen i Statsråd måtte ha blitt informert om den nye krisen. Siden de Blå-Blå har «over-natten» doblet søknads-gebyret på familiegjenforening fra ca 4000 til 9000,- Slik at man sikrer seg at færre har råd til å søke. Fordi man ønsker ikke ha utenlandske statsborgere som ektefeller eller at en barn fra fjerne Østen. Det er farlig det.
Samtidig synes Listhaug at vi har misforstått, at vi som klager på innvandringen ikke skjønner hva de gjør og hvorfor. Det er fordi staten ikke skjønner hvor hjerte eller hensynet til medmenneske ligger hende? Deler av meg ønsker at jeg ikke hadde hatt Norsk statsborgerskap når den stat jeg tilhører har så lite hjerte, så lite skjønn og forståelse for de konflikter og tragedier som mennesker flykter fra. Deler av meg ønsker at for alle disse som gjør det vanskeligere for flyktninger og asylsøkere, må en gang selv flykte og fortsette å flykte. Fordi vertsnasjonen godtar plutselig ikke kyniske kalde Nordmenn; ettersom de aldri lot flyktende Afghanere eller Somaliere få bosette seg her etter tiår med intern borgerkrig. Det hadde vært rettferdighet. At om vi kom i intern konflikt eller uår, å måtte ha flyktet. Da de ikke ville gi oss ly for granater eller soldater med AK47. Det er som de Nordmenn som tenker slik, at uhellet kan hende oss eller ikke skje oss.
Det er på tide å våkne og tenke, neste gang kan det være oss, neste gang kan det være deg! Neste gang kan det være din slektning eller kamerat som er i ilden. Vil du da la dem lide eller vil du tenke på neste korsvei er det mulighet for ly? Det er historieløst å tenke annerledes. Naivt og brutalt, javel, da må man legge opp slik at det blir integrering nå og ikke bare fokuserer på hvordan man skal sende ut mest mulig. Finne system og legge til rette for at de kan bli borgere. Slik at de kan bli stolte av å ha et Norsk pass og være Norsk Statsborger. Fordi jeg som selv er etnisk Norsk, som er langt fra stolt av å være Norsk statsborger nå om dagen. Nå som de Blå-Blå er like bedrøvelige som UKIP, Front Nationale og Geert Wilders på speed, bare med norsk politisk uttrykksform og ubalansert retorikk. Peace.

In early January 2017, fighting in and around Yambio in Western Equatoria resulted in a further displacement of at least 7,000 civilians, mostly women and children.
GENEVA, Switzerland, January 16, 2017 -A UN report published today details the grave human rights violations and abuses – including killings and gang rapes – as well as serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Juba during and after the fighting that occurred between 8 and 12 July 2016. Six months after the violence there remains widespread impunity, as violations continue unabated.
The report by the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and the UN Human Rights Office found that throughout the fighting between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (SPLM/A-IO), “the belligerents blatantly ignored international human rights law and humanitarian law.”
The July 2016 events in Juba demonstrated the extremely fragile political and security situation in South Sudan and the complete disregard of civilians by the SPLA and SPLM/A-IO, given the serious human rights violations and abuses that were perpetrated, including the direct targeting of civilians, along ethnic lines and the extreme violence against women and children, the report states.
“Information documented and verified by the Human Rights Division suggests that hundreds of people including civilians were killed and many more wounded during the fighting in various areas of Juba,” the report states. “Moreover, UNMISS documented 217 victims of rape, including gang-rape committed by SPLA, SPLM/A-IO and other armed groups during and after the fighting between 8 and 25 July. According to victims’ testimonies and witnesses’ accounts, most cases of sexual violence were committed by SPLA soldiers, police officers and members of the National Security Services (NSS).”
Testimony from victims interviewed by the Human Rights Division paints a horrifying picture of the violence that civilians were subjected to during the fighting. On one occasion, women and girls were ordered to cook for the soldiers at checkpoints when their friends or family members were raped. According to other testimony, Nuer men and women appeared to have been particularly targeted for attacks, including killings and arrests, during house-to-house searches, with Nuers with tribal markings on their foreheads particularly vulnerable. The whereabouts of some of those arrested remain unknown.
“The fighting that erupted in July 2016 was a serious setback for peace in South Sudan and showed just how volatile the situation in the country is, with civilians living under the risk of mass atrocities,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said.
“In total, a staggering 1.38 million South Sudanese have fled to other countries and another 1.8 million are displaced in their own country. In the absence of any semblance of justice and accountability for the violations perpetrated – including possible war crimes – such unbridled outbursts of violence could quickly escalate civilians will continue to suffer immensely. Concrete steps to halt this downward spiral must be urgently taken, beginning with justice and accountability.”
The report emphasizes the need for accountability and justice for all human rights violations. It urges the Transitional Government of National Unity to take action to “break the cycle of violence and impunity” and take steps to fully support the prompt establishment and operationalization of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan by the African Union. The report also recommends that the State ensure that all victims of human rights violations and abuses, as well as violations of international humanitarian law, have access to an effective remedy, just and fair reparation, including compensation and rehabilitation.
The human rights situation remains grave in South Sudan. In Greater Equatoria, the UN Human Rights Office has received credible reports of serious human rights violations and abuses committed by SPLA and SPLM/A-IO in and around Yei, including killings, sexual violence, abductions and destruction of civilian property. As a result, thousands of civilians have fled Yei and surrounding towns. They have sought refuge in other regions and in neighboring countries. In early January 2017, fighting in and around Yambio in Western Equatoria resulted in a further displacement of at least 7,000 civilians, mostly women and children.
High Commissioner Zeid reminded the Government of its obligation to protect the rights of all South Sudanese and bring to an end the desperate suffering of the people.

“It may be recalled that the United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 2304 decided that UNMISS force levels should be increased to a ceiling of 17,000 troops, including 4,000 for a Regional Protection Force”.
NEW YORK, United States of America, January 16, 2017 – The United Nations peacekeeping mission in South Sudan has confirmed that it continues its discussions with the transitional national unity Government on a 4,000-strong regional protection force, which was authorized by the Security Council last August but has yet to be deployed.
The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) “confirms that in preparation for the arrival of the Regional Protection Force, it continues to be engaged in discussions with the Transitional Government of National Unity as to the various modalities for the new Force, including where they will be deployed in Juba,” said a statement issued by the Mission’s Office of the Spokesperson. The confirmation followed various media reports, including those suggesting that the Government may have changed its position on the deployment of the Force.
The Mission’s attention has been drawn to recent statements reported in the media concerning the deployment of the Regional Protection Force, said the spokesperson’s statement.
“It may be recalled that the United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 2304 decided that UNMISS force levels should be increased to a ceiling of 17,000 troops, including 4,000 for a Regional Protection Force. This was reaffirmed by the Security Council in its recent Resolution 2327, renewing the United Nations Mission in South Sudan for one year,” the spokesperson’s statement added.
Further in the statement, the Mission noted that the Transitional Government of National Unity confirmed its “unconditional” consent to the deployment of the Regional Protection Force by communique to the Security Council on 30 November 2016, and in renewing the UNMISS mandate, including the deployment of the Regional Protection Force, the Council reaffirmed that the security situation in South Sudan remains fragile, with serious consequences for the civilian population.
In early July last year, close to the fifth anniversary of the country’s independence, the youngest nation was plunged into fresh violence due to clashes between rival forces – the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), loyal to President Salva Kiir, and the SPLA in Opposition, backing former First Vice-President Riek Machar. That led to deaths and injuries, including many civilians and several UNMISS peacekeepers, jeopardizing the peace agreement between the political rivals in August 2015, which formally ended their differences.

When you look into how a man gets into power and then keeps it. Then that story might show why the person doesn’t leave the Executive, the reign or the Presidency. I am today looking into Yayah Jammeh who made a coup d’état in the Islamic Republic of Gambia. Since of today the President-Elect of Gambia are living in Exile in Senegal. Therefore I have to address the man who is ceasing the power and control of a nation. A nation he did run, but lost an election and the result we’re announced on the 2nd December 2016. President Jammeh even called President-Elect Adama Barrow who won on an Opposition-Coalition ticket. After that the Army has pledged alliance with the incumbent, the Electoral Commission head has fled to Senegal and radios has been switched off. Just as the days before the polls the borders we’re closed and the internet we’re turned out. The Museveni-Blackout session was all in fashion in November 2016. So let’s take a brief look into the reports of 1994 coup d’état and how long he has said earlier he wanted to rule!
Yayah Jammeh pledges difference after 1994:
“BANJUL, Gambia, Aug. 26— When Lieut. Yahya Jammeh seized power in this West African country in a bloodless coup last month, breaking one of the continent’s longest traditions of electoral democracy, he joined the increasingly crowded ranks of soldiers who have risen to power in Africa” (…) “But even as he pledges to announce a timetable for a transition to democracy by the end of September, Lieutenant Jammeh, a child of the rural upcountry whose formal education ended in the 10th grade, complains that suspensions of vital donor aid in the meantime amount to “neocolonialism.” (…) “We are here for reasons that are peculiar only to Gambia, and what has happened in other parts of the continent, that does not concern us,” Lieutenant Jammeh said in an interview in a crimson-carpeted salon of State House. Political Activity Banned” (French, 1994).
More on the Coup in 1994:
“Weak borders and weak governments still characterize much of West Africa, and the coup d’état brewing in the graveyard would not be the Gambia’s first. Sanneh was on summer break from middle school in 1994 when, one morning, a group of junior army officers angry about their low salaries seized the national radio station, the airport, and government buildings in Banjul. The incumbent president, Dawda Jawara, who had led the country since independence, found safety on a docked U.S. warship while his guards evacuated the State House. When the disgruntled officers arrived, Andrew Winter, then the U.S. ambassador to the Gambia, told me, “I think much to their surprise, it was theirs.” At about 6 o’clock that evening, an announcement came on the radio: A four-member group called the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council, or AFPRC, had taken over. Its chair was Yahya Jammeh, then a 29-year-old army lieutenant who was little known outside the barracks” (Reid, 2016).
Real acts of Jammeh:
“Atrocious stories such as that of Imam Baba Leigh succeed one another, always more violent. As the day the authorities locked up 1,000 people in a stadium and made them drink hallucinogenic drinks. This surreal act is in the image of President Yahya Jammeh who claims to be able to cure AIDS, sterility or epilepsy using traditional plants and mystical incantations, hence his nickname “Fou de Kanilaï” his birth place. In 1993, Democrat Dawda Jawara, whom Jammeh overthrew, abolished the death penalty. In 1994, as soon as he took power, the master of Banjul, the Gambian capital, restored it and incorporated it into the Constitution in 1997” (Serieys, 2017).
What the President Jammeh says about the coup:
“I have seen banners saying no to coup, but the reality is that people will say how then did he become head of state because he overthrew somebody’s government? Yes, I came through a coup d’etat, because what was happening in this country is unacceptable. On 22 July 1994, not even a frog died, much more a human being. When we came that day, in broad day-light, which Imam missed a Friday prayer?” (…) “Let me also ask you this question. On July 22,1994, who among you missed his lunch because of the coup? In fact, July 22, 1994, our coup d’etat was more peaceful than any general election that was held in this country. When we came, we told you that we were soldiers with a difference. We were not power hungry, greedy soldiers that are looking for wealth and power to subjugate Gambians. We were development hungry. We want this country to move forward and be a beacon of hope for all of Africa, because what is happening in Africa is a sad story” (Jammeh, 2006).
How long did he want to rule:
“On the final day of campaigning, President Yahya Jammeh vowed to rule for the next 40 years. Mr. Jammeh, who seized power in 1994 as a 29-year-old army lieutenant and went on to win elections in 1996 and 2001, told supporters that he ruled through God and that ”no coup d’?t or elections can remove me.” He faces two challengers but warned at the rally in Serekunda, east of the capital, Banju, ”I will develop the areas that vote for me, but if you don’t vote for me, don’t expect anything.” (NYT, 2009).

So the man who conceded did the phone-call in December 2016 and then went back on it. Therefore we know today that the President-Elect of Gambia is exile, because of one totalitarian leader didn’t want to stepdown or give way to new leadership in the Republic. As he said in 2009 before another election he proclaimed that no election could beat him. Certainly the recent did, as even the Electoral Commission did rig the tally, which must hurt the pride of the former soldier and lieutenant. He will not bow down to pressure, even the ECOWAS and African Union haven’t sanctioned anything of pressure, have made some arrangements and mediation, but not substantial. That with the knowledge that the man all of sudden didn’t want to step down and become an President Emeritus, instead now he is yet another lingering President in power.
Adama Barrow is the one that is supposed to rule, but Yahya Jammeh isn’t supposed to reign anymore. His time is up, his time in the executive and in power. Therefore now that the President-Elect is now in exile and will be there until Jammeh leaves. By my reckoning will not be quickly or swift. He will linger until somebody coup d’état him now. Since he isn’t stepping down for the one who won the Presidential Election in 2016! Peace.
Reference:
French, Howard W. – ‘In Gambia, New Coup Follows Old Pattern’ (28.08.1994) link: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/28/world/in-gambia-new-coup-follows-old-pattern.html
Jammeh, Yahya – ‘PRESIDENT JAMMEH’S ADDRESS ON THE 10,000 MAN MARCH’ (15.04.2006) link: http://qanet.gm/statehouse/peace-march_address_150406.htm
The New York Times (NYT) – ‘World Briefing | Africa: Gambia: Leader Vows To Rule For Next 40 Years’ (22.09.2009) link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00EEDF1E31F931A1575AC0A9609C8B63&rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FJammeh%2C%20Yahya&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=collection
Reid, Stuart A. – ‘’Let’s Go Take Back Our Country’ (28.03.2016) link: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/lets-take-back-our-country/426852/
Serieys, Jaques – ‘Gambie : Yahya Jammeh au pouvoir par un coup d’état militaire’ (02.01.2017) link: http://www.gauchemip.org/spip.php?article23135




Your Excellency:
The Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU) is the broadest active civil society coalition on issues of elections in Uganda, bringing together over 800 member organizations spread across the country. CCEDU has since its formation in 2009 worked towards promoting a social and political system that enhances fair, equitable and transparent electoral processes in the Republic of Uganda.
Your Excellency, in July 2015, the Parliament of Uganda passed the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 2014 providing for lining up behind candidates during elections of chairpersons for village (LC1) and parish (LC2) levels. The voting method brought in effect by the Bill was a departure from what was originally provided for in the Local Government Act, of universal adult suffrage through secret ballot. Then Minister of Local Government, Hon. Adolf Mwesige, argued before Parliament that the cost of conducting village and parish elections through the method of secret ballot was too high and had made it impracticable for the elections to be held since 2002. On this ground, Hon. Mwesige convinced Parliament to vote in favor of amending the Local Government Act to consider an open voting method – which he argued was realistic and more affordable for the country.
Your Excellency, while we acknowledge that the open method of voting for the LC I and II may be viewed as financially more affordable and does not involve the same amount of logistics that would be required to run a secret ballot vote, we wish to draw your attention to the following:
1) Article 68 (1) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda sets a standard for voting at elections and referenda: “At a public election or referendum, voting shall, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, be by secret ballot using one ballot box at each polling station for all candidates in an election and for all sides in a referendum”.
2) Article 25(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Uganda is a state party, guarantees “the right of every eligible citizen to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections held by secret ballot”, and grounds this in the notion that “voting by secret ballot guarantees the free expression of the will of the electors”.
3) The Universal Declaration on Democracy, a declaration adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 161st session in Cairo on 16th September 1997 affirms the essential place of conducting democratic elections on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage for voters to choose their representatives in conditions of equality, openness and transparency that stimulate political competition.
Your Excellency, this implies that:
1) It is a well-established practice that holding free and fair elections is one of the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law; and the secrecy of voting remains a key aspect of free and fair elections. Government has a legal obligation to conduct public elections and referenda according to the standards set in the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
2) Voters are not only entitled but also obliged to the secrecy of their vote. The method of voting proposed for LCI and II elections in which voters are required to line up behind their preferred candidates exposes the voters’ choice and violates this principle. As such, the open voting method does not safeguard the electors’ freedom of thought and their political and other beliefs. If Uganda is truly on a democratic path, then it should be seen to espouse a method of voting which ensures that the electorate is able to express itself freely and that elected representatives are truly representative, thereby contributing to public trust in the institution of local leadership.
3) The proposed voting method violates the principle of anonymity of the voter. Freedom of opinion is endangered when a voter is prone to influence by threats of sanctions or reprisals. Open voting has time immemorial come with a lot of opportunity to influence or intimidate voters as they declare their choice by lining up behind their preferred candidates. In a country like Uganda where the population has over the years become deeply politically polarized, it is difficult to underestimate the influence and effect of fear of retribution that is embedded within an open voting system such as the proposed one. Within the context of Uganda today, the proposed method of voting is a ripe recipe of tension, vengeance and outright election-based violence – especially on the Election Day and in the aftermath of the elections.
4) Free and fair voting principally demands that each voter makes an individual choice. Every person registered on the voters register must be able to express his or her choice in person, and this personal choice must be counted as such. The mode of voting as prescribed under section 111 of the Local Governments Act, 2015 for village and parish elections is not consistent with this individuality principle and, in particular, constitutes a violation of gender equality and freedom of opinion. The practice of open voting is reminiscent of days gone by of the reprehensible communal voting. In the Ugandan context, under an open voting system, it is likely that for instance, female voters may be unduly influenced to vote for candidates that their male counterparts, spouses or partners choose to vote for – for fear of catalyzing gender-based disagreement. In another case, for fear of going against their spouses’ electoral choice, female voters may decide to shun such open choice elections. Modern societies including Uganda itself have denounced open voting methods as akin to primordial practices that infringe on voters own choice.
5) Historically and contextually, electoral processes are highly prone to fraud and manipulation. One of the primary reasons for the transition from ‘open’ forms of voting to the adoption of the secret ballot system in the 1800s was to help rid political systems of bribery. Uganda is currently fighting the scourge of monetization of politics. With an open voting system comes higher electoral stakes. The higher the stakes, the higher the possibilities of voter bribery will be. In effect, the possibilities of monetizing the local council elections that will be held under an open voting system remain high. The political players are quite optimistic of the eventualities very sure those voters are aware of the procedures and they will vote for them since it’s not secret.
Your Excellency, under Vision 2040, the Government of Uganda underpins the need for democracy as the anchor to transform the country. Similarly, the second National Development Plan (NDP II) recognises that without free and fair political and electoral processes, key development objectives cannot be achieved. To this end, the NDP II proposes to institute mechanisms to strengthen credibility of electoral processes in Uganda and citizen participation in the electoral processes.
As the Fountain of Honour of our Nation, CCEDU would like to respectfully appeal to you, Your Excellency, to guarantee that:
Your Excellency, CCEDU contends that the currently designated method of voting in the LCI and LCII elections not only fails to meet the constitutional and internationally provided for standards for conducting public elections, but is also fertile ground to foment conflict and sow seeds of discord in communities – thus undermining the hard earned peace, stability and unity in many parts of the country.
CCEDU appreciates that democratic electoral practices in Uganda are still affected by various national and contextual factors, traditions and limitations. While we recognize the importance of taking into account our country’s milieu and resource limitations, Your Excellency, we appeal against the latter being used as pretext for practices that undermine the basic principles of democracy and governing the conduct of free and fair elections.
Lastly, Your Excellency, CCEDU therefore proposes a more cost-effective option of the secret ballot method of voting in the LCI and LCII elections – in which voters record their (candidate) preference on a plain piece of paper in privacy – by way of writing or putting a thumb-print. We recommend the most basic form of secret ballot that uses standardized blank, plain or colour coded pieces of paper/cards upon which each voter marks his or her choice. Without revealing the choice to anyone, the voter in this case would fold his or her piece of paper with their marked choice and place it in a sealed ballot box. The ballot box is emptied later for the counting of the ballots. This method is not only financially affordable, but also preserves the secrecy of the ballot as well as expands possibilities for the electorate to participate in elections.
Dr. Livingstone Sewanyana
Chairperson, CCEDU Executive Committee