Strange Thoughts Beget Strange Deeds: To Dr. Adwok Nyaba

*By James Okuk

I went keenly through the article written by Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba titled “The Farce that was â€کThe Assassination Attempt on the Life of Hon. Dr. Lam Akolâ€‌ and would like to rebuke many fallacious statements presented by the writer out of his senile paranoia of Dr. Lam. But my intention is not to please Dr. Akol and offend Dr. Nyaba but to defend the truth and logic that is being continuously denied. I am convinced that the dull opportunists in the SPLM will cease committing atrocities only when they cease to believe in absurdities and condone fallacy of swinging-the-big-stick; appeal to fear. Surely, when nothing is sure about something, everything is possible!

For example in the above-mentioned article, Dr. Nyaba sadistically pruned one sentence from the elaborate syndicated press release by Hon. Dr. Lam Akol, Hon. Ghazi Suleiman and Hon. Manoah Aligo. His motive was nothing else but to depict Dr. Lam as a perpetual liar and a devil who should not defend himself in public nor practice his right for freedom of expression and association under any circumstance. But is there a human being who is a devil or an angel? Even the Pope as infallible as he is said, remains a human being.

In respect to the decency that Dr. Nyaba is vocal about (but violates it practically), I will try to confine my reply to the material he has written in order to avoid committing shiftedly the fallacy of “Appeal to Person.â€‌ This fallacy has been serially committed by the parasitic and pandemic critics of Dr. Lam, especially Dr. Nyaba because he has often tried to resort to name-tarnishing and political character assassination rather than dealing with the substance of arguments that were presented.

In his article, Dr. Nyaba presented an interesting revelation of his full knowledge about execution of the assassination attempt on Dr. Lam’s life on 22^nd February 2008. He calls this heinous act a “farceâ€‌ and calls Dr. Lam a liar when he recalls this bitter memory. I wish the investigation committee had discovered early Dr. Nyaba’s knowledge about this evil act, and many ulterior motives behind it might have been unveiled with ease and without wasting money of the GoSS on the probe. As it was said by French philosopher, Voltaire, that the best judgment is found in right questions rather than in answers, let me pose these questions to Dr. Nyaba:

1. Were you preparing a banquet for a dance with crocodile-tears over Dr. Lam’s grave if he were killed by the assassins?
2. Is it the crying blood of the innocent people who were killed during the assassination execution that is bothering you?
3. How comes you speak with confidence that it were cattle rustlers who attacked Dr. Lam’s car, and that it were the bodyguards in that car who started shooting at them first? Were you monitoring from a distance what was going to happen or were you one of these so-called cattle thieves around Malakal?
4. Wasn’t Dr. Lam busy with ensuring free and fair grass-roots participation for the SPLM 2^nd Convention when his car was moving between villages of the Shilluk Kingdom and Malakal? And weren’t you busy too trying to gain supporters for your aspiration for SPLM Chairmanship of Upper Nile State? What was a private objective there when it was known in broad daylight that you and Dr. Lam were trying to practice internal democracy for SPLM in which you later incurred a terrible loss with tears for wasted money you were using to buy supporters?
5. Why do you panic every time you are reminded of the assassination attempt on Dr. Lam’s life? Should Dr. Lam and his supporters start suspecting this panicking?
6. Who has been distorting the real history about Dr. Lam if you search your soul well with fear of God if you are not atheist?
7. What is the treason in the sincere meetings and honest resolutions of the concerned Southerners who assembled in Kenana? Is telling the truth to SPLM leadership about the danger of the mounting social evils – insecurity, corruption and tribalism – in the South a Cardinal Sin punishable by proposals for dismissal?
8. Who divided the SPLM into South-North sectors in the first place, and wasn’t Dr. Lam opposed to this idea in its inception for the sake of nationalizing the party as a unified one without borders?
9. Why did the SPLM sign a peace deal called CPA with the NCP if the cadres of the NCP like Salah Gosh were untouchable Sudanese to associate with? Why accept to be partner with devils during the negotiation and signing of the CPA but keep a distance from them when it comes to the implementation of the agreed deal?
10. Who has accepted the CPA deal that the NCP should be the majority in the North and GoNU, and SPLM the majority in the South and the GoSS with whatever consequence on public policy? Was Dr. Lam in Naivasha negotiating these deals? Had Dr. Lam taken the oath of office to be a minister of Foreign Affairs of the SPLM Party or was he to be a minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Sudan to execute government foreign policies that were passed democratically in the parliament, the presidency and the cabinet where the political parties’ representatives come together to form joint policies for the executives in the different ministries? Is it wise for a foreign minister of any country to be “a silent minister of foreign affairsâ€‌ who shies away from defending his country and the President who gave him the oath of office?

Anyone who has been following the CPA history and its implementation will not hesitate to conclude that the SPLM-NCP partnership is not a partnership of equals. How? The CPA gives the NCP powers to act like a subjugating superior husband in a family while the SPLM accepted the role of subjugated inferior wife. See the power and wealth sharing percentages in the CPA within the context of majority-rule. And because the mediocre SPLM politicians are wrongly advised and scared to keep distance from the NCP cadres, many questionable policies have been passed officially in the parliament, the presidency and the cabinet and many old Islamic policies had remained intact. It is a well tested hypothesis in psychology that the moment former bitter enemies get distanced from each other and stop interacting, they risk revising their past behaviors with suspicious accusations and rumours.

Dr. Nyaba went ahead in his article to shamelessly say that Hon. Yassir Arman is very right to oppose the NCP because he has “inner knowledgeâ€‌ about their cadres. What a big lie from a doctor! Where in the timelines of the history of political parties of the Sudan was Yassir an insider of the NCP? Is it possible for an arrogant communist to be an insider of fundamentalist Islamists? Facts are facts and will not change even if distorted temporarily. History records it well that Yassir joined the SPLM/A not because of the liberation struggle zeal but as a fugitive, wanted by criminal law for a murder case. The same is for Yien Matthew who is now hiding in Juba and pretending to be SPLM spokesperson from a distance. Why should a spokesman of a credible party stay away from the headquarters of that Party?   Isn’t Khartoum the General HQs of the SPLM? Or is Yien finding it difficult to divorce his East African beauties in Juba? What is a guarantee that the SPLM secrets has not be leaked out by these immoral easy-going prostitutes who have been sowing HIV/AIDS in the South?

Who can be hoodwinked that the dismissals of Cdes. Telar and Aleu (known for the first time in history of politics of the Sudan and English language usage as “Permanent Suspensionâ€‌) from SPLM was not a political action? If this was administrative, it could have been done according to constitutional administrative procedures of SPLM party. Hitherto, it is well known that these comrades were dismissed because of the unjustifiable Scare-theory of “being-close-to-the-NCPâ€‌ where the distance that must be kept by SPLM members is not defined. Yes, the Chairman of the SPLM (like any Chairperson of any political party) has a disciplinary prerogative over the members, but with constitutional procedures rather than dictatorial whims. It is very good that H.E. Salva Kiir realized his mistake and corrected it by annulling his wrong decision of suspending the two comrades “permanently,â€‌ to use the laughable term.

To deviate a bit, it is known that Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba got the current ministerial position in the expense of Dr. Lam. He should be grateful for this opportunity if he is honest! How? As ministerial positions are never given out freely without calculated gains, Salva Kiir brought him in to cover the eyes of the Shilluk and tell them that they are represented in the GoNU cabinet from SPLM tickets even after Dr. Lam and Pagan Amum were relieved from their ministerial duties. Also Kiir wanted to please the Shilluk King (whose ears are known to be with Dr. Nyaba) so that the King could order the Shilluk in the coming elections to vote for Salva Kiir. The SPLM chairman might have been duped in the kitchen or dominoes table in Kiir’s house that whoever has the support of Shilluk King will also have automatic support of Shilluk people without much sweat for direct campaigns. And that the King’s support for Dr. Nyaba is evident in the way that Nyaba’s stays in the King’s Royal House in Khartoum even after he became a minister who is supposed to enjoy the privilege of staying in a government house. But do the Shilluk people of today live in a Stone Age for them to support blindly whoever is recommended by the King? I doubt and time will tell if I have erred in my judgment.

*James Okuk, PhD Student, University of Nairobi.