Pagan, Lino Pour More Fuel on Secession Fire
In our earlier articles we wrote about Pagan's statements in Islam Online Website it which he reiterated his view that
South Sudan will separate from North according to SPLM investigation which revealed that more than 90% of southerners are with secession.
We brought reasonable views to revoke his allegations which could be summarized in the failure of the SPLM to bring about control in the South and the corruption overwhelming that part of the country leading to the diminishing of the party's chances to acquire the confidence of southerners to the extent of describing the SPLM governance as a new colonization.
Another SPLM figure and the top security SPLM official during the civil war, Edward Lino spoke negatively about the partnership between the NCP and the SPLM describing it as a time bomb.
In his statements, Lino hinted to the possibility of declaration of South Sudan Independence from within the legislative council just like what happened in the 1956
Lino seems to be very pessimistic in the possibility about the future of the country as he expects more tensions between the two partners over the Abyei area and the census results.
But the two menís allegations were revoked by one of the prominent southerners, who was one day State Foreign Minister, Rt. Rev. Archbishop Gabriel Rorerg who was quoted as saying that the statements of Pagan were not reasonable and baseless affirming that the South did not witness any survey of investigation over the secession; but he went on to say that there is no clear political life in the South and there are no political forum through which one can measure the southern Sudanese citizensí stance whether with the unity or otherwise, describing Pagan's statements as individual point of view.
For his part, Prof. David Dishan said the SPLM doesn't have full support in the South to allow it talk on behalf of 90% of its population.
What is strange is that at the time of Pagan's and Lino's statements the SPLM revolutionary bureau resolutions are always supporting the unity option and none of its statements or correspondences hinted to secession.
This means that the two menís statements cannot be taken as an official view of the movement despite their high profiles in it.
To sum up, we can say that the talk on secession became of no attraction, and it is expected that such negative statements of SPLM leaders supporting secession will diminish and the concentration will be towards the elections, demarcation and might include the results of the census population.
As for the SPLM, it should work hard towards supporting the democratic transformation and leave the talk on the percentages of supporters to the elections or the referendum.