Articles and Analysies
Bona Professional Dialogue with Sadik el Mahdi Mark Democratic Debate in the Sudan By Beny Gideon Mabor
By [unknown placeholder $article.art_field1$]
Oct 25, 2009 - 1:24:39 PM

Bona Professional Dialogue with Sadik el Mahdi Mark Democratic Debate
in the Sudan

By Beny Gideon Mabor

    1. Literature Review

   The current change of competitive war of words between two Sudanese
political figures initiated by Imam Sadik el Mahdi, the President of
the Northern based National Umma Party on one hand and Ustaz Bona
Malwal, of the South Sudan Democratic Forum on the other is indeed
memorable time in the Sudanese history as resumption of such political
democratic debate. However, the author after comprehensive political
consultation, evaluation and references to the Sudan contemporary
politics, critically understood the inner circle of their argument and
therefore request the general public that let us follow their
political debate slowly and sure instead we rush and give judgment

   Our analysis, if any, should look back to the Sudanese political
archives as these people were both in the government and conclusively
account each of them to whether who has clean political records and
who is not?  In my view frankly speaking, the author want to begin by
condemning those people who without given reasons misperceived Ustaz
Bona Malwal, a Southerner to be an enemy of his own entity South Sudan
as wrongly circulated in the media some times back and now viewed in
the negative criticism pertaining to his reply to Sadik el Mahdi Memo
dated Oct 3, 2009 concerning All Sudan Political Parties Conference in
Juba APPC 2009 and other political phenomenon.

   Before I don want to elaborate on the tangible wrong setting of the
APPC 2009, the author took liberty to publicly voice out that the
third big failure for South Sudan cause for liberation struggle was
initiation of such political dialogue that allows even enemies of the
peace in Sudan and much worriedly the welcoming of Imam Sadik El Mahdi
to Juba, South Sudan and again given space to check into current state
of affairs co-chaired  bilaterally between the ruling National
Congress Party NCP and peace loving Sudan people Liberation Movement
SPLM/A. A person suppose to be jointly held by the tail and the head
as done by his own Arabs ethnic and Muslim brotherhood in Khartoum
administration since he was observed just to be an opportunist, and
not interest for peace, democracy and his failed vision of a
restructured Sudan.

2. The National Umma Party-two terms Sadik political archives

     As far back dated to 1964, when Imam Sadik el Mahdi assume
leadership of the National Umma Party; he therefore promise to
recognize the politico-cultural and economic aspect of the Sudan while
he fails in his two term as Prime Minister from July 27,1966 to May
18,1967 and again from May 6, 1986 to June 30, 1989 A.D respectively.
Despite no other Sudanese politician or any political party in the
Sudanese history has got two terms and squandered these opportunities
without any achievement in all his policy statement.

    In witness of undeniable failures and target of ethic cleansing
calculated to bring about destruction in part, Sudan then again cursed
into another bitter  civil war in 1983 as a result of continuous
character assassination namely the Juba Massacre on July 8,1965 at
11.20 am that cause lives of 360 Southern Sudanese including  Medical
Doctors and Wau incident on July 11,1965 at about 7.30 pm in the
marriage ceremonies of unfortunate Chiriano Chir and other Octavio
Deng  where 76 People died also with prominent government officials
and Bor incident altogether. Many prominent politicians from South
Sudan lost lives in a cold blood in the hand of Sadik el Mahdi and his
National Umma Party. We better accept that we forgive him and did not

    However, the uninformed masses of Southern Sudan should know that
1964 to the latter is remembered in the history of Sudan Civil War, as
the year of October Revolution, the 1965 Round-table Conference on the
so called “Problem of Southern Sudan” and non-implementation of all
these resolutions is a deliberate sabotage of Imam Sadik el Mahdi and
his National Umma Party.
  Furthermore, the same Imam el Mahdi who claim unification of the
Sudan ill willingly team up with Dr. Hassan  Abdullah el Turabi to
initiate for the first time ever the subjective idea of Islamic
Constitution putting into dust bin the complexity of the Sudan in her
multi-religious and multicultural diversity.

3. All Sudan Political Parties Conference APPC, Juba 2009

    The organization of the Sudan All Political Parties Conference in
Juba, South Sudan 2009 under the host of the Sudan People Liberation
Movement SPLM was a significant political benchmark in the Sudanese
history to discuss issues of national characters and obligations but
not limited to nation building and democratic transformation as
provided for in the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement CPA/2005.
Nevertheless, the two principal signatories to the peace deal after
having invited all the political forces that are not party to CPA/2005
including some diehard political confusionists whose previous
political archives defines their bad faith toward South Sudan; the
SPLM-NCP suppose to have closely watch those wolves in goat skin, an
event observed by the South Sudan President General Salva Kiir against
his Southern political forces during the APPC session which was not
the case in the Northern political forces since the NCP did not attend
 the APPC 2009 to monitor their Northern political parties behaviors
toward objectives of the conference.

    By contrast, the SPLM mistakenly and fearlessly set aside the
reasonable absence of its major partner in government the NCP and
chose to proceed with other political parties specially from North
Sudan who opposed  the Addis Ababa Agreement and currently enemies of
peace in Sudan and South Sudan in particular.

    It is worriedly the same Northern political parties that attend
APPC 2009, made the 1977 National Reconciliation Conference which came
up with resolutions denouncing the 1972 Addis Ababa agreement between
Gaafer Nimeri Regime and the Anyanya Movement calling the agreement a
“sell out to the South” and surely Nimeri dishonor the agreement under
their influence, an extreme opposition against the right of self
determination for the people of Southern Sudan. The legitimate
question is what is now different between the present CPA/2005 and the
former Addis Ababa Agreement opposed and disowned by Khartoum
Administration and its political allies? And if the answer is no
difference then what is current expectation about the CPA/2005 where
they are invited without knowing the brittle parts of the CPA/2005
since they did it to question some provisions of the CPA/2005 during
the APPC 2009? The author is very suspicious about it.

    Therefore, many of you now convince the wrong side of the APPC
2009 without NCP participation and the fear of similar political
mistake in historical sequence. That is why some Southern political
forces walkout of the conference as seen to be another "sell out of
the CPA/2005" because they don want to be part of second failure of
the peace agreement in South Sudan, and further guided by the their
parties principle objectives not to take part in any discussion of
national character other then separation of South Sudan.

      Unforgettably, the archives of Imam el Sadik and the National
Umma Party two period as Prime Minister are available to history and
these facts still remain on headlines for us and the coming
generation. When Imam el Mahdi landed in Juba International Airport
during his attendance to APPC 2009, suppose he apologies to Southern
Sudanese whom he was behind the lost of hundred of thousands innocent
lives compared to total population in Gabon, Burundi and Guinea Bissau
respectively. The two terms further include ignition of tribal
conflict or tribal militias known as Marahillin meant to destabilize
peaceful coexistence in South Sudan and later advanced by the NIF
government as “friendly forces” and continue to date with tribal
politics of ethic cleansing where Darfur and South Sudan are the major
victims though Darfur was the tool used to destabilize South Sudan in
the first place.

4. Conclusion

     After exhaustive discussion over the current political
situational analysis, the author conclude that the only safeguard for
the CPA/2005 is stronghold position and unity of the NCP and the SPLM
in the smooth implementation of the CPA/2005 at a closed door level
and only allows Sudan political forces, included in the Powering
sharing protocol as provided in the CPA/2005, the INC/2005 and the
ICSS/2005 respectively to continue with lasting peace whether with or
without separation of South Sudan and do not leave the CPA/2005 for
open political criticism in a way Sudan All Political Parties
Conference maliciously done it during the APPC 2009.

Beny Gideon Mabor is an Opinion writer and be reached at
[email protected]

 Beny Gideon Mabor

[email protected]

Tel: MTN:+249-27854479 effective Rumbek-Khartoum-Juba-Wau

© Copyright by