On June 22, 2025, I read an article titled “South Sudan Belongs to the People, Not Kiir’s Family,” authored by one Samuel Peter Oyay and published by Radio Tamazuj and other media outlets. The said article was a response to an ‘Open Letter to Adut Salva Kiir Mayardit’ that I wrote a day or two prior.
While Oyay’s response to my open letter may appear to be a principled dissent, it is, in reality, a detached humbug and reactionary utopia that truly reveals how he is removed from the painful realities of South Sudan’s political situation.
Let me clarify my position: I did not reach out to Adut Salva as an act of submission to dynastic politics. South Sudan is not a dynasty, and so the twist in Oyay’s assertion is misplaced; it could not have come from his mind.
I wrote to Adut Salva because I understand that in a country where institutions have collapsed, the rule of law has been suspended, and political capture is the norm, meaningful change may arise through unconventional methods.
The fact that our country has been agonizing from the consequences of war since 2013, just two years after independence, is clear. This has not only caused political instability; it has also caused a serious breakdown of social cohesion, rule of law, and fiscal crises characterized by a reduction in revenue collection and increased revenue spending. The interplay of these and other factors is the basis of institutional collapse.
Adut Salva Kiir, despite being unelected, is an upright citizen of South Sudan who has shown humanitarian concern, and that, I believe, could influence decisions in ways that may not be evident to those who rely solely on theoretical governance models. Oyay’s theories do not align with the realities of our country.
In a situation where even constitutional processes, such as the permanent constitution-making, have failed to progress since 2018, we must seek out even the smallest glimmers of reform. It is important to note that governments formed based on peace agreements tend to reward only a few elites and contribute little to meaningful transformations.
Samuel Peter also accused me of promoting personalized governance. Ironically, he overlooks the fact that governance in South Sudan is already personalized, and the corrective institutions are toothless—they can’t take any action. Several indicators, including the fact that high-ranking government officials also serve as CEOs of private companies, bolster this reality. This is not by my doing, but by the design of power structures and those in power. Who can break that cycle? President Salva. When did Oyay last meet him?
Mr. Samuel Peter Oyay has to acknowledge this reality; it must sink into his head that no external actor would break the rise of non-meritocratic economic and political malefactors. Their rise is meteoric, and by our standards, they could become oligarchs that can completely strangulate the country. Military and diplomatic interventions have been tried by some actors like Dr. Riek Machar, but they didn’t work; they consumed him. Despite facing sanctions, they have managed to maneuver effectively. Their only antidote is President Salva Kiir Mayardit.
The parliament and the judiciary function merely as rubber stamps, with no capacity to enact or enforce law; opposition groups are entrenched in sectarian power deals, tribally inclined opposition movements have emerged, and public institutions have devolved into clientelist networks that serve cartels. This is not poetic language; it is a reflection of our lived experience.
While Samuel lectures us from a distance and never clarifies what identity he claims in this struggle—under what banner does he speak, and what movement has he led?—he ought to acknowledge that his big mouth is only fit for that of a bloviator; the truth is, his raw theories are not reflective of our realities. He ought to ask himself: What has his brand of opposition accomplished? While he composes his numerous responses from Dubai, where he works as a broker in the market, the people in his state are engulfed in perfidy, tribal conflict, and weakened leadership.
Let me examine his backyard in Upper Nile State.
The last time I checked, I found that the king was nearly murdered and is now displaced. This is a potent symbol of how traditional authority has been undermined by militarized politics. I also noted that Gen. Johnson Olony, who was once celebrated as a staunch opponent of injustice, now aligns himself with the regime under the Agwelek banner.
Several other opposition groups in the diaspora—that I was told Samuel Peter Oyay is attached to—are either renaming themselves or fighting over names with no stronger voice on important matters of the country, and they are not even taking any action against the government.
What stronger evidence could there be of the collapse of genuine opposition? The man who once stood firm is now a frontline agent of the state, while the intellectuals who once supported him have either fallen silent or have been co-opted.
Samuel Peter Oyay fails to recognize this collapse. His only contribution is criticism from a safer distance. He derides those who are still attempting to engage in the affairs of the country using whatever tools are available.
Take note that when the house is burning, mocking those who seek a solution, even from within, is not admirable. It is irresponsible.
Appealing to Adut Salva does not equate to endorsing family rule; rather, it is a pragmatic strategy aimed at engaging those who could amplify the voice of the public and make it reach those who hold power in the system for their perusal.
In our current state, the tools available to Samuel Peter Oyay are dysfunctional, and that could be the reason why he is not impactful, with his only viable instrument being censuring those who are attempting to soldier on.
Oyay must understand that the tools available to the presidency, such as decrees, other dismissal mechanisms, and internal pressures, are the only last resort for addressing the ongoing decline. The National Assembly is not national; it is an assembly of those handpicked by their parties to advance the interests of their factions. We cannot rely on any parliamentarian because, even with their attempts to right the wrong, nobody listened to them. The judiciary is but a name that only functions at the peripheries. How does Oyay tackle masqueraders who have captured power? Run to Dubai and blame those trying to embolden the President to recheck his surroundings and perhaps remove those that have objectives meant to decline the nation?
I stand by my letter and my belief that the South Sudanese must employ every available means—strategic, peaceful, and principled—to confront injustice. This should not be done through reply articles seeking attention but rather through sustained and engaging effort meant to change the thinking and the doing of the doers.
Samuel Peter Oyay may not know the way forward or truly what is going on, but many of us do. We experience it daily. We take risks for it. We will not be shamed for exploring new methods to rectify the injustices when the old ones have proven ineffective.
South Sudan is a shared home for all of us—not just for the regime, not for a single family, and certainly not for those self-appointed gatekeepers of struggle who only speak up when others take action.
Till then, yours truly, Mr. Teetotaler!
The writer, Dr. Sunday de John, holds MBA and Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBChB) from the University of Nairobi, Faculty of Business and Management Sciences and Faculty of Medicine respectively. He is the current Chairman of the South Sudan United Front-Progressive and can be reached via drsundayalong4@gmail.com
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.