Dr. Hakim Dario is the chairperson of the Equatoria People’s Alliance (EPA). He was engaged in the High-level Revitalization Peace Process in Addis Ababa as the leader of the People’s Democratic Movement (PDM), which did not sign the 2018 revitalized peace agreement because he says it was not people-centered and focused on power sharing between elites. He says he declined to sign the agreement because he anticipated it would fail.
In an exclusive interview with Radio Tamazuj which touched on wide ranging sociopolitical issues debilitating South Sudan, Dr. Dario contends the Equatoria region should become a separate nation so that her people can live in peace and embark on development because they have no say in the affairs of the country which he argues has been hijacked by the elite and military commanders who superintend a flawed government.
Below are edited excerpts:
Q: You have mentioned several things, especially about Addis Ababa. So much has happened now after the peace agreement in Addis Ababa. What is PDM doing currently?
A: Well, PDM has opted to work within a framework of the Equatoria People’s Alliance (EPA) to prioritize working with our constituency and really focus on what the people want, so that it is not the PDM that wants this and that. It is the people who want change. What is the nature of that change? So, that is the emphasis as far as the agenda and mission of the PDM is concerned. At the end of the day, it is the people who come first, not PDM. We formed the EPA for this particular purpose so that the people of Equatoria can have a say about their future, how they want, and perceive themselves to be living together with others in South Sudan. They need to have a say, but our people don’t have a say.
Like everywhere else in South Sudan, it is the elites, the SPLA commanders, who are running the show, and the people have no part in this. We want to change that, and that is why we decided as PDM to be with the people. Contrary to, say for example, SPLM-IO, which wants to be part of the government, a flawed government, and they are now being persecuted because they have all gone and accepted this idea of indefinite transitions, indefinite extensions, and not saying no to what has gone wrong in the country. They want to be part of it, but the people do not have a part in it. So that is not the model that we have followed in PDM.
Q: The issue of South Sudan is beyond EPA and PDM and SPLM-IO and even SPLM-IG. Have you achieved the objectives of the EPA in terms of what the people want?
A: Yes! It is a process. The people of Equatoria want to be left alone, to concentrate on peace and development. They do not necessarily want to be held hostage in a failed state, a system that has not been designed to serve the people, but a system that is designed to serve the elites and to serve anyone who can claim to be a commander or a liberator, and that sort of thing. However, in all of this, our people only participated in the referendum, but other than that, the people have played no part in determining the direction and future of this country.
That is why I want to say this is going to be different. As far as Equatoria is concerned, we want to speak with one voice as the people of Equatoria, because people have not had a part in all of this. We want to speak as the people of Equatoria as to what direction the country is going, is that going to serve our future, is that going to protect and preserve our identity, and all of these questions. Because South Sudan does not have a sense of being one nation. The name South Sudan is touted, but it is the South of another country; it is a directional identity, it is not our identity as Equatorians. We have not had a chance to have a say on the kind of institutions and systems that we would like to see and perceive ourselves to be part of this system.
We want to live together, but it has been proven that we do not have a strong social fabric, and we do not have a consensus about the kind of system of government that we want to have for our country. So, we do not want to be hostage to that. There are clear examples in the world. If you take, for example, Yugoslavia, it is now broken into several countries that are democratic, that are living peacefully.
Q: Do you mean Equatoria should be an independent country or a separate administrative unit?
A: We have a model. What we mean by this is that Equatorians should have their own state. They are capable; they are a nation. What they lack is self-government, the state that would preserve their existence and protect them from all of these wars that are ongoing in South Sudan. So Equatoria is a nation, by the way. There are more than 35 social groups in Equatoria that have lived together for generations, and there have never been wars among themselves. That is what Equatoria has. If we had our independence as Equatoria, we would be able to manage ourselves, manage our administrative issues, exploit our resources, and be self-reliant. We are not dependent on aid. Our people are very industrious, and they could live and support themselves. They do not need oil for that.
Q: Hakim, what can you do differently from the Equatorian elites who are currently in the government?
A: These people do not have a mandate from the people; they are appointees. They are people who are just reliant on the system, the scrums of the system under Salva Kiir, just to preserve and feed their families. They do not have any new ideas. They are not fighting corruption. How could they be people’s representatives? How are they connected to the people and grassroots in Equatoria? They do not have a mandate, and that’s the whole issue. Those who are in government do not have a mandate to rule or a mandate to govern. They have never been tested in any elections, so they are not leaders; they are misleaders.
What we can bring to the table is that we want to work from the grassroots, from the people. We have to put the people first, their human rights, their economic, social, cultural, and political rights, and the institutions that will enable our people to enjoy these rights. So, that is the difference that we are going to take.
Q: Many of these organizations, including your EPA, are in the diaspora and not on the ground. How are you going to work with the grassroots when you are not on the ground?
A: Who said that we are not on the ground? We are on the ground. We have many networks and connections with our people across Equatoria, from western, eastern, and central. Of course, you know that there is repression in South Sudan, there is no freedom of expression, and people are fearful. Equatorians never used to be fearful, but they are starting to learn the new culture of authoritarianism. You have heard about the unknown gunmen, people who kill people. There is no justice, there is no accountability, and people are fearful for their lives.
Even as we speak, people are not being paid their salaries, and you cannot protest about that. They [government] say they do not have rubber bullets and that they use live bullets to scare the population. So, in this kind of climate, our people are oppressed. They cannot express themselves. However, we are a very open and democratic society, and we do not accept a lack of accountability in the country. We can question our leaders, criticize them, and tell them off when they go wrong, but this is not possible. Look at the draconian legislation that has been introduced recently, the so-called cybersecurity law, which is to gag people. If you see something bad, you do not have to speak about it; otherwise, your life is at stake. So that is the kind of system that we live in.
Q: Hakim, back to the national politics, the stalling of the implementation of the peace agreement and the prevailing insecurity, and the economic crisis. What is your take on the situation in South Sudan?
A: The 2018 peace agreement has failed to be implemented as we predicted. The IGAD, the AU do not even have the will to really impress on the leaders in South Sudan that this is the right route to follow, this is what should be implemented. Look at how many extensions have actually gone on. The parties to the agreement just extend their stay in power indefinitely. How many extensions have they gone through now? And yet they are not able to implement the agreement fully in good faith, in letter and spirit.
So, the AU has failed to become a body that can play a constructive role in the implementation of the agreement by giving encouragement to those in Juba to conduct themselves in good faith to implement the agreement that they signed. The IGAD has failed, too. At the AU level, even at the United Nations level, how many people have been made subject to sanctions because they are obstructive to the peace process? For example, Information Minister Michael Makuei, Cabinet Affairs Minister Martin Elia, Vice President Benjamin Bol Mel, and many others have been sanctioned by the United Nations for being obstructive to the peace process and for many other corruption dealings, and so on. So, we are run by a cartel of criminals, to be honest. These are people who are not responsible, who are only accountable to themselves. They are not accountable to other people.
So, what transformation has the Revitalized Agreement for Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan brought about? Did it stop corruption? Did it stop the killing by the unknown gunmen? Did it provide security to our people? None of that. All of this is indicative that these parties to the agreement have not actually done anything for the country to move forward. All that they did was to maintain themselves in power.
Q: Now, how can this situation be rescued? What is the way forward?
A: The way forward is what we are proposing, that there should be a departure from the government of the revitalized agreement. There should be a civilian-led transitional approach that would have a mandate to start the processes of constitution-making. The region, the Troika countries, for example, like what we did during the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005, the parties that were signatories or guarantors to the agreement had a very clear road map, which was to lead to the right to self-determination, which people are enjoying. So, we should revisit a model along those lines.
Since the 2018 revitalized peace agreement has not been fully implemented in good faith, there is a lack of political will. The parties of IGAD, AU, the Troika countries, America in particular, that have helped to put the pressure to negotiate the CPA in good faith for our people, should really be invited back into this process. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the Trump Administration to look at what the American people have done to bring about this country into existence, and really try to help at this juncture to try to use its moral authority and give its backing to a new process similar to the CPA, where we have a clear road map to put the people first. That the people should be the right source of authority, power, and legitimacy. That way, we can institute a new civil administration, a transitional mechanism, which we call the Shared Sovereignty Model. I can talk more in detail about this. I have been talking about it in public, but just the space may not be sufficient now to address all of that.
It is a model based on our different social groups coming together to sit and agree on what is the model of our living together. How can we live together in peace? When you have a man and a woman in a house, if they can no longer live together, the best way is for each to go their way, so that they do not kill each other or harm themselves. This is an age in which people prevail, and everything should be done peacefully, based on the legitimacy of the people, not those who are empowered by brute force.
Q: Have you ever been approached by the government to come and work on some of these issues? If not, in the event you are approached, will you agree?
A: I have not really been approached. I was the one who tried to approach the Tumaini Initiative and contacted Chief Mediator Retired Lt. Gen. Lazarus Sumbeiywo, and I was writing to the foreign office in Kenya. They invited us to a discussion on Zoom, we placed our request to participate in the process and bring these specific issues to the table, but they decided to exclude us. So, Sumbeiywo has an interest, and his interest is with the regime in Juba. That is why he does not want to listen to other voices. He wants to listen to people with whom he may have deals and business in Juba, because he is believed to have a preference for whom he wants to invite to these talks. That is why the Tumaini process itself failed, because it is not really focusing on the core issues; it is not focusing on the root causes of the problem in South Sudan.
Q: If today you are approached by any party, be it the opposition coalition, the United People’s Alliance (UPA), or the regime in Juba, for any initiative, will you accept?
A: We are always open to discussions and dialogue, to bring the issues to the table, to raise awareness, and to discuss these core issues. Those are the issues that we need to focus on. But the UPA is exclusive; it is not people-centered. It is the same group of elites that actually started corruption in South Sudan, and now they want to be saviours. They are the ones who messed up the country, and yet they are the ones who want to present themselves as saviours. They are not, and they are not the people. They want to speak on behalf of the people so that this model continues, this model of elites running the affairs and the show in the country, and not the people having their say.
Q: Currently, there is a situation where First Vice President Dr. Reik Machar is in court on serious charges, aerial bombardment by the SSPDF is ongoing in parts of the country, government salaries are unpaid, floods have displaced masses, and there is insecurity, among others. As a leader, what is your take on all this?
A: First of all, the trial of Dr. Machar is a farce and politically motivated, and the institutions are not really free of prejudice or undue influence from Salva Kiir. They have failed; they did not have the political will to implement the agreement. The mechanisms that were established by the agreement to resolve any conflicts, like the ceasefire monitoring body and others, are not being followed, and Kiir is operating outside of the rule of law, and he doesn’t want to be held accountable. He is responsible for all the mess, because he is at the top of the system.
So, what they should do is to resign and hand over this country’s fate to a civilian administration. That can be worked out if we can agree on a process in which IGAD, AU, the U.S, and the Troika countries come to help us put a final, real solution to the problem. That would be much better. The country’s fate would be in the hands of civilians, and whatever they decide, as a people, would work. It would be acceptable because it would come from the consensus of the people, not from the consensus of the military commanders and the elites and so on, who just want to ride on the back of the people.
So, the trial of Dr. Machar is a farce and not justified. Kiir himself, the way he has failed to run the country, does not have legitimacy. He was elected during a time when South Sudan was not yet independent. We need a complete break from the current system- a new slate.
Q: Are you collaborating or working with other opposition and rebel groups in Greater Equatoria?
A: I think we have a set of common objectives; we have been dialoguing, we are talking, and there is always no barrier for these different opposition groups to exchange ideas, to find a forum where they can bring their ideas to the table. But I have been particularly excluded from Tumaini, from the Rome talks mediated by the Community Sant’Egidio, while I am one of the non-signatories, but some people prefer to count on the generals like Thomas Cirillo, Pagan Amum, and Paul Molong. So, it is the general running the show.
Q: What is your message to South Sudanese worldwide and to the government and opposition groups?
A: My final message is that the model that we are proposing for the country is a transitional model in which we want to bring all of the different social groups together. Let me identify them: Equatoria is a bloc with different social groups, Greater Pibor Administrative Area (GPAA), Western Bahr el Ghazal, the Jieng (Dinka), the Chollo (Shilluk), and the Nuer. We want to look at how we actually work and live together. How can we, these separate nations, live together in peace? We have to have a social contract.
This social contract will then create a foundation, a basis on which we can consider having a union. If the union doesn’t work, the Jieng and Nuer can, for example, form a union and continue as a government in their own regions. Equatoria would have the same because that is in the interest of peace. We want to live peacefully. There is no place for any one social group to impose itself and impose its will on the whole of the country in the name of South Sudan. South Sudan has failed; we need a new model. That is my approach to this. I can talk more about the details when there is another opportunity.
My final message to Equatoria is that the people of Equatoria should speak with one voice. This is now the right time for the people of Equatoria to say we have had enough. We have seen the last decade of failure, and we do not want to continue to live in such a system while being held hostage. We need to have a say; we want to manage our affairs and live peacefully. While the rest of the country, if they want to continue with wars and corruption and impunity, it’s another story for them, but for us, the people of Equatoria, let the whole world know that this is what we want. We want to be left in peace, to live in peace, and to manage our own affairs. Thank you.