Problem with Kiir’s decree is not the sacking, it is the backing.
I, for one, do loyally agree not with President Kiir’s decree of ‘sacking’ the boss of our money store, but with the degree of a backing given to the sacking. I mean, it’s neither ab/normal nor very un/constitutional for a president of the republic to shuffle, reshuffle and re-re-shuffle his government. That’s not his un/constitutional right, though. If not him, then who else?
My Problem is this:
1- The Sacking: The use of the word “SACK” by either the president’s office or the Sudan Tribune’s editor is un/professional and kind of inciting. What has been on our minds and in our mindsets is that after the declaration of the new nation, we wanted an immediate announcement of a new government. But then, for reasons best know to President Salva Kiir and God, we get politically subjected to over 40-day fasting in a government wilderness of the new Canaan. So now that the new government is trickling in in pairs, who and why call it ‘sacking’ for God’s sake?
2- The Inciting: When I first saw the heading of that article on the ST website, I knew something must be amiss! This is the link: http://www.sudantribune.com/Kiir-sacks-South-Sudan-s-bank,39854. If there were no political or malicious backing, then why call a constitutional decree a sacking? Sacking here is a direct term connected to a crime committed by the constitutional post-bearer. So do I sense some sort of incitement against the former BOSS boss, Elijah Malok Aleng? Does the sacking also apply to the Chief Justice, John Wol Makech? Will the term ‘sack’ also be tagged to the reshuffle of the old and whole cabinet body? If so, then why would the president be described as sacking the whole nation?
If I were the editor of that story, (which will be copied and pasted alive by our recycling media, I know), I would use the term ‘relieve of his/their duties’ so that the unwarranted reaction (I mean the nasty comments this story warranted, thanks to whoever scrapped them off from that ST page) would not have come against our president. Those boys of the ST or Facebook overdid it, anyway.
3- The Backing:
If the claims by the critics also contributed to the mass reaction against the appointment of just two positions in the government, then who were doing the backing? And who were doing the barking. I mean both the backing to the sacking and the backing to the barking? If it was discovered that the two deputies-turn-governor/president of the bank and the justice branches of the government happened to come from one ‘clan’ as claimed, then I blame the backing to the sacking of the top shots and the hiring of their No.2s. But if the appointments that caused all these disappointments were based on qualifications, and not quali-fictions, as I am mad/made to understand, then I condemn the barking to the sacking (criticism).
4- The Timing:
Why for Chris/t’s sake is the reshuffle being made in pairs? e.g. Security pairs first, Bank/Judiciary duo now, then the next pairs will…..! I wonder why especially when the whole economy has been paralysed and the whole nation placed under the care of the caged babysitters, call them caretaker ministers. These care-takers actually become scare takers as evidenced in the trauma they have been undergoing since independence. I like the comment made by Hon. Makuach Teny in a youth conference at Nyakuron today: “If the president does not want to announce the new government, then we shall continue to take care of it.” joked the caretaker minister for Youth and Sports in reaction to the complaints from the conference.
NB: This page will be concluded tomorrow…..(on condition that this political Ramadhan we are subjected to by lobbyists is interrupted with good news).
Weakleaks is hereby calling upon those extra-eyed readers to understand that this critique is not by a critic, but by an analyst. This writer is just analysing the aftermath of the dis/appointments already caused/made.