Fact-Checking a Controversial Article by Tereza Leila Jube Published by Radio Tamazuj on President Salva Kiir Mayardit, the South Sudan Referendum, and the SPLA Legacy
By Abraham Madit Majak
A recent article published following the 43rd anniversary of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) has generated significant debate among South Sudanese communities both at home and across the diaspora. The article challenged statements made by Salva Kiir Mayardit regarding South Sudan’s path to independence and accused him of attempting to reshape historical narratives for political purposes.
The piece raises important questions concerning the roles of political leaders, international actors, and South Sudanese diaspora communities in the struggle that ultimately led to the 2011 independence referendum. However, a closer examination indicates that while the article contains factual elements, it also combines verifiable information with interpretation, unverified assertions, and political opinion.
One of the central issues concerns President Kiir’s recent claim that former Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir offered him $505 million to abandon South Sudan’s independence referendum. The President Kiir publicly made this statement during SPLA anniversary commemorations. The president Salva Kiir was telling the true about the $505 million to abandon South Sudan’s Independence.
The article further argued that President Kiir was largely disengaged from the struggle for self-determination and that the success of the referendum resulted primarily from the efforts of figures such as Pagan Amum, pressure from the United States, advocacy by international figures such as George Clooney, and mobilization by South Sudanese diaspora communities.
Historical records indicate that numerous actors contributed to South Sudan’s eventual independence. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 established the legal pathway to self-determination. International pressure from the United States and regional governments also played a role in supporting implementation of the agreement. Advocacy efforts by public figures and activists maintained international attention on Sudan, while South Sudanese communities abroad participated in lobbying and awareness campaigns.
However, removing Kiir entirely from the historical process creates an incomplete narrative. Following the death of John Garang in 2005, Kiir assumed leadership of the SPLM and became President of the Government of Southern Sudan. He occupied leadership positions during the years leading directly to the referendum and eventual independence. Historians may disagree regarding the degree of his contribution, but currently available evidence does not support the assertion that he had no role whatsoever.
The article also highlighted efforts within Europe to build support for South Sudanese self-determination, arguing that diaspora groups were instrumental in securing parliamentary backing and arranging official engagements involving leaders of the Government of Southern Sudan.
While diaspora communities unquestionably played advocacy roles, several specific claims presented in the article remain insufficiently documented. For example, statements concerning Germany’s alleged presidency of the European Parliament during 2007–2008 are inaccurate. Germany held the rotating presidency of the European Union Council during part of that period, which differs from the European Parliament’s leadership structure.
Questions also emerge regarding statements on Abyei and South Sudan’s political history. The article argued that the Kiir government refused to recognize results of the Abyei referendum. However, the Abyei issue remains considerably more complex. A community-organized vote took place in 2013, but it was not internationally recognized as the official referendum envisioned under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
Similarly, the article asserted that Kiir falsely claimed a coup attempt occurred in December 2013. This remains a highly contested issue. While the government described the events as an attempted coup, critics and some analysts have characterized them as a political power struggle that later evolved into civil war. No universal historical consensus exists.
Other claims in the article are more difficult to verify. Statements suggesting that Kiir declared he would “destroy the country and throw it in the toilet” have circulated in political discussions for years, but publicly verifiable sourcing remains unclear. Likewise, assertions that Kiir violated every peace agreement or treated the country as personal property represent political conclusions rather than objectively measurable facts.
The broader issue raised by this debate extends beyond assigning credit or blame to individual political figures. It concerns how history itself is documented, interpreted, and remembered.
South Sudan’s struggle for independence was not the achievement of a single individual. It emerged through decades of armed struggle, political negotiations, diplomatic engagement, sacrifices by ordinary citizens, international pressure, and advocacy by communities both inside and outside the country.
History becomes vulnerable when political narratives reduce complex events into stories built entirely around heroes or villains. Serious historical analysis requires evidence, documentation, and a careful distinction between established facts and contested claims.
As South Sudan continues confronting political and social challenges, debates about its past will likely continue. Preserving historical accuracy requires separating verifiable evidence from political passion so that future generations inherit a record grounded in facts rather than competing narratives.
Opinions expressed in articles published by RSSVP are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Rescue South Sudan Village People. RSSVP assumes no responsibility for the accuracy, validity, or reliability of claims made by contributors.