Liberation Movement Army on the Resolution of the Abyei Conflict”. DATE: 24/02/ Abyei Protocol. UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN SUDAN. Principles of. By Douglas H. Johnson December 10, — The Abyei Protocol and the Report of the Abyei Boundaries Commission (ABC) are once again. Abyei is claimed by both countries and has been a source of conflict in the The CPA included the Abyei Protocol, which planned to replace.

As the National Congress Party NCP has yet to put in writing a formal objection to the findings in the ABC Report, I have had to rely on statements reported in the Sudanese abyri, on the assumption that these reports are accurate. The people of Abyei were denied this right when they petitioned to hold a protocpl, and this became one of the grievances that led to the outbreak of civil war in Both sides agreed during the negotiations of that the grievances of Abyei along with the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile should be addressed in any comprehensive peace agreement.

The Presidency is to establish an Executive Council, representative of all the residents of protoco, Abyei Area, pending elections, when the people of the Abyei Area will elect their own Sbyei Council Abyei Protocol, article 1. In addition to other revenues Abyei Protocol, article 3. At the end of the Interim Period in the residents of the Abyei area will vote whether they wish to retain their special administrative status in the north, or become part of Bahr el Ghazal Abyei Protocol, article 1.

The experts were chosen at the request of the two parties, as follows: He has been a consultant proocol Sudan affairs since and is the author of two books, one on Sudan and one on Zanzibar. He is a specialist in constitutional, international and development law, especially on human rights and land resources and the environment. He has published over 30 scientific journal articles and 6 books.

He is a political scientist specializing in the political dynamics of the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. He has conducted research on issues of cross-border population movements, conflict and cooperation, competition over internal and trans-boundary resources, the refugee phenomena in the Horn sub-region in general, and the countries of Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia in particular.

He has published his research findings in books, journal articles, book chapters and monographs. He is professor of history at the University of Nairobi. He is among the pioneers of use prptocol oral sources in reconstructing African History.

He was one of lrotocol ten historians in the world who was offered life membership of the Historical Association of Great Britain when it celebrated its centennial. Nominated by the UK. He is an historian who has been researching the history of the Sudan for some forty years. He has edited 5 volumes of historical documents on the Sudan and the Southern Sudan, co-edited three other books, and published over 50 articles.

The Ngok Dinka, Misseriya and their neighbours presented oral testimony at meetings convened in the field, which was recorded and transcribed in Appendix 4 of the ABC Report.

Abyei – Wikipedia

In fact, the government delegation made three powerpoint presentations in which they showed extracts from a number of documents dating from to and publications dating up progocol They did not submit any copies of the full documents cited, even when requested to do so by the experts. Neither the Misseriya nor the Ngok Dinka provided contemporary documentation in support of their oral testimony.

This did not mean that their evidence was ignored. It did mean that the experts had to examine in full the original documents cited, and seek out additional sources pgotocol information to see if the oral testimony collected could be corroborated by other sources. In fact the experts consulted 47 separate maps, which are listed and discussed in Appendix 6 of the Avyei Report. The government claimed that before the Bahr el-Arab was the provincial boundary between Kordofan and Bahr el-Ghazal provinces, and that the Ngok Dinka lived south of the river at this time; therefore the only area transferred from Bahr el-Ghazal to Kordofan was a small strip of land south of the Prktocol al-Arab.

The experts found that the progocol maps and documents cited by the government delegation contradicted their contention that in a de facto administrative boundary existed along the Bahr el-Arab river, and that the Ngok Dinka lived entirely south of the river at that time.

Other sources consulted by the experts, but which had not been cited by the government delegation, revealed that before the Ngok Dinka were under no clear administrative jurisdiction but were visited by administrators from both Kordofan and Bahr el-Ghazal, and that there was confusion within the administration about the location of the Bahr el-Arab itself, a confusion that was not resolved until after ABC Report, Appendix 5. The experts also discovered from records of testimony gathered in the s, s and s, and publications that pre-dated the dispute over Abyei, that the Misseriya made no claim to ownership of the area between the Bahr el-Arab or Kiir and the Ragaba ez-Zarga or Ngol untiland that these claims were rejected in at an inter-tribal meeting composed entirely of Sudanese, and presided over by the Nazir of the neighbouring Hamar ABC Report, Appendix 5.

The SPLM based their case on the Ngok Dinka claims; thus presenting a more consistent case than that presented by the Misseriya and government.

The experts considered the testimony presented by them and compared it with the other evidence gathered. They found that the Ngok claims to Muglad were unsupported by the evidence and had to be dismissed, but that the abhei to part of the Qoz territory were supported by administrative records and other sources ABC Report, Appendix 5.

They also found that the Ngok Dinka testimony demonstrated a far more detailed knowledge of the area they laid claim to than the Misseriya informants were able to display about the prtocol territory.

The dispute between the Misseriya and Ngok, as presented prptocol the experts, was as much about rights to rpotocol access and use of land as to ownership and occupation.

There is, therefore, an area where the secondary rights of both peoples overlap. The map accompanying the report clearly shows that the line the protocil drew is only about 87 km north of Abyei town.

Lake Keilak is far to the north of that line. The role of the experts was not to find for or against any claimant, but to examine all the available evidence in order to make a definition of the Abyei Area, as stipulated by the mandate of the Abyei Protocol.

Only the residents of the Abyei Area can decide whether the territory will, or will not, become part of the South in The ABC Report merely defines the area that will be affected by such a referendum. However, the Abyei Protocol makes no reference to an administrative boundary in The mandate required the ABC abyeii define the territory of the Ngok Dinka inwhich involved defining the prootocol territory.

Since the ABC was not pgotocol to find a boundary, it did not fail, and nor did the experts claim to have failed. The experts state in their report:. Nor do the historical records of the then government definitively attest to the Ngok boundaries at that time. In analysing the material collected, the experts have applied the generally accepted historical method of comparing oral with written material.

Both prtocol government and SPLM referred to the events of in their presentations. The experts therefore were duty-bound to examine further this evidence to determine its relevance.

It should also be noted that the Abyei Protocol does not mandate the Presidency to make a final decision about the area. This is not what the Abyei Protocol says. John Garang on the 19th March, There is no qualification stated here to accepting the Abyei Protocol. The ABC Report defines the area. Demarcation involves surveying the area so defined on the ground. The ABC was established with international participation and support.

The IGAD Secretariat supervised and helped to organize the work of the experts, as well as that of full Commission when it met in Nairobi. IGAD, as well as the US and UK governments who eached nominated members of the panel of experts, have a continuing interest in ensuring that this part of the CPA is implemented as intended.

Defining and demarcating the Abyei Area is the pre-condition for implementing the Abyei Protocol. This is contrary to the Machakos Protocol, which states:.

Enough 101: What is the Abyei Area and Why is it Disputed?

The Abyei Protocol also established a precedent for settling border disputes between the northern and southern Sudan. The failure to resolve this one wbyei of the border sets a bad precedent for the definition of the km North-South border, whereby one party to the CPA is able to prevent the implementation of any section of the CPA with which it disagrees.

A failure to resolve the North-South border will jeopardize the faithful implementation of the other protocols in the CPA dealing with security, wealth-sharing, elections and the referendum. In other words, if the borders cannot be agreed, the CPA cannot be implemented as written, or as intended. The rules of procedure adopted by the North-South Boundary Technical Committee state that any irreconcilable differences over the boundary will be referred to the Presidency for resolution.

The current impasse over the Abyei Protocol demonstrates that protocl Presidency has not yet demonstrated that it can resolve such disputes quickly or equitably. Why should other Sudanese people care whether the Abyei Protocol is implemented or not?

Enough What is the Abyei Area and Why is it Disputed? – Sudan | ReliefWeb

If the CPA is to establish the foundation for peace in the Sudan, whatever the outcome of the referendum, there must be peace along the km North-South border, and mechanisms established to maintain peace among the peoples of that border. The Abyei Protocol, as written, recognizes the traditional rights of the Misseriya to pass through and graze on land that they do not own.

They are the only Northern Sudanese people specifically mentioned whose rights are so guaranteed. If the Abyei Protocol is implemented according to the letter of the CPA, this provides the basis for managing future relations between the Misseriya and their Southern neighbours, whether the Southern Sudan remains part of the Sudan or becomes independent.

They must ask themselves, is this in their best interest? Do they wish to be permanently on the front line of a battle zone? Or can lessons learned from the Abyei Protocol be applied to other areas of the North-South border to ensure that the rights of the peoples on both sides of the border are protected, and peaceful relations can be re-established and maintained?

If they failed to agree, then the final decision was to be made by the experts. By failing to agree both sides admitted they were unable to resolve the issue between themselves and handed the responsibility to the experts. The experts conducted their investigation along accepted scientific principles of historical research, following recognized legal principles in resolving land disputes. They arrived at a decision in accordance to the agreed rules of procedure.

Both parties had committed themselves in advance to accept this decision. There is no provision in the CPA that allows one party, in this case the NCP, to refuse to accept this decision and put another one in its place. Johnson was one of the international experts on the Abyei Boundaries Commission.

He wrote this paper for SudanTribune. I must express gratitude to Johnson Douglas for his elaborate article on the Abyei Protocol. As Sudanese citizens, I may say, we need a courageous person to demystify our illusions and our short sights. The problem of implementing the Abyei protocol is not because of any other obstacle rather than the mere fact that we fear to call a spade a spade.

The political and adjudication processes in Sudan are vague and foggy. This is made intentionally by the National Congress Party to mislead the citizenry and to create space for political manoeuvres. In this country of wonders nothing could stand a fair verdict if the jury is not beefed with international bodies. Another interesting thing is that every domestic demands for justice are deemed driven by international forces and enemies of the state and mercenaries.

The same way the citizenry are repressed to stand up for their constitutional rights, the government does its best to make the citizenry ignorant if not unaware of all charters and covenants signed. Another big setback in regards to rights and justice in this country of millions is the fact that whenever an outsider comes in to demystify issues, the government is quick to accuse international bodies of working for unidentified interests.

The same Johnson is accused with his peers of working for international interests. This is a very interesting and important article that should be correctly interpreted, understood, and utilised especially by Messeria and NCP which oppose the ABC Reports. It is specifically very important for Messeria as Johnson mentioned in the article because if Messeria rejected ABC Reports, it is likely to affect the rights which were guaranted to Messeria tribe in Abyei Protocol in regard to access to pasture in the Abyei area or South Sudan.

His expertise and advice should not be hastily misinterpreted and dismissed. They always turn blind eyes on plian facts and went on dancing crazy songs with the devil. You may now relaxed, for you have given your sound verdict to the two parties who were in desperate need of a second opinion,the SPLM and the NCP pleged before hand, that they will respect the findings, and when that verdict was revealed, one party went crazy, rejected the verdict, with out showing any sense of respect, accused the expert of exceeding thier mandate.

The SPLM and the poeple of Abyei have no slightest doubt that the verdict is final, what remained is the implementation, as for our brothers the hardlinners Massiria representatives, who are still sucumbed to the president,s vito, they should remeber Wad Taktuk,s saying if telling the truth could not save you, obstructing the justice could not save you.

You should come to your senses, you have been accessing Dinka Ngok,s land illeagally for more than a centuery, now the ABC have given you a leagal access to the areas, vast pastures, providing that you respect the traditional rules regulating the nomadic movements of the nomads.