Opinion | Does Dr. Riek Macher have powers to remove the chief of staff?

Dr Riek Machar Teny Dr Riek Machar Teny (Photo by Getty images)

By Joseph Buom,

(Ramciel)-Over the past week, there has been a lot of debate regarding whether Dr. Riek Marcher has the power to remove the chief of staff from Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO).

This is a very interesting debate. The question that I proposed is: Does Dr. Marcher have the power to remove the chief of staff? The answer may seem simple. Under the Constitution, the powers of the chairman are quite clear. But for those that are legal scholars, the question can prove to be more complicated. The real question is, under what circumstances can he exercise his powers. In law, there is a concept called Duress, which refers to a situation where threats, violence, constraints, or other actions are used to coerce someone into doing something against their will or better judgment. In such a situation, the person cannot enter into a contract or be held legally liable for their actions.

In layman’s terms, this means that a person cannot be held liable for a decision unless it is of their free will. Now, a person that has been captured and is being held by an enemy cannot truly make decisions without duress as there would be a conflict of interest because his life is at risk. Dr. Riek Machar has been under house arrest since October of 2017.

Ever since then, he has been under constant supervision and has reason to fear for his safety. Due to this status, he is unable to communicate freely and cannot meet any of his supporters without supervision. And even when he was transferred from the custody of South Africa to the supervision of Sudan, he was still under constant supervision with the threat that he would be taken back into house arrest in South Africa if he did not comply. The whole peace was negotiated under the threat of violence against his person. Let’s not fool ourselves. Dr. Marcher is not a free man; he was recently transferred from Sudan’s supervision to that of Salve Kirr who has tried on many occasions to kill him.
As we can see, staying in Juba is not of his free will.

He cannot even tour Juba without the permission of Salve Kirr. We must therefore conclude that if his life is at risk, then every decision that he has made since his incarceration cannot be fully trusted because he is not making decisions based on fact and the interest of the movement but rather on the merits of his own safety.

First, he has to prove that he can make decisions of his free will. We cannot trust his decision-making as long he is in Juba. Especially decisions with enormous effect on the movement since the chief of staff remains the only person that can truly make decisions of his free will between the two founding fathers. Dr. Marcher must first go down to the liberated area and meet with his senior officer and benefit them on the way forward, otherwise, his decision does not hold weight.

The author, Joseph Buom, is a civil society activist and a commentator on topical social issues…!!!


The statements, comments, or opinions published by Ramciel Broadcasting are entirely those of the author (s), which do not by any means represent the views held by the management of Ramciel. Any claims made are the responsibility of the writer(s), and not the staff and the management of Ramciel.

Ramciel reserves the right to moderate, publish or delete a post without warning or consultation with the author(s). If you have any piece of opinion/news/article and you would like to publish by Ramciel kindly, send it to ramcielbc@gmail.com. The website protects and keeps the identity of the author confidential unless otherwise, they intend to be made known to the general public.

Share the news