On December 5th, 2012, a day that has become
one of the drabbest days in South Sudan, and particularly bloodcurdling within
the circles of the intellectuals and the media, Isaiah Abraham
was killed in the coldest of the night by, thus far, unknown assailants. The brutal
killing of Isaiah Abraham - a real person whose real name had been wrongly
understood to be a cognomen for Isaiah Diing Abraham Chan Awol - a political
commentator and a government critic from within, shook the nation that
Wednesday morning. Many thought Isaiah Abraham, a name familiar to many
readers of South Sudanese sociopolitical and economic commentaries, was that of
a coward guy hiding behind a pseudonym. But he wasn’t. As an ordained Christian
pastor and born of a Christian family that follows baptismal renaming cult,
Isaiah had nothing hidden in who he was. In actual fact, he was just he: Isaiah Abraham.
It is believed that Isaiah was confronted in
his house in the wee hours of the morning and was physically assaulted and
eventually silenced by the barrel of a gun. Family, friends, and his readers
were crumbled by the news of his death. Dark clouds hang over freedom of
expression as well, for Isaiah could only die through what he writes. Those who
were greatly affected were members of the South Sudanese blogosphere who
intuitively felt the urge by the country’s sheer lack of development in its
wholesomeness (physical infrastructure, change in attitudes, psychological
development, ideological development, social development, etc.), and who wished
to save the country by offering advice from a politically non-allied
perspective. They had initially thought that the gunmen might now need the
intellectuals to push the nation to its credible viability. But on this day
they were wrong. The brutal death of Isaiah Abraham left many querying where in
the world would enduring stability and development of a nation not require
the two polarities to cooperate and coexist? Following the news of the death of
Isaiah Abraham, there appeared to be no room for intellectual comments in South
Sudan. Never had it crossed anyone's mind that the penman, usually located
within the capitals: Juba, Torit, Malakal, Aweil, Bor, Yambio, Bentiu, Abyei,
Rumbek, Kuacjok; and in the diaspora, would inadvertently enter into war with the
gunmen. Such seems to be the unfolding state of affairs. It is hinted
that Isaiah Abraham had received threatening phone calls before he was
eventually hunted down and killed. The queerness of it all is that threats have
continued to be issued to others after him.
There are people who say they have received
anonymous phone calls ordering them to cease making critical comments on the
Internet about the death of Isaiah Abraham. Those receiving these death calls
from hell are told to shut up or face the consequences. But Isaiah Abraham was
a major in the SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army) and bore the brunt of war
so that those who do not speak for themselves would have the prospect of living
the dream of freedom. He is not a man whose name should be whispered with
fear, not when he is dead. There are courageous statements in the media from
many South Sudanese citizens who do not want to comply. Some of his readers say
that if Isaiah Abraham wasn’t quiet, then no reason to quieten about his death when
what killed him may still be out there.
What really killed Isaiah Abraham? My
assumption is that many South Sudanese writers, bloggers, columnists,
commentators, and their readers are in the full knowledge that what they write or
read about is often not about themselves but what they ought the society to be
for everyone. A commentator like Isaiah, who wrote till death, did so because
he wanted to see an equitable, just, and fair society flourishing in South
Sudan. It would conversely be of no much an interest to focus on the human
face of who took the life of Isaiah Abraham. At this point, speculations are
that his death, if methodically investigated, may not criminalize one
individual but a system of some category. Believing this may be the case, then,
logically, there is no prison structurally capable of hosting culprits of a
crime of such enormity. South Sudanese too, are aware that investigations have
been ordered in the past, and to present, no culprits have been incarcerated.
The kidnapping and near-death torture of Deng Athuai, the Chairperson of South
Sudan's Civil Society Alliance, is a case in point. Deng’s attempts to let the
government disclose the names of seventy-five officials meekly implored in the
letters sent to each one of them to return the money to the national treasury
landed him in a sack, thoroughly beaten and left for dead just a few kilometers
from the outskirts of Juba. Other tortures and disappearances have been
reported. These tortures and now the death of Isaiah
Abraham makes one believes that whoever kills and tortures cannot be found.
Only what makes the killer so ferocious could be unwrapped.
The events leading to Isaiah’s demise are
clear. Many think the country’s leadership is perching on shame for failing to
restart oil flow and correspondingly, reeling in fear of an unforeseen
seat-swapping civil unrest if things stand the way they are. It is important to
note here that the South Sudan government remains the major employing sector in the
country, and with ninety-eight percent of its budget coming from oil, stakes of
discord can never be any higher. The private sector is yet to emerge. The
quintessential truth rests on what citizens see; impending suffering might be
looming. There is no economy that anyone would say is free-falling, rather,
there is no real economic move from ground zero. On the political-economic
front, neighboring Sudan holds the nation by the throat. No future date is set
for oil flow insight, borderlands are being invaded, and prices of anything
but everything are skyrocketing in the local markets. Frustration is
comprehensible on the faces of the people. These and others are what Isaiah
Abraham was commenting on.
The second last article he wrote mentioned his
participation in the demonstrations. He was among the demonstrating crowd of
the people of Northern Bahr el Ghazal and other areas who dissent Mile-14 and
other borderlands in the security arrangement between Sudan and South Sudan. He
also wrote strongly about South Sudan’s intransigence in dealing with the Sudanese
rebels. The facts that Isaiah wrote about are strong enough. In fact, someone
who is ill-trained in matters of national security would think he had
trespassed too close. But he was miles away. Sometimes his controversial
commentaries leave some with doubts as to what he was unto. Some thought Isaiah was the government, or at least, its agent.
Until now, some people are yet to be convinced of who Isaiah Abraham really
was. Even some of us who might have seen Isaiah physically would not be able to
clear this mystique. However, in the face of this anonymity in the person of
Isaiah, just as much as the anonymity of his killers would keep clouding our
vision of the reality, one thing would be clear, with or without investigation
into his death – the question of what killed him. Could Isaiah Abraham be a
victim of ordinary crime - of which Juba is said to be notorious due to lack of
effective crime-stopping mechanisms, or comments on Mile-14, Sudanese
rebellions, leadership stagnation, fear of an uprising, lack of basic services in
the country, or siphoning corruption? What is it?
Ordinary citizens who love South Sudan as a
country and the shrewd Isaiah Abraham would be gratified in the ultimate
justice if what killed him is systemically addressed. What killed Isaiah, when
found, might probably be what is killing the nation. If Isaiah Abraham, a man
without an opposition briefcase and following could die for his views, then
South Sudanese opposition leaders in the like of Dr. Lam Akol are justified to
oppose via remote control.
On December 5th, 2012, a day that has become
one of the drabbest days in South Sudan, and particularly bloodcurdling within
the circles of the intellectuals and the media, Isaiah Abraham
was killed in the coldest of the night by, thus far, unknown assailants. The brutal
killing of Isaiah Abraham - a real person whose real name had been wrongly
understood to be a cognomen for Isaiah Diing Abraham Chan Awol - a political
commentator and a government critic from within, shook the nation that
Wednesday morning. Many thought Isaiah Abraham, a name familiar to many
readers of South Sudanese sociopolitical and economic commentaries, was that of
a coward guy hiding behind a pseudonym. But he wasn’t. As an ordained Christian
pastor and born of a Christian family that follows baptismal renaming cult,
Isaiah had nothing hidden in who he was. In actual fact, he was just he: Isaiah Abraham.
It is believed that Isaiah was confronted in
his house in the wee hours of the morning and was physically assaulted and
eventually silenced by the barrel of a gun. Family, friends, and his readers
were crumbled by the news of his death. Dark clouds hang over freedom of
expression as well, for Isaiah could only die through what he writes. Those who
were greatly affected were members of the South Sudanese blogosphere who
intuitively felt the urge by the country’s sheer lack of development in its
wholesomeness (physical infrastructure, change in attitudes, psychological
development, ideological development, social development, etc.), and who wished
to save the country by offering advice from a politically non-allied
perspective. They had initially thought that the gunmen might now need the
intellectuals to push the nation to its credible viability. But on this day
they were wrong. The brutal death of Isaiah Abraham left many querying where in
the world would enduring stability and development of a nation not require
the two polarities to cooperate and coexist? Following the news of the death of
Isaiah Abraham, there appeared to be no room for intellectual comments in South
Sudan. Never had it crossed anyone's mind that the penman, usually located
within the capitals: Juba, Torit, Malakal, Aweil, Bor, Yambio, Bentiu, Abyei,
Rumbek, Kuacjok; and in the diaspora, would inadvertently enter into war with the
gunmen. Such seems to be the unfolding state of affairs. It is hinted
that Isaiah Abraham had received threatening phone calls before he was
eventually hunted down and killed. The queerness of it all is that threats have
continued to be issued to others after him.
There are people who say they have received
anonymous phone calls ordering them to cease making critical comments on the
Internet about the death of Isaiah Abraham. Those receiving these death calls
from hell are told to shut up or face the consequences. But Isaiah Abraham was
a major in the SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army) and bore the brunt of war
so that those who do not speak for themselves would have the prospect of living
the dream of freedom. He is not a man whose name should be whispered with
fear, not when he is dead. There are courageous statements in the media from
many South Sudanese citizens who do not want to comply. Some of his readers say
that if Isaiah Abraham wasn’t quiet, then no reason to quieten about his death when
what killed him may still be out there.
What really killed Isaiah Abraham? My
assumption is that many South Sudanese writers, bloggers, columnists,
commentators, and their readers are in the full knowledge that what they write or
read about is often not about themselves but what they ought the society to be
for everyone. A commentator like Isaiah, who wrote till death, did so because
he wanted to see an equitable, just, and fair society flourishing in South
Sudan. It would conversely be of no much an interest to focus on the human
face of who took the life of Isaiah Abraham. At this point, speculations are
that his death, if methodically investigated, may not criminalize one
individual but a system of some category. Believing this may be the case, then,
logically, there is no prison structurally capable of hosting culprits of a
crime of such enormity. South Sudanese too, are aware that investigations have
been ordered in the past, and to present, no culprits have been incarcerated.
The kidnapping and near-death torture of Deng Athuai, the Chairperson of South
Sudan's Civil Society Alliance, is a case in point. Deng’s attempts to let the
government disclose the names of seventy-five officials meekly implored in the
letters sent to each one of them to return the money to the national treasury
landed him in a sack, thoroughly beaten and left for dead just a few kilometers
from the outskirts of Juba. Other tortures and disappearances have been
reported. These tortures and now the death of Isaiah
Abraham makes one believes that whoever kills and tortures cannot be found.
Only what makes the killer so ferocious could be unwrapped.
The events leading to Isaiah’s demise are
clear. Many think the country’s leadership is perching on shame for failing to
restart oil flow and correspondingly, reeling in fear of an unforeseen
seat-swapping civil unrest if things stand the way they are. It is important to
note here that the South Sudan government remains the major employing sector in the
country, and with ninety-eight percent of its budget coming from oil, stakes of
discord can never be any higher. The private sector is yet to emerge. The
quintessential truth rests on what citizens see; impending suffering might be
looming. There is no economy that anyone would say is free-falling, rather,
there is no real economic move from ground zero. On the political-economic
front, neighboring Sudan holds the nation by the throat. No future date is set
for oil flow insight, borderlands are being invaded, and prices of anything
but everything are skyrocketing in the local markets. Frustration is
comprehensible on the faces of the people. These and others are what Isaiah
Abraham was commenting on.
The second last article he wrote mentioned his
participation in the demonstrations. He was among the demonstrating crowd of
the people of Northern Bahr el Ghazal and other areas who dissent Mile-14 and
other borderlands in the security arrangement between Sudan and South Sudan. He
also wrote strongly about South Sudan’s intransigence in dealing with the Sudanese
rebels. The facts that Isaiah wrote about are strong enough. In fact, someone
who is ill-trained in matters of national security would think he had
trespassed too close. But he was miles away. Sometimes his controversial
commentaries leave some with doubts as to what he was unto. Some thought Isaiah was the government, or at least, its agent.
Until now, some people are yet to be convinced of who Isaiah Abraham really
was. Even some of us who might have seen Isaiah physically would not be able to
clear this mystique. However, in the face of this anonymity in the person of
Isaiah, just as much as the anonymity of his killers would keep clouding our
vision of the reality, one thing would be clear, with or without investigation
into his death – the question of what killed him. Could Isaiah Abraham be a
victim of ordinary crime - of which Juba is said to be notorious due to lack of
effective crime-stopping mechanisms, or comments on Mile-14, Sudanese
rebellions, leadership stagnation, fear of an uprising, lack of basic services in
the country, or siphoning corruption? What is it?
Ordinary citizens who love South Sudan as a
country and the shrewd Isaiah Abraham would be gratified in the ultimate
justice if what killed him is systemically addressed. What killed Isaiah, when
found, might probably be what is killing the nation. If Isaiah Abraham, a man
without an opposition briefcase and following could die for his views, then
South Sudanese opposition leaders in the like of Dr. Lam Akol are justified to
oppose via remote control.
No comments:
Post a Comment