Defamation: hate speech is not a part of my language

Besides so many other things, I am a writer and activist. I have edited news content and contributed to many news platforms over the years. I put all of this on hold since 2016, and just never returned to it, focusing my energy on the things that matter to me.

In December 2013, the war broke out while I was in Juba, South Sudan. This is when I started to participate more and more in citizen journalism. I became concerned by the level of fake news and hate speech that I was witnessing among South Sudanese on Facebook. This led me to document the hate speech, in case it would ever need to be addressed in the future.

Fast forward to July 2014, I was co-headlining a conference, South Sudan Inside-Out: Rebooting the Peace #DefyHateNow, in Berlin on the 8th of July, the eve of South Sudan’s third independence. There, I discussed hate speech on social media and showcased some anonymised examples of it to the audience. I was very passionate about this project because while I was in South Sudan when the war broke out, I realised how damaging and inflammatory hate speech and fake news was to people on the ground. I also realised that there were many biases among foreign journalists when they reported the war in South Sudan. Some of them were in fact, quite insensitive as to how to report the crisis. This resulted in myself, and a few other South Sudanese on Twitter, to really push for better reporting on the conflict. Al Jazeera recognised this, and published this, South Sudan and the media of conflict.

So naturally, I criticised quite a number of these foreign journalists and called them out on their biases on Twitter. One of these journalists is American Jason Patinkin. Jason was quite resistant to corrections and suggestions, and seemed to inch closer and closer to a war with some of us on Twitter.

Because of my previous background of fighting hate speech on social media, Jason approached me to help him with an article for Buzzfeed on South Sudan and hate speech. He was seeking my perspective on the topic. This was my response to his email:


I was clearly concerned… and looking back, I had every right to be.

We proceeded with the interview, and I gave him an overview on hate speech among South Sudanese on social media and gave him a bit of insight on what I did for #DefyHateNow in 2014. The article was published, and to my surprise, it really wasn’t about my perspectives at all. The interview and article was just Jason’s opportunity to tarnish my reputation by tying me to hate speech and the government of South Sudan. All because I have openly criticised his work.

It wasn’t long before well known propaganda-filled South Sudanese news websites (notice it isn’t the professional and well-established news sites such as EyeRadio and Radio Miraya) picked this up, and started tying me to pro-government propaganda and hate speech. This was incredibly surprising to me. How can I possibly be tied to two things that I truly dislike?

Just to clarify two things though, from the Buzzfeed article by Jason.

  1. The Dawn Newspaper. During the interview, I gave an overview of the kind of work I have done before. I mentioned having done work for The Dawn. I worded it wrongly. I have never been on the payroll of The Dawn Newspaper, but I have contributed to The Dawn on numerous occasions. One of my most recent contributions is this article. As for The Dawn being so pro-government, I am not quite sure if that is really the truth. The Dawn newspaper has been blocked from publishing either the entire newspaper or sections of their paper, numerous times. This clearly goes to show that The Dawn has tried to report on ‘government sensitive matters’ on numerous occasions.
  2. Retweeting Ayuel Atem. I retweeted my friend and journalist, Ayuel Atem. I trusted his judgment on the news he was sharing on Twitter (check news article again). Does retweeting it make me a pro-government influencer? Or is it because I am allegedly a ‘pro-government influencer,’ I retweeted the tweet? And if several others also retweeted Ayuel’s tweet, does that mean, using the same logic, that they are also pro-government?

Besides that Buzzfeed article, I was never mentioned in any other kind of report trying to implicate me in hate speech or paint me as a pro-government agent. Including any type of UN report (look it up and I promise you). This whole situation also led me to reach out to Edmund Yakani, the executive director of CEPO. Edmund was shocked about the situation and advised me to visit him in his office in Juba for further discussions.

Either way, it has been several years since this has happened. However, I found it important to still address this. This one article that tries to tie me to pro-government propaganda, resulted in defamatory articles on two South Sudanese news websites. I know that some people may find them, and start making assumptions about me and my work. I just want to clearly state that I have been targeted for standing up for authentic narratives from South Sudanese (by Jason), targeted for some of my opinions and viewpoints, and targeted for being one of South Sudan’s top influencers. I cannot commit myself to hate speech, of which I have seen the impact of, or the promotion of the government of South Sudan, which I have also seen commit major failures in development, and maintenance of peace in my country. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but sharing this does not necessarily mean the person is trying to promote an entity, a stance or a point of view. I am not tied to the government of South Sudan, neither am I a beneficiary of the government, so to suggest I am a pro-government agent or influencer, trying to use my influence to support the government, is a moot point.

Hate speech is not my language.

In Media: Interview for Esglobal on South Sudan’s new government

I recently did an interview for Esglobal, a Spanish political and economical analysis website. The interview was centred around the formation of the new Transitional-Government of National Unity (TGoNU) and my general opinion of that and the peace agreement.

In February 2020, the re-Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-RARCSS), came into effect; Dr Riek Machar came back as one of the 5 VPs and agreed to form the new government. The 32 states also became 10 states again. As of 10th April 2020, there were still no newly appointed governors, and South Sudan has also been recording new cases of Coronavirus.

The interview was in English but my commentary was translated into Spanish. The author of the article, Pablo Moraga, expounded quite well on the causes of the conflict and the future challenges ahead for South Sudan. Where I came in, was mostly my own views on the formation of the new government and the peace agreement. In my view, I simply believe that there is no real peace, unless grassroot conflicts are addressed, and justice and reconciliation has taken place. A quote from the website translated into English:

”To achieve peace, much more is needed than the creation of a government. As long as social problems are not addressed, the rebels will continue to fight. Or new militias may be born. Although in general South Sudanese have been tired of war for a long time, many think that the only thing that will be achieved with this peace agreement is to put their usual faces in positions of power. We still do not know how key aspects such as local conflicts or justice and reconciliation processes will be managed. ”

Adhieu Majok

In Media: Interview for RFI on South Sudan’s new government

I recently did an interview for French public radio service, RFI. The interview was centred around the formation of the new Transitional-Government of National Unity (TGoNU) and women’s’ views and expectations.

A few days ago, the re-Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-RARCSS), came into effect; Dr Riek Machar came back as one of the 5 VPs and agreed to form the new government. The 32 states also became 10 states again. All of these events came as a surprise for me, and I am pretty sure, for many others too.

The interview was in English but my commentary was translated into French. The subject that was touched upon the most was women’s’ expectations and views on the formation of the new government and the peace agreement. In my view, I simply believe that women invested so much into the peace process because women and children tend to be the most affected by conflict. Women fought for a better inclusion of women in the government, increasing the 25% affirmative action rate to 35%. I added that many women are just waiting to see if the 35% will be respected, as the new cabinet has not yet been announced. A quote from the website translated into English:

”Women have been particularly affected by this conflict. This is why they have invested so much in the dialogue for peace, but also for justice, and for a better representation of women. The peace agreement stipulates that 35% of positions must go to women. And we hope that the various armed groups will remember this.”

Adhieu Majok

A friend today and an enemy tomorrow

Original posting: 17th May 2014

This is my written story of comradeship, one which is summarised by late Dr John Garang’s quote, ‘stabbed the movement on the back.’ Perhaps this is with slight comparison to what is currently occurring in South Sudan. You are free to interpret it in any way you want to.

Blaise Compaoré is the serving president of Burkina Faso (Land of Upright Man).

His position didn’t come about with honesty, a ploliti(ri)cs comprising of dignity and fairness (theoretical democracy, because is democracy ever a practiced system, even in the deemed epitome of democracy, our ‘beloved’ and ‘hailed’ West?).

Compaoré was a comrade of Thomas Sankara, first president of Burkina Faso, the ‘African Che Guevera’, Thomas Sankara.

A Marxist and military president, Sankara, had a revolutionary plan extending beyond the borders of The Land of the Upright Men. He reiterated the importance of self-reliance and self-sustainability. Sankara also included women in the movement, famously stating that ‘women hold up the other half of the sky’.

The French disapproved of Sankara, from a distance (with combined silence and calculated moves), did what they always did and everywhere else; use trickery, treacherous behaviour to achieve their aims.

Compaoré was consumed by the need for power and the appealing offers from the French, while unconcerned with the rest of the nation or the vision for Africa by Sankara.

Compaoré orchestrated the killing of Sankara in a coup d’état, illustrating (perhaps truthfully) that Sankara’s rule of Burkina Faso, was affecting the nation’s relations with the French.

After his death, Compaoré (still in power today) returned Burkina Faso to puppet nation status; a lap dog to the French.

As I conclude the story, I recall a quote by Sankara, a quote unforgotten, a quote with much relevance today; ‘while revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill (their) ideas’.

This rings true with particular relevance to South Sudan, as Dr John Garang read on Sankara and recalled his words and his ideas…

While he himself has transitioned to ancestral realms, his ideas and his vision hasn’t died as many still try to recall his vision (much of which came from Sankara as well).

The moral of the story is, one who is your comrade today can be your enemy tomorrow.

A snake will always be a snake no matter how much you feed it and take care of it. One’s true nature will always come to the surface like a wild cat which can never truly be tamed.

Exploring our South Sudanese heritage

In November 2018 I took part in a film making project in an attempt to explore our heritage as South Sudanese young people of the British diaspora. The film was sponsored by the Mellon Foundation via The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH) Global South Visiting Professor scheme.

We explored Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, UK, and paid extra attention to some familiar and unfamiliar objects hailing from the different ethnic groups of South Sudan. Visiting professor and anthropologist, Dr Jok Madut Jok, talked us through the different objects at the museum, and also went on to answer some questions we had about culture and cultural practices.

The film making took place over two days, and around 40 minutes of footage had to be cut down to make a film of around 3 to 4 minutes. It was tough but we managed!

I really enjoyed this project because it really showed us how much we have managed to keep and how much we have lost. The photos in particular, of our people in the last 100 years, were incredible. They really give you an insight of how people lived at the time.

For those interested in visiting Pitt Rivers Museum to view their objects from around the world, please visit their website for more information.

See our film below: