The ongoing African Union Summit in Kigali should have dominated regional news coverage this week but argh; killings in President Kiir’s South Sudan and the murder of East African legislator Hafsa Mossi in President Pierre Nkurunziza’s Burundi have stuck out like sore thumbs.

About forty days ago, a South Sudanese old friend of mine was in Kigali to particularly talk me into taking up a rather lucrative job offer in Juba; US$6000 net monthly pay with a couple of handsome allowances for a full year is a deal many a person would accept on first thought.

But the cautious Munyoro in me turned down the offer on two grounds; first, that I have only recently committed loyalty to my current employer and for professional reputation, I couldn’t prematurely walkout of my contract just after a few months into it.

"Secondly, the money on offer is tempting but your country is still a warzone; the current power sharing deal is just an opportunity for the commanders to rethink warfare strategies and regroup their warriors, any slight incident will spark off the fighting,” I told my friend.

We argued on for what could have been three hours. In the end, he couldn’t win. A smaller pay chaque in a politically stable country is better than a big one that comes with equally fat chances of getting killed. But I was kind enough to recommend another person for the job.

The guy I recommended for the job was accepted. Unfortunately, he had been two weeks into his assignment when the latest skirmishes broke-out in Juba. He is now among the statistics of those killed in the crossfire…dead before his first pay cheque.

As the 27th African Union summit comes to an end here in Kigali, we must juxtapose the summit talk ‘Women Rights; Human rights’ and the killings in South Sudan, Burundi and elsewhere and ask whether there is any method in Africa’s madness.

It appears that every good initiative in Africa is met with a huge contradiction. As we discussed human rights in Kigali, commanders in South Sudan were pushing the rights of civilians down the gutter with the barrels of their rusty Mikhail Kalashnikov’s invention.

But emotions aside, we must also appreciate what is going on in South Sudan; it is a process of State formation which we must give a chance to unravel organically and lead itself to a proper conclusion; this is a phase that every country has undergone.

American anthropologist Robert Leonard Carneiro discussed ‘conflict theories’ in his 1970 publication, "A Theory of the Origin of the State.’

Under conflict theory, the State is formed after dominance of one group over another is achieved. That appears to be what South Sudan is experiencing. We must not interfere.

The referendum in 2011 may have led to the formation of an independent South Sudan but it was only the beginning of a state formation process where a dominant force would form government. Salva Kiir only opportunistically became president because he was the SPLM leader at the time.

As Kiir now embarked on the phase of consolidating his hold to power, it was only a matter of time before he got some kind of resistance from either outside or within the SPLM.

The later happened two years after independence on the night of 15 December 2013 when shooting erupted within Salva Kiir’s Presidential Guards after tensions between Kiir and his then Vice President Riek Machar during preparations to a meeting of the SPLM’s National Liberation Council. Kiir sacked Riek as his sidekick the next day after the shooting.

Following his sacking, Riek with a band of warriors from his tribe skedaddled from Juba and returned to the jungles where he became the chief antagonist to Kiir’s Juba government.

All subsequent diplomatic interventions by African and international outfits failed to end the conflict until April this year when Machar returned to Juba and was reinstalled as Vice President by President Machar. 

Barely three months later and the two adversaries have resumed fighting. What must be done now? Clearly, Riek and Kiir can’t serve in the same government.

One must defeat the other in battle to claim dominance and form a government; while Kiir seeks to consolidate his power, he has proven weak in doing so and Riek believes he can wrestle power from him. In conflict theory of state formation, this is all normal.

What is not normal however, is the killing of the guy I recommended for the job as well as hundreds of other innocent and unarmed civilians. While we must seek a winner between Kiir and Riek, we must save lives of civilians.

The United Nations together with the African Union must declare a war-free zone where all unarmed civilians especially women and children can be gathered for safety. The armed forces, under their respective commanders should then be left to engage in military combat outside the war-free-zone with Red Cross volunteers on the side-lines to treat wounded soldiers.

Although this sounds extreme, it would not only save civilian lives but also give war a chance to produce a dominant force to emerge and establish an efficient statecraft in South Sudan.

editorial@newtimes.co.rw