Preliminary results: South Sudan counties back secession

Votes exceed the simple majority of 1.89 million needed for independence.


Afp January 20, 2011

JUBA, SUDAN: South Sudan achieved the simple majority needed to secede in its independence referendum, preliminary results collated by AFP showed on Wednesday, even with many counties still to report.

As several areas returned landslides of 99 per cent or more for separation of the mainly Christian, African south from the mainly Arab, Muslim north, the majority was achieved although with some of the region’s 10 states, including its most populous, Jonglei, yet to announce any results.

The figures gathered from state and county referendum officials showed that 2,198,422 votes for independence have already been returned.

That comfortably exceeds the simple majority of 1.89 million votes needed on the 96-per cent turnout of the 3,932,588 registered voters.

In Lakes state, centred on Rumbek town which served as rebel headquarters during a devastating 1983-2005 civil war with the north, 298,216 of 300,444 votes cast were for independence, a whopping 99.924 per cent.

Just 227 opted to remain united with the north -- less than one per cent -- with the balance made up by blank or invalid ballots.

In Central Equatoria, which includes the regional capital Juba and is the south’s second most populous state, 449,321, or 98.2 per cent of the 457,452 votes cast, were for secession.

Just 4,985, or barely one per cent, voted for unity.

In Juba, cheers and applause rang out as the head of the county’s referendum sub-committee, Timon Wani, announced a 97.5-per cent majority for independence, which he hailed as a “historic event”.

“This is a great result,” said Mohammed Lowala, who was among the crowd.

“The people of Juba county have spoken for independence and I am sure that the rest of the south will follow,” he said.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 20th,  2011.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ