Before July 9, 2011, Sudan was regarded as the largest country in Africa with impressive potentials. However, after attaining its second independence, first in 1956, before South Sudan’s sovereign status, Sudan’s history, no doubt, has been re-written.

For historians, Sudan’s transmutation was not only a dream come true but an action whose time has come. From onset, they believed the crisis stage was set when the first Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on the promises of a federal system, leading to mutiny by Southern soldiers that sparked 17 years of civil war between 1955 and 1972.

Another failed promise in governance by the regime of Maj-Gen. Abrahim Abboud caused resentment which compelled the military to relinquish power in 1964. The same story continued between 1966 and 1969 when Sudan had governments that neither agreed on a permanent constitution nor coped with problems of factionalism, economic stagnation and ethnic dissidence. The second coup de’ tat of May 25, 1969 enthroned Col Gaafar Nimeiry as prime minister, who also suffered another coup arising from dispute between Marxist and non-Marxist elements in the military.

What was considered the second civil war was re-ignited in the South following Sudan’s Islamisation policy. Yet, another coup de’ tat occurred in 1989 that brought in Omar al-Bashir as the new leader who soon declared himself the president. Al-Bashir’s administration met with a new form of resistance in 2003 when Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) began in the Western region of Darfur. It took the intervention of Chad in 2004  to facilitate a humanitarian ceasefire even as the war continued.

The African Union had to step in and introduced a Cease-Fire Commission (CFC) to  monitor  its observance with 300 Rwandan and Nigerian troops. However, a final peace treaty between the North and Southern rebels was signed on January 9, 2005 in Nairobi promising that:The South will have authonomy for six years and a referendum on seccession; in case of negative result from the referendum, both sides would merge their armed forces; income from oil fields to be shared equally;            Islamic law remains in the North while elected Assembly in the South would decide use of Sharia in  the area; and jobs to be split accordingly in varying ratios, more in favour of government.

Incidentally, not a few political observers saw the January 2011 referendum as a forgone conclusion which it turned out to be. The people of South Sudan spoke with one voice as a prelude to the July 9, 2011 independence when they entered the biblical Promised Land, thus opening a new chapter in their chequered history.

Just after the Speaker of parliament, James Wani Igga declared South Sudan a sovereign nation, the first foreign dignitary to react was Kenya’s President, Mwai Kibaki, who said his country “fully recognises South Sudan.” Leader of the United States delegation, Susan Rice noted that “independence is not a gift you were given, but is a prize you won,” even as she saluted Dr. John Garang and others who could not make it to “Canaan.”

Also, United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon said that Africa’s 54th United Nations member’s sovereignty was, “both a right and great responsibility.” For Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi, his country was “welcoming you as a full member of IGAD”, the East African bloc. According to China’s Special Envoy, Hu Jintao, it was their expectation that the two Sudans would be “good neighbours, partners and brothers forever,” just as Robert Zoellick of the World Bank Group pledged to be “a strong partner as we help transform a day of independence into a decade of development.”

But for President Goodluck Jonathan, the occasion marked the beginning of a new dawn for the people of South Sudan, while pledging Nigeria’s continuous support in the task of building a new nation.

Indeed, the tasks are legion. The new government must ensure that Sudan’s inglorious historic past has no place in the new country. Leaders of South Sudan must eschew divisive actions and inactions.

Their new constitution should check internal conflicts and guarantee peace which would engender genuine development. Despite its oil, South Sudan  remains one of the poorest nations of the world with 85 per cent wide-spread illiteracy, meager infrastructure and pervasive internal rebellion.

As the 196th country in the world and the 193rd member of the United Nations, South Sudan’s first President, Salva Kiir must embark on aggressive education of the citizenry who are expected to take up responsibilities in various aspects of the country’s development – locally and internationally – or they would remain isolated.

He must confront the evils of tribalism and pervasive corruption which overwhelmed the country for years. He should avoid any form of seclusion and run an all-inclusive government to retain the trust of other tribes in the union.

Also, Kiir should be wary of delicate issues of North and South and seek appropriate means of sharing oil proceeds as the South’s economy fully depends on it.

No doubt, the events in Sudan should interest the people of Nigeria as both countries have so many things in common. They share same diversity, population and natural endowment. Also, they are confronted with almost similar geographical disposition of North –South dichotomy, always playing up  threatening religious and ethnic differences.

Nigerians should, therefore, know that the advantages of diversity could turn destructive if mismanaged just like in Sudan where more than three million people lost their lives and over four million were displaced because of irreconcilable differences which made it impossible to sustain one peaceful democratic nation.