South Sudan legal &amp; regulatory news

Legislation

Cabinet Approves Constitutional Changes to Pave Way for Elections

The South Sudanese cabinet has approved a constitutional amendment bill that would remove the legal requirement for elections to be conducted under a permanent constitution, clearing the way for the country's planned December 2026 general elections despite persistent concerns. The Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan (Amendment No. 13) Bill, 2026, was approved during a cabinet meeting chaired by President Salva Kiir and will now be submitted to the Transitional National Legislative Assembly for debate and approval before being sent to President Kiir for assent. The legal significance of this development lies in its potential impact on the electoral process in South Sudan. The proposed amendments would allow the December 2026 elections to be held under the amended Transitional Constitution while the permanent constitution-making process continues separately, effectively delinking the elections from the constitution-making process. This could have far-reaching implications for the country's political landscape and may influence the outcome of the upcoming elections. The relevant statutes involved in this development are the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan (Amendment No. 13) Bill, 2026, and the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement, which provides for legislative measures to facilitate the electoral process under Article 8.4. The proposed amendments also follow recent changes to the 2018 peace deal that removed requirements for a permanent constitution and a population census before elections can be held. The key parties involved in this development are the South Sudanese cabinet, led by President Salva Kiir, and the Transitional National Legislative Assembly, which will debate and approve the bill. The Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister, Wek Mamer Kuol, played a crucial role in introducing the amendments to the cabinet. Practitioners should monitor this development closely as it may have significant implications for the electoral process in South Sudan. Attorneys advising clients involved in the elections or constitution-making process should be aware of the proposed amendments and their potential impact on the country's political landscape.

7 Aug

South Sudan Court: Riek Machar Requests Testimony Audio Video Recording

South Sudan's suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar has requested the special court trying him to allow his testimony to be recorded in audio and video, arguing that preserving the proceedings in digital form is important due to the country's uncertain political and security environment. This request has significant implications for practitioners, as it highlights the importance of technology in the administration of justice. The use of digital recording equipment can streamline court proceedings, reduce the need for lengthy handwritten statements, and provide a more accurate record of testimony. Furthermore, this development may set a precedent for future cases, particularly those involving high-profile defendants or complex legal issues. The relevant statutes and regulations governing the South Sudanese judiciary are not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt. However, it is likely that the court's decision will be guided by the country's Judicial Services Act 2009 and the Code of Conduct for Judges. The special court trying Machar is a three-judge panel sitting at Freedom Hall in Juba, which suggests that this case may be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of South Sudan. The key parties involved in this matter are Dr. Riek Machar, the suspended First Vice President; the lead prosecutor Ajo OnyOhisa; and the presiding judge James Alala Deng. Practitioners should monitor this development closely, as it may have implications for future cases involving high-profile defendants or complex legal issues. Practitioner takeaway: Attorneys and businesses involved in similar cases should be aware of the potential benefits and drawbacks of digital recording equipment in court proceedings. They should also be prepared to adapt to changing technologies and procedures in the administration of justice.

7 Aug

US Criticizes South Sudan Election Funding Pledges as 'Insincere'

The United States accused South Sudan's leaders of using 'insincere' election talk to distract the international community and attract donor funding while failing to address the country's worsening humanitarian, economic, and security crises. Addressing the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Jennifer Locetta made these remarks on Thursday, representing one of the strongest recent public criticisms by Washington of South Sudan's political leadership as the country prepares for elections scheduled for December. The legal significance of this development lies in its potential impact on international relations and donor funding for South Sudan. The U.S. criticism may lead to a reevaluation of aid packages and diplomatic engagement with the South Sudanese government, which could have far-reaching consequences for the country's humanitarian, economic, and security situation. The relevant legal context is the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 33, which emphasizes the importance of peaceful settlement of disputes. The U.N. Security Council's role in maintaining international peace and security is also pertinent to this matter. Furthermore, the U.S. criticism may be seen as a reflection of the country's commitment to promoting democratic values and human rights, as enshrined in various international treaties and conventions. The key parties involved are the United States, represented by Ambassador Jennifer Locetta, and the government of South Sudan, which has been accused of insincere election talk. The U.N. Security Council also plays a crucial role in this matter, as it is the forum where the U.S. criticism was made. Practitioner takeaway: Attorneys and businesses should monitor developments in international relations and donor funding for South Sudan, as well as any potential changes to aid packages or diplomatic engagement with the government. This may also be an opportunity for practitioners to engage with clients on issues related to humanitarian law, human rights, and democratic governance.

7 Aug

South Sudan: Dismisses Election Prerequisites to UN Security Council

South Sudan's Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Sabino Nyawella Amaikwey, told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that concerns over preparations for December's planned elections remain manageable despite persistent insecurity, economic hardship and political tensions. The legal significance of this development lies in its implications for the electoral process in South Sudan. The country's ability to hold credible, peaceful, and inclusive elections is crucial for its transition towards democracy. The government's assertion that challenges are manageable through continued national efforts and cooperation with regional and international partners may be seen as a positive step, but it remains to be seen whether this will be sufficient to address the concerns raised by U.N. officials and the country's peace monitor. The relevant legal context in this matter is the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement (R-ARCSS), which outlines the framework for South Sudan's transition towards democracy. The agreement includes provisions for the conduct of free and fair elections, as well as measures to address the root causes of conflict in the country. The government's rejection of suggestions that recent changes in the implementation of the R-ARCSS were unilateral is also noteworthy, as it highlights the complexities of implementing a peace agreement in a country with ongoing conflict. The key parties involved in this matter are the South Sudanese government, represented by Ambassador Nyawella Amaikwey, and the U.N. Security Council, which has expressed concerns over the electoral process. The country's peace monitor is also a relevant party, as it has warned of the risks of holding elections without addressing the underlying challenges. Practitioners should monitor this development closely, as it may have implications for the conduct of elections in South Sudan and the implementation of the R-ARCSS. Attorneys advising clients involved in the electoral process or with interests in South Sudan's transition towards democracy should be aware of the government's assertions regarding the manageability of challenges and the complexities of implementing a peace agreement in a country with ongoing conflict.

7 Aug

Opinion| Dr. Machar’s Right to Counsel Tests South Sudan’s Rule of Law

The reported denial of timely and confidential access between suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar Teny, his co-accused, and their legal representatives raises serious concerns about the rule of law in South Sudan. This development is significant for practitioners as it highlights the ongoing challenges to upholding constitutional guarantees and due process in the country's justice system. The right to counsel is a fundamental principle of fair trial, and its denial can have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice and public confidence in the rule of law. In this context, the executive branch and security organs must comply promptly with lawful court orders governing access to accused persons. The relevant statutes and regulations involved include Article 19 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing and the right of every accused person to be defended by a lawyer of their own choosing. The Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 2008, also protects the right of legal representatives to consult their clients in preparing a defence. These domestic guarantees are reinforced by international human rights instruments such as Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and Article 14(3)(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The key parties involved include Dr. Riek Machar Teny, his co-accused, their legal representatives, and the executive branch and security organs of South Sudan. Practitioners should monitor this development closely as it may have implications for future cases involving access to counsel and the administration of justice in the country.

6 Aug

Warrap State Security Situation: SSPDF Accused of Fueling Tonj Conflict

In South Sudan, lawmakers have summoned senior government officials to address the worsening insecurity in Warrap State, where some members of the South Sudan Peoples Defence Forces (SSPDF) allegedly returned to their home communities with military-issued weapons, fuelling deadly communal violence. The allegations were made by Kornelio Mawien Dhor, a national lawmaker representing Warrap State in the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA), who cited persistent communal violence, revenge killings, cattle raiding, and a breakdown in governance and the rule of law as contributing factors to the security situation. The legal significance of this matter lies in its potential implications for the rule of law and public security in South Sudan. If true, the allegations suggest that members of the SSPDF are involved in perpetuating violence in their home communities, which could undermine the authority of the state and exacerbate existing conflicts. In terms of legal context, the situation is governed by the Transitional National Security Act 2015, which provides for the deployment of security forces to maintain public order. However, it appears that the current security situation in Warrap State has reached a critical point, with lawmakers calling for urgent action to address the breakdown in governance and the rule of law. The key parties involved include the SSPDF, the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA), and senior government officials who have been summoned to address the issue. Practitioners should monitor this situation closely, as it may lead to further developments in the legal framework governing public security and the role of the military in maintaining order. As a takeaway for practitioners, it is essential to note that the allegations made by Kornelio Mawien Dhor have not been substantiated, and the outcome of this matter is not yet reported. However, if true, they could have significant implications for the rule of law and public security in South Sudan.

5 Aug

SSPDF Military Detention Facility Legality: Lt. Gen. Gabriel Duop Lam Testifies

On Wednesday, Lt. Gen. Gabriel Duop Lam told a special court in Juba that the Jamus Ground military detention facility is an 'illegal prison' established to torture soldiers. The legal significance of this matter cannot be overstated, as it raises questions about the accountability and transparency of the South Sudan Peoples Defence Forces (SSPDF) Military Intelligence Directorate. The allegations made by Lt. Gen. Lam have significant implications for practitioners, businesses, and the public, particularly in relation to human rights and the rule of law. The relevant statutes and regulations governing military detention in South Sudan are unclear, but it is evident that the facility falls outside the legal framework governing military detention. The Military Intelligence Directorate's operation of the facility raises concerns about the separation of powers within the army and the potential for abuse of authority. The fact that Lt. Gen. Lam was unaware of the facility's existence before his own arrest highlights the lack of transparency and accountability within the SSPDF. The key parties involved in this matter include the presiding judge, Justice Alala, as well as the prosecution and defense teams. The court's handling of these allegations will be closely watched by observers, particularly in relation to its treatment of human rights concerns. Practitioners should monitor the outcome of this case and take note of any developments that may impact their clients or businesses operating in South Sudan.

5 Aug

South Sudan Court Allows Defense Lawyers to Meet Machar After Security Block

Security officials in South Sudan prevented defense lawyers from meeting suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar, despite obtaining judicial approval to consult him ahead of his defense testimony. The incident occurred on August 4 at Freedom Hall in Juba during the 104th session of the trial. The legal significance of this matter lies in its potential impact on the fairness and efficiency of the trial process. If security officials can unilaterally block access to a defendant, it may undermine the ability of defense counsel to prepare their client for testimony, potentially leading to delays or even unfair outcomes. This incident highlights the need for clear communication and coordination between court officials, security agencies, and defense teams. The relevant statutes and regulations in this case are not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt. However, it is likely that the trial is being conducted under the South Sudanese Penal Code and the Rules of Evidence and Procedure for Courts Martial. The National Security Service (NSS) is also a key player in this matter, as they have been accused of delaying the meeting between Machar's defense team and their client. The key parties involved in this incident include Dr. Riek Machar, his defense lawyers Kur Lual Kur and Chout Alier, lead prosecutor Ajo OnyOhisa, and the Director General of the National Security Service. Practitioners should monitor this case to understand how it may impact the trial process and the rights of defendants in South Sudan. Practitioner takeaway: Attorneys representing clients in similar situations should be aware of the potential for security officials to block access to their clients, and take steps to ensure that they have obtained all necessary approvals before attempting to meet with them. They should also be prepared to address any administrative delays or objections raised by security agencies.

5 Aug