(JUBA) – South Sudan’s judiciary is facing growing pressure and instability as President Salva Kiir Mayardit continues to exercise broad and unchecked authority over judicial appointments and removals, often bypassing constitutional procedures. Legal experts and observers say the president’s actions are eroding judicial independence and weakening the rule of law in the country.
South Sudan’s 2011 Transitional Constitution explicitly guarantees the independence of the judiciary, separating it from the executive and legislative branches. It grants judicial power to a five tier court system headed by the Supreme Court of South Sudan. Judges are to be appointed and removed only with the involvement of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), chaired by the Chief Justice.
In practice, however, this constitutional safeguard has often been ignored. President Mayardit has repeatedly removed judges without the JSC’s recommendation, casting doubt on his commitment to constitutional governance.
One of the earliest and most prominent cases occurred in 2016, when Justice Ruben Madol Arol Kachuol, then Deputy Chief Justice, was dismissed. Although no official explanation was given, his removal followed his dissent in a case challenging the president’s controversial 2015 decree creating 28 states. The opposition argued, correctly, that the president had no constitutional power to create new states unilaterally. Despite this, the majority of judges sided with the executive, and the Transitional Constitution was later amended to give the president that authority, a move many legal experts say reflects the entrenchment of executive dominance.
In 2017, a far more alarming case occurred when 14 lower court judges were removed en masse. The judges had participated in a strike demanding better pay and working conditions, and they publicly called for the resignation of Chief Justice Chan Reec Madut. Although their strike was protected under South Sudan’s 2017 Labour Act, the president issued a decree terminating their positions, reportedly at the request of Chief Justice Madut himself.
The judges challenged the move at the East African Court of Justice, arguing it violated both the Transitional Constitution and the East African Community Treaty (1999), which South Sudan acceded to in 2016. The court ruled in their favour, ordering their reinstatement. However, President Mayardit only partially complied, instructing them to reapply for their jobs. The judges refused, saying their removal was unlawful and their return should be automatic — as is the norm in judicial appointments.
In a recent development, Chief Justice Madut and his deputy, John Gatwech Lul, were both removed in May 2025 after 14 years at the helm. No explanation was provided and it is unclear whether the JSC was involved. Although Madut had previously overstepped his constitutional limits including unilaterally appointing 15 lower court judges in 2015, his close alignment with the presidency raised concerns about political influence in judicial leadership.
One of the most criticised moments came in 2023, when Madut appeared at a political rally in Wau, where he publicly endorsed President Mayardit’s campaign for the 2024 elections. Legal scholars and opposition leaders warned that Madut’s actions compromised his impartiality, especially as the Supreme Court is responsible for resolving electoral disputes.
These incidents, experts argue, demonstrate how judicial independence in South Sudan is being systematically undermined. The removal of judges without proper procedure not only violates constitutional provisions but also weakens the judiciary’s ability to act independently.
Examples of Judicial Interference in South Sudan
| Year | Event | Key Details |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Removal of Deputy Chief Justice Ruben Madol | Dismissed after dissent in case opposing presidential decree |
| 2017 | Dismissal of 14 lower court judges | Judges removed for strike and criticism of Chief Justice Madut |
| 2023 | Chief Justice Madut attends political rally | Public endorsement of President Mayardit during election build-up |
| 2025 | Removal of Chief Justice Madut and Deputy | Unexplained dismissal without confirmed JSC involvement |
President Mayardit’s approach to judicial affairs undermines the rule of law by creating an environment where judges may fear retaliation for issuing rulings that do not align with executive interests. This situation, legal experts warn, prevents the fair and impartial administration of justice and shakes public confidence in the courts.
While the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) provides for judicial reform, including the creation of a special committee in 2022, real progress remains limited. The committee submitted its report to the transitional government in 2024, but the findings have not been released to the public.
Among the committee’s reported concerns are a lack of internal judicial accountability, executive overreach, and the need for capacity building particularly in legal language. Many judges were educated in Arabic during the Sudan era and are unfamiliar with South Sudan’s English based legal system. This results in proceedings being conducted in Arabic, creating communication barriers and additional costs for translation services.
Challenges Identified in Judicial Reform Efforts
| Issue | Description |
|---|---|
| Language Barrier | Many judges trained in Arabic, not English |
| Capacity Limitations | Lack of training in common law system |
| Political Interference | Presidential dismissals bypassing legal process |
| Transparency Gaps | Reform committee report not yet published |
Legal reform and increased judicial training are seen as necessary first steps. However, as long as the executive maintains its military-style control, genuine judicial independence will remain elusive. Experts argue that unless the culture of military dominance in civilian governance is addressed, legal reforms will have limited effect.
Without strong, independent courts, the principles of justice, accountability and rule of law, central goals of South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution remain out of reach.
