The top UN official spoke of South Sudan government security agencies’ control of the media sector, saying the National Security Service (NSS), which has accused of rights abuses by local and the international community, has a presence in nearly every newsroom and controls or suppresses any content that is considered critical or inconvenient to the government.
Read below the interview with Commissioner Sooka
QUESTION 1: Commissioner Yasmin Sooka, Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission in South Sudan, thank you for taking the time to speak to Sudans Post on the Commissioner’s report that was publicized yesterday. We are impressed and interested in talking to you about the report on the state of democratic and civic space in South Sudan. The report finds that the government of South Sudan is engaged in entrenched repression of independent media and civil society. Can you tell us more about the key findings of the report?
Yeah, sure. You know, when we looked at this question of the end of the transitional period that is rapidly kind of coming to a close, we were concerned by the fact that, you know, the President has kind of announced that the elections will take place by December 2024. And of course, we were worried about the fact that when you look at core fundamental issues in the revitalized agreement, in fact, there are key processes which haven’t taken place.
I think the one is obviously the need for a permanent constitution and, you know, that will really be the basis for determining what kind of South Sudan will we see and what will be, in a way, the outcomes for South Sudan. What will that yield if the permanent constitution is not in place? And then, of course, there’s the second issue of the transitional justice mechanisms which have yet to be set out.
So, we tried to look at this in the context of what are indicators for, you know, democratic participation and democracy in the long run. And I think for us, the key issue was the question of the current situation for journalists, for the media, for human rights defenders, and in fact, whether they have the possibility to participate in that space because they play important roles, in fact, in sharing information with the country at large.
And at the same time, they can raise critical issues around what they see is wrong, both in the country and in terms of the processes. And I think that while we had always been aware that there was a real crackdown on journalists and the media and human rights defenders, I think the deeper we delved into the matter, the more we began to find that, in fact, what you really saw was a very severe and unlawful regime of the national security services who are present in almost every newsroom. And, you know, what they do is they censor any content that is deemed to be critical or inconvenient to the government.
And I mean, when I talk about the government, I’m really talking about the ruling party because I think other political parties have also suffered, you know, some kind of targeting when they’ve tried to say things and have begun electioneering. I think the other is, you know, the fact that the media has been targeted not just by assaults on its journalists and the unlawful arrest and detention of journalists and human rights defenders, but the use of the cyber-attacks and the blocking of websites. And I believe that your own, you know, South Sudan Post has been the subject of that. And that, in a way, is also another disruptor to public access to information. And, you know, one of the first things I learned when I came to South Sudan, and that was around 2016, is that if civil society wanted to have any kind of event, whether it was a workshop or a basic training, they actually had to get permission from the NSS to hold that. And without that written authorization, there would be no hotel or venue that would be available for them to, in fact, you know, be able to hold that.
And in addition to that, the NSS would ask for a copy of their agenda, and they would want to know who the participants are that are going to be at that workshop. And if the matter concerned human rights, or even used the word accountability or security, then it was quite likely that that workshop would, in fact, be cancelled. And, in fact, the organizers of that workshop would also face increased repression and retaliation. And, you know, what we saw was really the continuation of attacks, including sexual violence, particularly where women journalists were concerned, and the arbitrary detention and even attempted murder of, you know, those who sought to be critical of the government.
QUESTION 2: How does the current government repression of the media and civil society compare to the situation during the war?
When you look at the purpose of the revitalized peace agreement, in a way, it came after a number of ceasefire agreements, peace agreements, which, in fact, hadn’t been adhered to. And in a sense, what it was reflective of was, I would say, almost a kind of entitlement or liberation. And you see that is quite common in liberation movements in the region that they believe that they’re entitled to kind of rule, and that secondly, everybody else must fall in line with them.
And I think what we’ve seen is that there have been key fundamentals in the revitalized peace agreement that haven’t been dealt with. The first is the question of a unified army. And without that, you can just ask the question, what security will there be for any kind of electoral processes, bearing in mind that the revitalized peace agreement was about the consolidation of peace, and really ensuring democracy for a new South Sudan, which would culminate in democratic, free, and fair elections.
I think the other issue which has concerned us is the fact that the country has to have a permanent constitution. And it’s the permanent constitution that will really set out what the basis for the electoral process will be, and whether or not, you know, what we will see is a winner-takes-all, which I think is, you know, something that the government is also working towards. Because when you read a lot of these statements, and you listen to them, it’s very clear that they see the revitalized agreement as almost something that fetters their power.
And I think that they see that if they have elections, and if they make sure that it is about whoever wins having complete control, I think that that’s really the one motivation for not doing the permanent constitution, and for delaying it, because it’s been delayed for an extraordinary amount of time. And I, you know, what that plays into is really, I think, the lack of management, really, and recognition of the fact that South Sudan is a plural state with great ethnic diversity, and it’s not made up of two major ethnic groups. And I think that we’re beginning to see more and more, that in fact, if you really want to have a stable South Sudan, then it has to cater to that plurality and diversity. And currently, it doesn’t. And so, you know, one example for me of that was, you know, it was fine for the ruling party to begin to hold there I think they held a meeting to announce that the president would in fact be the person who would be running for that role and there were great celebrations around that. But then similarly, when you had the attempt of SSOA to host Lam Akol when he came back to the country, the security services basically shut that down. And to me, that’s a sign of great intolerance of the political activities of other parties. I think you could see a similar thing when you look at the fact that recently, Riek Machar also complained about not being able to leave Juba since he came. And I would suggest that that’s also about making sure that in fact, the IO are not able to campaign so freely. And some of the media will report that in fact, when they’ve covered the activities of other entities including NASS, that is when their newsrooms were shut down as well.
QUESTION 3: What measures do you think the international community should take to avert an outbreak of violence such as the one in December 2013?
It’s a very tricky question because you know when you speak to South Sudanese citizens themselves, all of them are incredibly eager for the elections to take place. And all of them see that as a unique opportunity to be able to in fact choose their own leaders. And so, I think that the one thing we don’t say in our report is that the electoral process should be stopped. But what we do say is that there are a number of factors that need to be addressed so that you can create that conducive environment.
I think the one we say is that it’s really important that the government really ensures that the permanent constitution process is completed. Because that in a sense deal with not just process, but it also deals with what kind of country you want to see. Currently, South Sudan is operating under transitional government. And I think the ruling party sees itself forced to be in alliances with other political groupings. And that’s not something they want to see going forward. And that’s why we think that if you have the constitution the constitution will actually set out. Are we talking about a sole winner party taking it all? Or are we talking about a government of national unity in which you will have divergent parties and ethnic groups in fact accommodated? And so that’s one of the things we’re saying. I think the second we’re saying is that if you look at the role played by civil society, the media, and journalists in creating an open space in which there can be discussions, there can be open electoral debates. You can compel answers from different government and political officials about the stance that they’re taking on particular issues. That in fact creates a conducive environment. But to get to that point, you actually have to curb the way in which the NSS has been operating and of course the media authority. And what you have to do is in fact just contain them to what the law sets out they have the authority to do. And that means in fact that you don’t actually harass the media and human rights defenders. You don’t arrange for arbitrary detention. You don’t lock them up in ghost house where nobody ever hears about them afterwards. And of course, another important issue is to really deal with this question of fear. And that also means making sure that you don’t have these illegal renditions which are taking place from neighboring states around Sudan.
I think that is very concerning and most of the media that we spoke to said that even where they have left the country they fear for their lives because they often receive phone messages that in fact they are being watched and they need to be careful. Another key factor that we raise, and in fact this is something for the international community, firstly people don’t have a real right to a remedy for anything that happens to them in South Sudan. And that is because you also have an incredibly weak judiciary.
It doesn’t function, it is limited by the lack of resources, it’s limited by where it actually is, and the fact that members of the judiciary are also dependent on the patronage and the goodwill of the ruling party. And so, you really can’t expect any justice from that side. And so those are some of the key recommendations that we said need to be taken. The censorship issue, the ending of arbitrary restrictions, particularly on media houses, like going in there and saying don’t publish this, having a permanent official on standby to monitor what they’re doing, and really about opening up that space to all South Sudanese, because when you look at the question of what is free and fair, it is about being able to in fact apply your mind to canvass freely, to engage in electoral activities without any kind of barrier on that.
And that’s the kind of thing that we’ve been saying really needs to happen before these elections take place. The other factor we raise is the question of the transitional justice mechanisms. South Sudan committed in the original peace agreement, and that was carried forward into the revitalized peace agreement, that it would set up in tandem the hybrid court, the Commission on Truth and Healing, and of course the other Commission on Compensation and Regulations. Now, the government has held a national dialogue, and there have also been consultations with civil society around the Commission on Truth and Healing, but it is clear that it has been taking up the question of accountability for the African Union, and IGAD as well, because remember that under resolution taken by the African Union, member states have mandated the Commission, the Peace and Security Council, to actually begin the process of helping South Sudan to set up the hybrid court. Now, without these critical accountability mechanisms being in place, I think it really raises the question of being able to confront the past, and I think that’s also a challenge with the leadership of South Sudan.
The one is the entitlement question, the second is the use of deliberation rhetoric, and I think the third is this question of being unwilling to look at the past, because remember, when we talk about the question of the guarantees of non-recurrence, what we look at are, what are the structural underpinnings in a society that create, in fact, the space for human rights violations, and so you have to look backwards in fact to create and consolidate a picture for the future if you really want to stop the violations, and so these are part of the recommendations that we make.
QUESTION 4: What message do you have for the people of South Sudan who are struggling to promote democracy and human rights in their country, and what message do you also have for the international community which has the responsibility to support the people of South Sudan?
I think let me start firstly with the note for the international community. What we have seen is that they have walked this load for such a long time with the South Sudanese society from the time when South Sudan actually split from Sudan and also even after 2013, when you had this incredible outbreak of violence, nevertheless, the international community actually stayed the cause, and that is why we believe that it’s important for them to continue to walk the walk and to support the government and UNMISS in really creating what I would call a fair and transparent electoral processes, but that must be accompanied of course by ensuring not just a political commitment to unify the armed forces, but actually to make sure that there’s the implementation of that angle of the agreement, because I think that that poses a real potential for future instability in the country.
I think the second we are saying is that constitution-making processes are not rocket science, and if you look at many of the countries in the region and abroad, lots of them have had to have new constitutions, and so there’s a wealth of experiences out there of how after peace agreements, you actually have constitution- making processes which really guarantee fundamental rights to citizens. So that’s the sort of third point we make to the international community.
We also talk about the fact that if you want to build an accountable system of government, it can only be built when you have a vibrant civil society, and that means that the international community has to also ensure that civil society and the media continue to be supported. Funding is one of the issues, but the other is the question of security and being able to intervene with the government when they see that that democratic space is becoming increasingly restricted. And so, this is the kind of thing which we see the international community actually engaging in, but their job is also to provide support and assistance to the government, because the government may be willing in some parts to do things, but at another level there may not be the technical know-how that is needed. And I think this is where the experiences of the international community and their support can be useful.
When it comes to civil society, I think that the message to civil society is that their participation and governance and political discussions are really important to the future of South Sudan. But at the same time, we recognize that many of them are operating in a climate in which they fear for their lives, and that is where they need real security, and they also need the commitment of the government to ensuring that there’s no retaliation against them for speaking out. And when you look at the national dialogue processes, for instance, the one thing that emerged from that was that when people said that they were frightened of speaking out, the president himself guaranteed that there would be no action taken against those who made critical points about government, and in fact that he guaranteed that there would be no retaliation.
Now if that could have happened at one of the consultation processes, the national dialogue, that is something that civil society needs to say to the government, we need a commitment from you that you’re going to bring the NSS under control, and that we as both civil society, human rights defenders in the media, we are not going to face any assaults. We are not going to face censorship. We’re not going to face harassment and intimidation if we speak out, and both we and our families won’t be targeted, and in fact that we will be safe, and we will be free to speak out. I think that’s an important message that civil society needs to send to the government, because without that, to be very, very frank, civil society will be operating both in silos, but also in silence, and what you don’t want to do is send them underground, or force them to leave the country, and I think that’s something that’s happening already.
QUESTION 4: The Commission chosen to release its reports from Nairobi. Why not in Juba? Is that because of the media restrictions and that you might have been denied the space in South Sudan?
I think that originally when we decided to launch the report, we actually looked at where the report would be covered most widely from, and this is not the first report that we in fact launched from Nairobi. I think in 2017 we launched our report from Nairobi, because I think that Nairobi is also a place where you have quite a wide spectrum of journalists who operate from the region, and that’s the reason we chose to go to Nairobi, and I think that we were also aware of the fact that if we launched it in Juba, while perhaps the international community would cover the content of the report, in fact the media houses and journalists and the electronic media would in fact not be able to cover it in Juba, because if they did so, they would immediately be punished really for doing that, and so we wanted to ensure that in fact there would be the widest possible access to this report, and that is why we went to launch in Nairobi, and I think that’s been borne out by the large amount of coverage that the report has got, not just in international media, but also in media in the region, because I think the lessons we are learning and I mean, it’s the salutary lesson for all of our countries including my own, that fundamental freedoms come from a free and democratic society based on a constitution with a bill of rights, and of course a conducive environment in which civil society exists.
Without civil society and civic space, you really can’t consolidate democracy, and when you look at the recent coups that have taken place in the region, where the military has taken over, I think what you also see is the fact that many of, you know, one of the things that was surprising was how the ordinary population even welcomed the coups, and that is because they saw electoral mismanagement, and that the elections didn’t yield the result they wanted, and I think that that’s what we really were trying to do as well.
Ms. Yasmin Sooka, Chairperson of the UN Human Rights Commission in South Sudan, thank you for speaking to Sudans Post.
Thank you for having me.