Akot’s latest orders, announced by the South Sudan National Police Service, imposed an immediate ban on factory-tinted vehicle windows, right-hand drive vehicles, and public transport vehicles with left-side sliding doors.
Motorists were given just seven days to comply or face heavy fines, impoundment of vehicles, or outright denial of access to public roads. In addition, the directives merged vehicle logbooks and insurance documents into a single card, introducing new charges and administrative requirements.
The justification, according to Akot, was public safety and national security. He cited existing regulations, including a 2019 Council of Ministers resolution and a 2020 ministerial order on vehicle specifications. But for many vehicle owners, the directives landed not as a safety measure, but as yet another financial and bureaucratic burden in an already strained economy.
Within days, public outcry followed. Motorists complained of confusion at traffic offices, delays in document processing, and punitive fines that appeared to take effect without adequate public sensitisation.
Transport operators warned that the measures would disrupt public mobility and raise costs, while civil society voices questioned both the timing and the unilateral nature of the decisions.
Then came the reversal.
On Thursday, Acting Minister of Interior Mangar Buong Aluenge issued Ministerial Order No. 03/2025, signed on December 19, effectively suspending the most controversial elements of Akot’s directives.
The order scrapped charges on factory-tinted vehicles currently operating on South Sudanese roads and reversed the decision to combine vehicle logbooks and insurance cards into a single document.
Under the new order, logbooks and insurance documents will once again be issued separately “to improve administration and clarity.” Locally tinted vehicles are permitted to remove tints without paying any fines, while all requirements for converting vehicles to left-hand drive or modifying vehicle doors have been suspended pending a final decision by the Police Leadership Council.
The Acting Minister said the move was intended to correct problems created by the earlier order, reduce inconvenience to motorists, and streamline traffic management across the country. The decision, he added, was made under the authority of Article 117 of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan and Section 21 of the National Police Service Act.
Inspector General of Police Gen. Saeed Chawul Lom has now been tasked with ensuring nationwide implementation of the suspension through the Traffic Police Department.
For many motorists, the ministerial intervention is a relief. The suspension is expected to ease financial pressure on vehicle owners, reduce administrative bottlenecks, and restore a measure of clarity to vehicle registration and traffic regulation. But beyond the immediate policy shift lies a deeper institutional question: what happens next for Maj. Gen. Kon John Akot?
This is not the first time the combative traffic police director has found himself at the centre of controversy. In the past, Akot publicly clashed with the then Inspector General of Police, Gen. Abraham Manyuat Peter, over his attempted transfer to Northern Bahr el Ghazal State.
Shortly after that standoff, Manyuat was removed from office. While the government never officially linked his dismissal to the dispute, the timing raised eyebrows and cemented Akot’s reputation as an official who often resists orders from above—with little apparent consequence.
Critics argue that Akot’s pattern of issuing punitive directives, sometimes without broad consultation, reflects a wider problem of command and accountability within the security sector.
Now, with his latest directives openly countermanded by the Ministry of Interior, attention turns to how Akot will respond. Will he fully implement the suspension orders handed down by the Acting Minister and enforced by the Inspector General of Police? Or will this episode deepen tensions within the police leadership, testing the limits of authority and discipline once again?
For the public, the immediate concern is practical rather than political: predictable rules, reasonable enforcement, and relief from sudden, costly directives. For the government, however, the episode underscores a more delicate challenge—how to balance enforcement with accountability, and how to ensure that power within the security institutions ultimately answers to civilian authority.
