Opinion Article| South Sudan’s Independence Was Not Won So Citizens Could Be Told to “Suffer”

_{Rose Joseph Oduho}

_{Tuesday, 17 March 2026 | Author – Rose Joseph Oduho | Nairobi-Kenya |File Photo| GT-News |}

While I agree with some of the points raised by the Secretary General of the SPLM party, Dr. Akol Paul Koor, in his speech captured in a video currently circulating on social media—particularly regarding the need for reforms within the party, reforms that many of us have called for for years—two of his remarks raise serious concerns about leadership responsibility and the conceptual understanding of national security in South Sudan.

Health Security and Sovereignty Are National Security: Leadership Must Be Responsible

I watched and listened to the entire speech carefully. My reflections are therefore based on the remarks as they were delivered, not on excerpts taken out of context. This distinction is important because leadership discourse in fragile states carries significant political and social implications. Statements made by senior officials shape public expectations about the role of the state and its obligations to citizens.

The first concern relates to the issue of healthcare policy. During the meeting with SPLM supporters in Central Equatoria, the Secretary General addressed the possibility that international donors may reduce or withdraw support for healthcare services in rural South Sudan. In response, he recounted a personal experience from 1988 during the liberation struggle, when he reportedly treated malaria using herbal roots recommended by an elderly woman.

Traditional knowledge systems and herbal medicine have long formed part of African societies and deserve recognition within broader health traditions. However, personal anecdotal experiences cannot substitute for national healthcare policy. Modern public health systems exist precisely because individual remedies are insufficient to address population-level disease burdens.

South Sudan today faces one of the highest rates of malaria and preventable disease in the world. Millions of citizens, particularly in rural communities, rely on clinics, trained medical personnel, vaccination programs, and access to essential medicines. The absence of functioning healthcare infrastructure significantly increases mortality rates and undermines long-term national development.

Moreover, the reference to 1988 requires careful historical contextualization. That period occurred during the height of the liberation struggle, when portions of southern Sudan were under the control of the SPLA. Even during those extremely difficult wartime conditions, humanitarian organizations and international partners were already providing medical services in liberated areas. Doctors, nurses, and humanitarian workers delivered relief assistance, conducted surgeries, and provided essential healthcare to both civilians and members of the liberation movement.

These humanitarian interventions were not incidental; they were critical to sustaining life during the conflict. Invoking that historical moment as evidence that communities should simply endure the absence of healthcare today ignores both the historical reality of humanitarian support and the responsibilities of an independent state.

South Sudan is no longer a wartime insurgent movement struggling for survival. It is a sovereign state whose legitimacy partly depends on its capacity to provide basic public goods, including healthcare. If international partners reduce their support, the appropriate policy response is to strengthen domestic health systems, improve fiscal accountability, and invest national resources in public health infrastructure.

Health security is not peripheral to national security, it is one of its central components. Contemporary security studies increasingly recognize that state stability depends not only on military capability but also on the capacity to protect the health, welfare, and resilience of the population.

The second concern raised by the speech relates to territorial sovereignty and border security. In referring to border areas in Equatoria, specifically Kajo-Keji and Nadapal, where reports of foreign encroachment have been raised, the Secretary General used the phrase “umon bi nyorot” in Juba Arabic, meaning “let them suffer.”

This statement raises an important political and ethical question: who exactly is expected to suffer?

Are these words directed at foreign actors who may have crossed into South Sudanese territory? Or at South Sudanese communities who have already experienced territorial loss and insecurity?

Such ambiguity is particularly troubling when it comes from the Secretary General of the ruling party. The SPLM itself emerged from a liberation struggle whose central objective was the defense of land, dignity, and political rights. Speaking casually about the suffering of border communities risks undermining the very principles upon which that struggle was founded.

Border protection is fundamentally a responsibility of the state. Citizens cannot reasonably be expected to defend national territory independently, particularly after government disarmament policies transferred the responsibility for security from communities to state institutions. If the state monopolizes the instruments of force, it must also guarantee territorial protection.

The issue is further complicated by the strategic significance of border regions such as Eastern Equatoria. Areas such as Kapoeta are known to contain valuable mineral resources, including gold deposits. Historically, these regions have played an important role in sustaining political and economic networks, while local communities often remain marginalized.

The historical memory of the liberation period also shapes how citizens interpret such statements. Many South Sudanese recall the contrasting experiences of political elites living relatively comfortably in exile while large numbers of ordinary refugees struggled in impoverished settlements such as Kibera and Kawangware in Nairobi. These memories continue to inform contemporary political consciousness.

It is important to acknowledge that communities in Equatoria have often demonstrated considerable restraint in raising sensitive historical grievances in order to preserve national cohesion. However, restraint should not be mistaken for indifference toward sovereignty or acceptance of territorial encroachment.

The protection of territorial integrity is a core function of any state. Every piece of land within the borders of South Sudan belongs to the nation collectively, and its defense is a non-negotiable responsibility of government.

Leadership therefore requires intellectual seriousness, strategic clarity, and political accountability. When senior officials speak on matters concerning healthcare, territorial sovereignty, and national security, their statements should reinforce public confidence that the state is capable of protecting both the lives and the land of its citizens.

South Sudan’s independence was achieved through extraordinary sacrifice. It was not won so that citizens could be told to endure suffering where the state should provide protection.

Ultimately, the lesson is straightforward but profound: health security and territorial sovereignty are inseparable pillars of national stability. When either is treated lightly, the resilience of the state itself is placed at risk.