Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
highly regulated by the host authority. Nevertheless, for South Sudan, this is not the
case. On February 2, 2016, the South Sudan National Legislative Assembly passed the
Commission (RRC) bill. Both bills became statutory laws immediately after a
presidential assent.
The prime purpose of the NGO Act is to regulate and monitor NGO activities in South
Sudan. Since of the enactment, the legislation met a lot of resistance from the
opponents of the NGO Act; and they maintain that it would have devastating effects
on the civil population in the war-torn nation, and they thought it was wise for them to
Anyhow, the Government of the Republic of South Sudan argument that the NGOs
have been operating without sufficient legal guidance and passing of the NGO Act
worth mentioning that the neighboring countries including Kenya and Rwanda passed
similar legislations that regulated the NGO operations but pose no threat on operation
of NGOs in those countries. In the discussion, the paper would begin with analysis of
the provisions complained by the opponents of the NGO Act, followed by the
The main touchy provisions of the NGO Act, 2016 are listed as follows:
Firstly, the Opponents of the NGO, complained of section 18 (2)(c), which demands
any NGO operating in South Sudan to employ at least 80% of South Sudanese
nationals in all managerial, middle and junior levels. The alleged effect of this
provision according to some humanitarian workers is that many South Sudan does not
Page 1 of 4
have human resources to meet the 80 % requirement stated by the provision. This
argument is not true, there are many South Sudanese nationals who have overseas and
national qualification to fill the 80% requirement who have experience since some of
them started working with NGO in the old Sudan and others since 2005.one would
ask, how long does to take to build capacity and gain needed experience? Thus, their
Secondly, the opponents of the NGO Act also complained of Section 9(b)(XI), which
requires the NGOs operating in South Sudan to sign agreement with government. This
is another area of contention but both national and transnational NGOs do not have
the substantial claim on why they view this problematic on their humanitarian
operation in the country. NGOs complain that the bill will pose negative ramifications
on their operation in South Sudan. On the contrary, the Government does not buy this
Thirdly, section 9, b (xiv) requires the opening of a bank account in South Sudan by
an NGO in order for it to operate. Under this section, the NGOs have no respect for
the Central Bank of South Sudan way of dealing with deposits, which they see can
interfere with their operations since much of their work need quick and adequate
response for purpose of saving lives and human suffering. Furthermore, public
Some analyst concurred with the concerns of NGOs on this section as Central Bank
encroach on private account as the case now with commercial bank deposits which
are almost on verge of collapsing thus generating real fears for the NGOs.
Page 2 of 4
In summary, given the arguments discussed earlier, there is no practical and negative
Comparable legislations in Rwanda and Kenya have been studied and no fears
discovered; hence, the NGOS in South Sudan are panicking because they have been
operating in the country since 2005 without legal framework for regulating their
activities. Issues to do with operating account in South Sudan can be resolved with
financial reform in the Central Bank. In short, the NGOs Act is there to facilitate
Page 3 of 4
REFERENCES
https://radiotamazuj.org/en/eu-peace-deal-requires-review-ngo-bill
5. Procedures for Registration of International Non-governmental
rd=209
6. Non-governmental Organizations Coordination Act, Revised Edition 2012
(1990), www.kenyalaw.org
7. Sudan Tribune, February11, 2016 Publication at
https://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article57988
Page 4 of 4