A recent order by President Salva Kiir requiring serving and former senior government officials to obtain approval for foreign travel and notify the government before travelling within South Sudan has raised concerns about constitutional rights, executive powers and political competition ahead of elections scheduled for December 22.
Radio Tamazuj examines key questions about the order, its legal basis and its potential impact on elections and citizens’ rights.
Republican Order No. 36/10/2026, dated October 15, imposes different approval requirements for international journeys and written notification requirements for domestic travel. Applications and notifications under the specified provisions must be submitted at least 48 hours before the intended journey.
The order revokes earlier general travel restrictions, but legal experts and policy analysts have questioned whether the replacement measures have a sufficient legal basis and provide adequate safeguards against arbitrary decisions.
1.What does the order require?
The directive sets different approval procedures for foreign travel, depending on whether an official is serving or has left office.
Serving senior officials must obtain written permission from the minister of cabinet affairs, with endorsement from the Presidency. Former vice presidents, ministers, governors and parliamentary officeholders require presidential endorsement, while other former senior officials need ministerial permission.
The requirements apply to private journeys as well as official business. The order does not define “other senior government officials” or explain the distinction between permission and endorsement.
For travel within South Sudan, clause 4 requires serving and former senior officials to notify the government in writing of their destination, the purpose and duration of their journey, and their means of travel.
However, the wording leaves uncertainty over whether officials must simply notify the authorities or obtain permission before travelling.
Dr. Remember Miamingi, a South Sudanese international human rights lawyer, academic and governance expert, said the heading of clause 4 refers to clearance, while clause 6 requires officials to seek permission under clause 4. The distinction is significant: notification informs the government of a journey, while permission gives it the power to stop one.
Clause 6 requires applications to be submitted at least 48 hours before travel but does not set a deadline for authorities to respond. It also does not require reasons for refusals or provide a fast-track procedure for challenging decisions.
An unanswered application could therefore prevent a journey without a formal refusal, Dr. Miamingi said. Although applicants retain access to the courts, a ruling delivered after a missed medical appointment or political meeting could come too late.
The order also does not specify grounds for approving or rejecting applications, provide exceptions for emergencies or establish an expiry date for the restrictions.
2. What is the constitutional issue?
The order cites Article 101(t) of South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution of 2011, as amended, as its legal basis. The provision allows the president to perform other functions prescribed by law.
Boboya James, chief executive officer of the Institute of Social Policy and Research in South Sudan and a policy analyst, said the order raises questions about presidential authority, freedom of movement and the potential for politically motivated enforcement.
questioned whether the article gives the president sufficient authority to impose the restrictions, arguing that the power to manage government officials does not automatically extend to restricting constitutional rights.
“The authority to manage government officials does not automatically confer unlimited power to restrict their constitutional rights, particularly after they have left office,” Boboya said.
He said the order could improve administrative coordination but warned that unclear approval criteria could cause delays and create opportunities for arbitrary decisions.
He also questioned the legal basis for extending the requirements to former officeholders, saying their departure from government raised separate questions about the authorities’ power to restrict their movements.
Boboya called on the government to clarify the order’s legal basis and objectives, publish criteria for approving or rejecting travel applications and establish safeguards against arbitrary or politically motivated enforcement.
He said the directive’s legality would ultimately depend on the amended Constitution, relevant legislation and how the order was implemented.
Dr. Miamingi cited Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution, which require public institutions to respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Article 27 protects freedom of movement, including the right to leave and return to the country, while allowing restrictions on movement within South Sudan for public health and safety when regulated by law.
He argued that the president’s responsibilities must be exercised consistently with those protections and that a general duty to protect national security does not automatically authorise every restriction imposed on security grounds.
The central question, he said, was which law authorises the travel-permission system. The absence of a cited law does not prove that no such authority exists, but the government must identify the legal basis and demonstrate that the order falls within its limits.
3. What other legal safeguards apply?
Dr. Miamingi also pointed to Article 92, which requires Parliament to authorise delegated rules by law and review them, and Article 86(5), which prevents the president from using provisional orders carrying the force of law to make rules affecting the Bill of Rights or general elections.
The travel order does not claim to have been issued under Article 86. Dr. Miamingi nevertheless argued that a general presidential power should not be used to circumvent a specific constitutional restriction and that describing the measure as an administrative order does not resolve the issue.
He said the caretaker arrangements also did not provide the missing authority.
Constitutional Amendment No. 13 of 2026 allows the incumbent president to continue in office and provides for caretaker appointments, but Miamingi said it does not itself authorise the travel restrictions. The president remains bound by the Constitution even when Parliament is no longer exercising its usual oversight.
South Sudan’s international obligations provide further protections for freedom of movement.
Article 9(3) of the Constitution incorporates rights protected by treaties the country has ratified or joined into the Bill of Rights. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both protect freedom of movement.
Under these standards, restrictions must have a clear legal basis, serve a permitted purpose and go no further than necessary. Their impact on rights must also be justified by the need they address.
Dr. Miamingi said the government must show why less restrictive measures would not achieve the same objective. International treaties permitting limited restrictions do not, by themselves, create domestic presidential powers or weaken stronger constitutional protections.
He acknowledged that governments have legitimate reasons to regulate some official travel, including controlling public spending, approving official missions and managing leave to ensure essential services continue.
Specific security threats or suspected corruption could also justify restrictions on particular individuals under valid laws and fair procedures.
But he said the order does not distinguish those circumstances from ordinary private travel or explain why former officials should remain subject to government approval for every journey. Any continuing legal duty imposed on former officeholders must be identified and linked to the restriction.
Dr. Miamingi also cited the UN Human Rights Committee’s position that movement restrictions require precise rules, prompt decisions and reasons. He said the committee had rejected preventing someone from leaving a country merely because that person possesses state secrets.
Former office or access to sensitive information alone, he argued, could not justify the broad restrictions.
Nor could the government bypass constitutional safeguards by invoking an emergency in general terms. Any exceptional suspension of rights must comply with the Constitution’s separate emergency provisions and relevant international rules, he said. The order does not establish a basis for setting those protections aside.
4. Could the order affect the elections?
The restrictions come as South Sudan prepares for elections scheduled for December 22, 2026, raising concerns about their potential impact on campaigning and political participation.
Dr. Miamingi noted that the order was issued 68 days before the scheduled vote and argued that the approval requirements could interfere with activities essential to an election campaign.
The Presidency’s role in approving foreign travel by serving and former officials who may include potential electoral rivals raises concerns about possible conflicts of interest. Domestic travel notifications also disclose where political figures intend to go and why.
Delays could prevent constituency visits, coalition meetings and responses to political developments. Foreign travel restrictions could obstruct meetings with diaspora communities, diplomats and regional mediators.
The consequences could extend to voters. If candidates and organisers cannot travel freely, citizens may lose opportunities to hear, question and compare political alternatives.
Dr. Miamingi said the restrictions could therefore affect not only freedom of movement but also the rights to freedom of expression, association and political participation protected by Articles 24–26 of the Constitution.
Article 14, which guarantees equality, raises another concern, he said. Different treatment based on former office requires sound justification, while rules that appear equal on paper could be applied unequally if government allies receive quick approvals and opponents face delays.
Such a possibility could discourage criticism or political independence. Miamingi said the order’s design created that risk, although it did not by itself prove that particular decisions had been politically motivated.
A reported incident involving presidential aspirant Kornelio Kon illustrates the practical concerns surrounding restrictions on travel.
On October 13, Kon told Radio Tamazuj that security officers had stopped his journey from Juba to Wau and directed him to obtain presidential permission. He said he was travelling to attend memorial prayers for his sister.
The incident occurred two days before the new order was issued and therefore does not establish that the directive was used to restrict Kon’s movement.
5. What are the implications for the healthcare and family life?
The restrictions could also have immediate consequences for healthcare and family responsibilities, Miamingi said.
A stroke, serious injury or urgent medical referral may require immediate travel, making a 48-hour application period impractical. Officials covered by the directive may also need to accompany critically ill relatives or leave areas threatened by violence or flooding.
The order provides no emergency exemption and no procedure for obtaining an immediate decision when the approving official is unavailable.
Miamingi warned that avoidable delays could endanger lives and undermine constitutional protections for dignity and emergency healthcare. He said the issue was whether someone could reach available treatment, rather than whether the government should pay for treatment abroad.
Bereavement and urgent family care also require flexibility that he said the order does not provide.
The reporting requirements raise additional concerns under Article 22 of the Constitution, which protects privacy. Requiring officials to explain the purpose of a journey could expose medical information or sensitive family matters.
The order does not set limits on who may access that information, how long it may be retained or how it may be used.
Miamingi also warned that processing routine travel applications could consume government resources and delay official work and legitimate business, strengthening the case for a narrower and clearly justified approach.
6. Why do some observers support the restrictions?
While Boboya and Dr. Miamingi have questioned the order’s legal basis and potential effects on constitutional rights, Prof. Abraham Kuol Nyuon, a political science professor at the University of Juba, has defended it on security and governance grounds.
Prof. Nyuon argued that the restrictions could help prevent political leaders from leaving South Sudan to organise renewed armed opposition.
He said previous peace agreements had failed to resolve what he described as the self-interest of political leaders who prioritise retaining power over the welfare of citizens. Requiring former officials to remain accountable to the government, he argued, could help prevent a recurrence of violence.
Nyuon also welcomed the dissolution of the transitional government, describing it as an opportunity to reduce privileges enjoyed by senior officials.
He argued that some officials had used their positions and titles to inconvenience ordinary citizens, particularly during road travel, and said removing those privileges could promote equality.
His position contrasts with concerns that executive control over foreign and domestic travel could undermine constitutional rights and create opportunities for selective enforcement.
The competing interpretations highlight a broader question: how can the government regulate travel for administrative or security reasons without imposing unjustified restrictions on movement and political participation?
7. What happens next?
The central question is whether the government can demonstrate that the restrictions have a valid legal basis, pursue a legitimate objective and comply with constitutional and international protections.
Boboya has called for the government to explain the order’s legal basis, publish approval criteria and introduce safeguards against arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.
Dr. Miamingi said any legitimate regulation of official travel should be narrowly tailored, supported by law and accompanied by clear procedures, prompt decisions, reasons for refusals and safeguards for emergencies.
The order’s implementation will determine how the requirements affect former officials, political participation, family responsibilities and access to medical care.
The post Explainer: South Sudan’s travel restrictions in 7 questions appeared first on Radio Tamazuj.