Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Mark Deng, McKenzie Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

South Sudan’s chief justice, Chan Reec Madut, was sacked in late May 2025 after more than 13 years on the bench. Madut leaves behind a legacy of inefficiency and accusations of judicial graft. But the sacking violated South Sudan’s 2011 transitional constitution and the law. Ultimately, the president’s decision threatens the rule of law and judicial independence. Constitutional scholar Mark Deng discusses this worrying development.

What was envisaged for South Sudan’s post-independence judiciary?

South Sudan won independent statehood following an internationally supervised referendum in 2011. The transitional constitution, drafted after the referendum, is the country’s founding law. It provides for the establishment of the three arms of government – legislature, executive and judiciary – with distinct powers and functions. The judiciary exercises judicial power and enforces the rule of law in the country. It has five levels of courts, the Supreme Court of South Sudan being the highest.

To shield courts from political whims, judges are appointed to, and removed from, office by the president of the republic only on the recommendation of the judicial service commission. There are constitutional grounds for removing a judge, relating to gross misconduct or incompetence or mental infirmity. Subject to these grounds and others, a judge may serve until the age of 70.

The chief justice is the head of the judiciary of South Sudan. His responsibilities include administering and supervising lower courts. He has power to issue judicial circulars and directives to lower courts to ensure proper and efficient administration of justice in the country.

What challenges are facing the judiciary?

The judiciary has been facing many challenges that threaten its independence and, by extension, the proper administration of justice. The most notable is political interference.

This has manifested itself in at least two ways. The first is that courts or individual judges face constant threats by the members of the executive branch and the military seeking to get rulings in their favour. For example, a report by the International Commission of Jurists cited a case in which a military general used a threat of force to obtain an outcome favourable to him.

The second is President Salva Kiir’s behaviour towards judges. He has, for example, been sacking judges without following the constitutional procedures that require the judicial service commission to conduct a full and proper investigation before a judge may be removed. This has rendered courts powerless, particularly in relation to enforcing the constitutional limits of power and the rule of law on the political branches of the government.

The sacking of chief justice Madut is the latest and most alarming. It implies that judges serve at the president’s pleasure, much like the government ministers. It also divests the judicial service commission of its constitutional functions.

What’s known about the outgoing chief justice?

Madut had worked as a judge in Sudan prior to South Sudan’s independence in 2011. He also served as the deputy chair of Southern Sudan referendum commission. Kiir appointed him as the chief justice of South Sudan on 15 August 2011, replacing John Wuol Makec.

Madut’s tenure was characterised by corruption through nepotism and favouritism. In 2013, for example, he appointed 78 legal assistants, including his daughter, without following the formal recruitment process.

Perhaps of most concern to many people in South Sudan was Madut’s meddling in purely political matters. In 2015, for example, he wrote a letter to Kiir to congratulate him for expanding the number of states from 10 to 28. The letter was inappropriate for three reasons. First, the creation of the 28 states was a political matter for parliament. Second, it was contentious because the president lacked power to create more states in the country at the time. Third, it was apparent that the president’s decision was going to be challenged in the Supreme Court, over which Madut was presiding.

Indeed, opposition parties challenged it as unconstitutional. Because of his expressed support for the creation of the 28 states, Madut was deemed to have a conflict in the case. Consequently, he was asked to recuse himself from the constitutional panel set up to hear the case but he refused. The majority of the Supreme Court judges upheld the president’s decision.

Kiir did not explain what prompted Madut’s sacking. However, it could be the sum of all these accusations that led to this course of action. Whatever the case, the end result of the president’s sacking of judges unilaterally is the erosion of the rule of law and undermining of judicial independence. In short, it is his will that matters now, not the constitution.

Who is the new chief justice and what is his record?

Benjamin Baak Deng is the new chief justice. Kiir appointed him on 28 May 2025 from within the Supreme Court of South Sudan, on which he was also serving as a judge. He has a PhD in international environmental law and had worked as a judge in Sudan from the 1980s to the early 2000s. Like all the South Sudanese who were working in Sudan, he relocated to Southern Sudan during the interim period (2005–2011).

In June 2022, he was appointed to the judicial reform committee mandated by the 2018 revitalised agreement. The committee was mandated with a comprehensive review of the judiciary and its performance and to recommend measures to address the challenges facing it. It finalised its work in March 2024 and submitted its report (yet to be made public) to the president of the republic. Deng is widely regarded as a man of integrity, competence and hard work.

What are the top priorities for the new chief justice?

There are at least four. The first is to resolve the massive case backlog and improve efficiency in deciding cases. The second is to improve working conditions for judges. This would include ensuring a safe workplace and providing judges with modern work equipment.

The third is to uncompromisingly maintain and protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches. The former chief justice lost public trust and confidence because of his pandering to the executive government, which he did in the most overt way in some instances.

The challenge is that he will be dealing with the same president who has shown little interest in observing his constitutional limits. But the president spoke during Deng’s swearing-in and pledged his commitment to respecting and protecting the independence of the judiciary:

the judiciary must operate independently and remain free from political interference.

It remains to be seen whether the president will put his words into action this time round.

The final area of immediate focus is addressing the under-representation of women in the judiciary. Of the 117 judges in the country, only 21 are women. Women’s under-representation in the judiciary is largely a product of patriarchy, particularly customary practices that traditionally do not allow women to be in a position of authority and to have access to education.

The transitional constitution and the 2018 revitalised agreement obligate the government to take affirmative action to address gender imbalances. At least 35% must be women in every institution of government in South Sudan. The 21 women judges equate to 18%. There are many young women lawyers or law graduates within and outside South Sudan who could be trained and appointed as judges.

The new chief justice has the opportunity to reform the judiciary into an institution that effectively enforces the rule of law and administers justice impartially and efficiently. However, his success will also depend on the commitment of the government to provide the resources required and the space to exercise independence.

– South Sudan’s new chief justice has a chance to reform the judiciary – if he’s allowed to do his job
– https://theconversation.com/south-sudans-new-chief-justice-has-a-chance-to-reform-the-judiciary-if-hes-allowed-to-do-his-job-262351

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Gerald Arhin, Research Fellow in the Political Economy of Climate Compatible Development , UCL

Imagine running a business for over a century without knowing what’s in your warehouse. That’s essentially what many African countries are doing with their mineral wealth. Governments across the continent still have very little knowledge of what lies beneath their soil.

Between the 18th and 20th centuries, European colonial powers exploited African mineral wealth for their industrialisation. Post-independence, many African nations nationalised their mining sectors. International pressure led to privatisation in the 1980s. This weakened the motivation and capacity of governments to develop long-term strategies. They have more incentive to export minerals for foreign exchange in the short term.

As political economists, we have been researching the governance of Ghana’s and Rwanda’s minerals sectors for over a decade. We conducted research into why some African nations are investing more than others in geological investigations. These are studies that examine where minerals can be found and what their economic potential is. We focused on Ghana and Rwanda because of their different levels of commitment to investing in geological investigations.

We found that intense political competition forces Ghanaian governments to have short-term priorities. This makes geological investigations (a long-term, risky venture) unappealing to ruling elites. In contrast, the Rwandan Patriotic Front government has invested in geological surveys over the last decade.

Beyond economic and technical costs, context-specific political dynamics – interests, ideas and power relations – shape the decision to invest in geological mapping.

A mixed search

Ghana is rich in several minerals and is Africa’s largest producer of gold, which is its highest export earner. Minerals generated US$11 billion in revenue in 2024.

The country is also rich in diamonds, manganese and bauxite. It recently discovered lithium in commercial quantities. Lithium is a “critical mineral” for the energy transition and this discovery will be of interest to investors.

---

Read more: The world is rushing to Africa to mine critical minerals like lithium – how the continent should deal with the demand

---

Rwanda is a producer of tin, tantalum and tungsten. It also has commercial deposits of gemstones, silica sands, kaolin, vermiculite, diatomite, clays, limestone and gold.

Policy experts and international organisations often encourage governments to invest in geological mapping of their minerals. This is to enhance greater investment in the sector and boost the country’s gains from its resources. But these investigations are costly and lucrative findings aren’t guaranteed.

Some African governments have limited commitment to investing in geological mapping. Others, such as Uganda, Morocco, Botswana and South Africa, have put resources into it. For example, the Ugandan government announced its intention to expand national geological mapping coverage from 50% to 100%.

Ghana’s lack of geological knowledge

The roots of the knowledge gap stretch back to colonialism. European powers meticulously mapped African minerals, but kept the data for themselves. Today, the British Geological Survey holds over 300,000 geological reports and maps from other countries. Much of it is gathering dust in archives rather than helping African governments understand their own resources.

Even basic geological knowledge often sits in London, Paris or Brussels rather than in Accra, Kigali or Nairobi.

Take Ghana, which has been mining gold for over a century yet still lacks comprehensive geological surveys.

We found that the country’s competitive political system, where power alternates between two main parties almost every eight years, stands in the way of long-term planning. Successive Ghanaian governments have relied on private mining companies to conduct geological investigations. There is limited monitoring of whether investigations are carried out before extracting minerals. This approach has obvious flaws. Firstly, companies may not share all their findings. Secondly, the government doesn’t have control over information about its own resources.

We also found evidence of a darker political calculation. Through licensing, political elites are able to maintain lucrative relationships with mining companies. Comprehensive geological mapping might force more transparent, competitive bidding processes that could disrupt these arrangements. This includes vested political interests extending into the small scale and artisanal mining space.

Rwanda’s different path

Rwanda tells a different story. Since 1994, the governing Rwandan Patriotic Front has increasingly taken control of all aspects of the society. As part of this drive it has developed longer-term ambitions in relation to its development strategies.

The country has chosen to know more about what lies beneath its land and has taken steps to improve its capabilities.

Firstly, it revised its mining law. The Rwandan government had initially invited foreign mining companies to obtain permits on a first come, first served basis. Though permit holders were required to invest in geological investigations before extraction, there was limited monitoring of what firms were doing. This is similar to what was taking place in Ghana.

Secondly, the Rwandan government even established its own mining company, Ngali Mining, to invest directly in exploration.

Thirdly, it has attracted investment in geological surveys, with some support from donors. In this way, it directly employs geological investigation firms rather than relying on mining firms to invest in investigations themselves.

The results are impressive: between 2012 and 2016, the government attracted four different sets of North American and European firms to conduct extensive mapping studies.

Fourth, as a result of these surveys, the government re-categorised existing mining areas into 52 separate areas for mineral exploration. As a result, the Rwandan government now attracts investment to these areas because there is more understanding of which minerals exist there.

It’s important to note that Rwanda imports many of its minerals from neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo and then re-exports them. Importing and re-exporting DRC minerals earns Rwanda immediate foreign exchange earnings. This is particularly evident in rising Rwandan gold exports in recent years. Thus, even where governments may be keen to invest in geological investigations, when other short-term priorities exist it is less easy to sustain long-horizon goals in domestic mining sectors.

Breaking the knowledge barrier

The global demand for minerals is soaring.

This has made developing comprehensive knowledge of underground resources more urgent for African countries. However, our research suggests that simply throwing more money at geological surveys won’t reorganise domestic minerals sectors if political incentives favour short-term interests.

Understanding the political dynamics is the first step towards unlocking Africa’s mineral potential. Only by learning more about the power structures that shape these decisions can countries begin to map their way to more sustainable mineral wealth.

– Are African countries aware of their own mineral wealth? Ghana and Rwanda offer two very different answers
– https://theconversation.com/are-african-countries-aware-of-their-own-mineral-wealth-ghana-and-rwanda-offer-two-very-different-answers-261703