Media stakeholders in South Sudan have sought assurances that the newly enacted Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act will be implemented in line with international freedom of expression standards, warning that certain provisions could expose journalists to legal risks.
The law criminalizes a range of online activities, including the publication of false information, incitement through computer systems, cyber harassment, and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Lawmakers say it is designed to curb digital abuse and protect public morality.
Media leaders warn of risks
Patrick Oyet, president of the Union of Journalists of South Sudan (UJoSS), described the law as having both protective and restrictive implications.
“This law is intended to make the internet and digital communication safer, but it is also a double-edged sword,” he said. “If it is not implemented carefully, it can be misused to censor journalists and civil society instead of protecting them.”
Journalists are particularly focused on provisions relating to “false information,” “offensive communication,” and “incitement,” arguing that undefined or broadly framed language could affect legitimate reporting.
Public interest defence missing
A Juba-based journalist who only identified himself as Daniel said the absence of an explicit public interest defence raises concern for investigative reporting.
“The Act does not clearly provide a public interest defence. That means even a well-documented investigative story could face legal scrutiny if authorities dispute it,” he said.
He added that criminal penalties heighten newsroom caution.
“When penalties include imprisonment, it creates a chilling effect,” Daniel said. “Reporters may avoid sensitive topics to reduce legal risk.”
Fear of source exposure
Beyond speech-related offences, the Act grants authorities investigative powers, including preservation of electronic data, search and seizure of computer systems, and interception of communications under defined procedures.
Buda Ladu, a freelance journalist, said those provisions raise confidentiality concerns.
“If authorities can access communication data, there must be explicit protection for journalistic sources,” he cautioned. “Without that safeguard, investigative reporting becomes difficult.”
The scribe also highlighted the ambiguity in certain wording within the law.
“The concern is not about regulating cybercrime; the concern is about vague wording that could be interpreted broadly,” Ladu stated. “Journalism often challenges official narratives, and clarity in the law is essential.”
Human rights defenders call for scrutiny
Civil society groups have also called for careful implementation.
“We support the need for a cybercrime law, but we are concerned that some provisions could be misused given the history of rights violations under other laws,” said Advocate Omara Joseph, a member of the South Sudan Human Rights Defenders Network. “Any legislation that affects the public must be openly discussed and carefully scrutinized.”
International standards articulated by the United Nations allow restrictions on expression where they are lawful, necessary, and proportionate to legitimate aims such as national security or public order. Media advocates say those principles should guide enforcement.
Parliament defends the law
Lawmakers insist the Act was not designed to silence journalists.
“This Act was not enacted to silence journalists or shrink civic space,” said Oliver Mori Benjamin, chairperson of parliament’s ICT committee. “It was passed to respond to abuses and crimes in the digital space that are undermining society.”
Development partners have also weighed in on the need for balance.
“A secure digital environment and a free, ethical media are not contradictory — they are complementary,” said a representative of Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA). “Cybersecurity regulations must go hand in hand with the protection of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression.”
As digital platforms continue to shape public discourse in South Sudan, stakeholders say the central question is whether implementation of the Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act will uphold international free speech norms while addressing genuine online harm.