South Sudan’s road network remains one of the weakest foundations of its national economy. More than a decade after independence, fewer than a few hundred kilometers of roads are paved in a country the size of France. For most citizens, movement between states still depends on dirt roads that disappear with the rains, cutting off markets, social services, and even government authority. In South Sudan, poor roads are not simply an infrastructure deficit; they are a structural constraint on peace, trade, and state-building. Any serious development agenda must therefore begin with roads.
It is against this background that the Council of Ministers’ approval of a USD 2 billion road construction project backed by gold as collateral must be assessed. Chaired by President Salva Kiir Mayardit, the Cabinet endorsed a plan to upgrade more than 1,031 kilometers of strategic national roads, including the Juba–Yei–Kaya and Wau–Raja corridors. On the surface, this is an ambitious and long-overdue intervention. It signals a willingness by the government to think beyond donor-funded projects and to leverage national resources for development. That political courage deserves recognition.
However, boldness alone does not guarantee sound policy. The decision to back roads with gold collateral raises fundamental economic, governance, and transparency questions that cannot be ignored. Infrastructure financed through future resource wealth is not new, and history shows that such arrangements can either accelerate development or quietly mortgage a nation’s future.
Several countries offer useful comparisons. In Ghana, mineral-backed infrastructure financing has complemented traditional borrowing, largely because reserves are well quantified and contracts subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny. By contrast, Zimbabwe has repeatedly turned to gold-backed facilities under conditions of fiscal stress, with mixed outcomes, including concerns over opaque contracting and limited public benefit. Beyond Africa, China has promoted resource-for-infrastructure models across the developing world, but even there, success has depended on strong state capacity and clear valuation of collateral.
The core question for South Sudan is therefore simple but uncomfortable: is our gold properly quantified, audited, and valued? Publicly available data on the country’s gold reserves remain limited. Without independent verification, it is difficult to assess whether the collateral adequately covers the scale of the guarantee offered. Gold prices fluctuate on global markets, and a downturn could expose the state to unexpected fiscal pressure. In such a scenario, the cost of roads today may translate into lost revenues tomorrow.
There are, undeniably, potential benefits. If executed well, improved roads could reduce transport costs, stimulate cross-border trade, revive agriculture, and lower prices of basic goods. Construction itself will generate employment and inject liquidity into local economies. Over time, better connectivity can strengthen national integration and support the fragile peace process. These gains are real and measurable, and they explain why infrastructure investment often has high economic multipliers in post-conflict states.
Yet the risks are equally concrete. Sovereign guarantees backed by natural resources limit future policy flexibility. They also raise governance concerns: who monitors the valuation of the gold, the disbursement of funds, and the quality of construction? What happens if project costs overrun or if roads deteriorate due to poor maintenance? Without transparency, such deals can quietly evolve into unsustainable obligations that future governments and citizens must bear.
From an economic perspective, the logic of the agreement rests on whether the long-term economic returns of the roads exceed the implicit cost of the gold pledged. At an average cost of USD 2.3 million per kilometer, the project sits within regional benchmarks, but only if quality and durability are assured. If traffic volumes remain low due to insecurity or weak economic activity, the expected growth dividends may fall short. In that case, the net present value of the deal could turn negative, leaving the country poorer despite new asphalt.
The government deserves credit for prioritizing infrastructure and for seeking innovative financing in a context of limited fiscal space. But innovation without accountability is a gamble. Gold can build roads, but it can also disappear quietly from the balance sheet if safeguards are weak. For this policy to achieve its stated goals, the Ministry of Mining must publish clear data on gold reserves, disclose contract terms, and establish independent oversight mechanisms.
South Sudan does not lack ambition; it lacks trust-building institutions. This project could mark a turning point if handled transparently. If not, it risks becoming another cautionary tale of resource wealth exchanged for short-term gains. The choice between those futures lies not in the gold beneath our soil, but in the governance above it.
The writer, Bec George Anyak, is a former Deputy Minister of Finance & Planning, South Sudan.
and then