In early March 2026, a story circulating in the media and reported by Smart Family TV on 1 March captured a troubling paradox about our national condition. A South Sudanese man who had moved his family to Dubai out of fear of violence in Juba reportedly decided to bring them back home, this time driven by growing concerns about instability in the Middle East. The irony is difficult to ignore: a citizen caught between two uncertainties, forced to weigh one insecurity against another while searching for the safest place to protect his family. In that dilemma lies a deeper question about nationhood itself, whether citizens should ever have to wonder if safety is more attainable abroad than in their own homeland.
This story is more than a curious anecdote. It reflects a deeper challenge facing South Sudan: the unfinished task of building a nation where home is not merely an emotional attachment but the safest and most dependable place for its citizens. In other words, the ultimate measure of nation building is ensuring that staying at home is always the best bet.
The first duty of any state is simple but fundamental, to protect the lives and dignity of its people. When citizens begin to view security as something that must be sought outside national borders, the essence of statehood begins to erode. A country may possess sovereignty, a flag, and international recognition, but without security and public trust, those symbols lose their meaning.
South Sudan’s predicament, however, is not unique in the history of nations. Many countries have emerged from violent conflict and political upheaval. What distinguishes those that eventually thrive is their ability to convert the momentum of revolutionary struggle into the discipline of building institutions capable of sustaining peace and stability.
Consider the experience of Rwanda. After the devastation of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the country stood on the brink of collapse. Yet through determined leadership and deliberate institutional reforms, Rwanda gradually restored security and rebuilt state authority. Today, the country is widely regarded as one of the most stable in the region. Many Rwandans who once fled have since returned, not because life abroad became impossible, but because home became stable enough to offer a future.
A similar trajectory can be observed in Uganda. Following years of political turmoil and civil war that culminated in the Ugandan Bush War, Uganda embarked on a process of rebuilding state institutions and consolidating national stability. Although challenges persist, the country has largely succeeded in creating an environment where citizens generally feel secure within their borders rather than compelled to seek safety elsewhere.
These examples reveal an important lesson: revolutions may win independence, but only institutions can sustain a nation.
For South Sudan, the task ahead is therefore not only political but structural. Security must move beyond temporary arrangements or fragile ceasefires. It must be rooted in professional institutions, a disciplined and accountable security sector, a credible justice system, and governance structures that inspire confidence among citizens.
Equally important is the psychological dimension of nation building. A country is not held together by laws and infrastructure alone. It is sustained by belief. Citizens must believe that their homeland is a place where they can raise families, build businesses, and invest in their future without fear or uncertainty.
Recent global developments further challenge the assumption that safety can always be found abroad. Rising tensions involving Iran and broader security uncertainties in the Middle East have shown that even regions perceived as stable can quickly face new risks. Cities that appear secure today may become vulnerable tomorrow as geopolitical tensions escalate.
For South Sudanese living abroad, from the Gulf to Europe and North America, this reality serves as a reminder that exile is rarely a permanent solution. While migration may offer temporary relief, it cannot replace the long term security that only a functioning homeland can guarantee.
This is why the responsibility facing South Sudan’s leaders is so urgent. The goal must not simply be to preserve a fragile peace but to build a durable state where security is institutionalized rather than improvised. Citizens should never find themselves calculating which country might be marginally safer at any given moment.
Instead, the national vision must be clear: a South Sudan where safety, opportunity, and dignity are firmly anchored at home.
The story of the South Sudanese family returning from Dubai should therefore provoke more than social media discussion. It should trigger a broader national reflection about the country we aspire to build. Ultimately, a nation is judged not by how many of its citizens leave, but by how many choose to remain or return because they believe their future lies there.
The promise of independence for South Sudan was not simply the creation of a new state. It was the birth of a homeland where its people could live with security, dignity, and hope.
Making home the best bet for every citizen remains the unfinished work of nation building. And until that promise is fulfilled, the question will persist: why should any South Sudanese feel safer anywhere else than in South Sudan?
For One People, One Nation.
The writer, Bec George Anyak, is a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning, South Sudan.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.
and then