On 29 November 2024, South Sudan’s Vice President for the Infrastructure Cluster, Taban Deng Gai, took Sudan by the horns — and did so legitimately.
During the 8th Governors’ Forum in Juba, Taban declared that there was “no government in Sudan” and called on the South Sudanese government to take necessary action to address the plight of the citizens of Abyei.
“We have a very big problem in Abyei. The vacuum is very clear. South Sudanese must know this. The people of Ngok are South Sudanese, and we can’t allow them to suffer the way they are suffering. Right now, there is no government in Khartoum, and they are left that way,”
— Vice President Taban Deng Gai, Juba, November 2024
In the wake of this bold statement, South Sudan’s political establishment appeared rattled. Then-Minister for Presidential Affairs, Ambassador Chol Ajongo Mawut, was compelled to convene a press conference to distance the government from Taban’s remarks, terming them a personal opinion.
On 2 December 2024, in a televised address, Ambassador Ajongo stated that the views attributed to Vice President Taban Deng were “his own” and did not reflect the policy or position of the Government of South Sudan. He stressed that Juba respects the territorial integrity and legitimate government of Sudan.
Ambassador Ajongo, a seasoned lawyer and diplomat, chose to be politically and diplomatically cautious — for, at times, politics takes precedence over truth and the rule of law.
Outdated Legal Principles
My main concern in this exchange is the government’s reliance on old-fashioned principles of international law—namely, sovereignty and territorial integrity—to disown Taban’s statement.
These traditional doctrines stem from the English maxim: “The King can do no wrong.” They essentially place rulers above the law, granting them immunity. For decades, such theories have been used to shield leaders from accountability for massacres and atrocities committed within their countries.
Indeed, many modern constitutions still contain provisions that protect sitting presidents or prime ministers from legal proceedings while in office. For example, Article 143 of Kenya’s Constitution stipulates that “criminal proceedings shall not be instituted against the President or a person performing the functions of that office during their tenure.”
In 1930, Mexican Foreign Minister General Estrada introduced what became known as the Estrada Doctrine, which supported sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference. The doctrine asserted that independent states—such as South Sudan—should refrain from publicly recognizing or denouncing foreign governments. Instead, a state could express approval or disapproval only through diplomatic channels, such as recalling its envoy.
The rationale was to prevent foreign states from influencing each other’s internal affairs.
A case in point occurred on 9 May 2024, when former South Sudan Presidential Envoy Ambassador Albino Mathem Ayuel described Kenyan President William Ruto as “a blessing to Kenya” during the launch of the Tumaini Peace Initiative. Unfortunately, this comment came at the height of Gen Z protests against Ruto’s government—an undiplomatic moment. At best, Amb. Albino could have said that Ruto was “a blessing to South Sudan” for his mediation efforts, not to Kenya’s internal politics.
Ignorance of the Law
The principle that “ignorance of the law is no defence” applies here. While the government’s justification for disowning Taban’s remarks relied on outdated principles, modern legal frameworks have evolved. Dismissing the Vice President’s statement on those grounds reflects a misunderstanding—or ignorance—of current international legal developments.
The Interdependence of States
In 1930, states ratified the Montevideo Convention, which established the criteria for statehood—one of which is the capacity to enter into relations with other states. While sovereignty grants nations control over their territories, it also binds them to respect the rights and safety of others.
Kenyan author and former legislator Ndoria Gicheru, in Demise and Rebirth of Parliament, wrote that sovereign states have no absolute power because they are bound by customary international human rights law. The Second World War reminded humanity of its responsibility to uphold the principles of human rights—enshrined in the UN Charter, from the Preamble through Article 1.
In this case, Sudan under Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan poses a clear threat to South Sudan’s interests through continuous human rights violations in Abyei and other regions.
The Principle of Non-Indifference
In 2002, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) transitioned into the African Union (AU)—a transformation that went beyond a mere name change. The AU abandoned the old doctrine of non-interference and embraced the Pan-African principle of non-indifference, enshrined in the Constitutive Act of the African Union (2003).
Under Article 4(h) and (j) of the Act, the AU reserves the right to intervene in member states in cases of war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. This legal framework obliges African states to uphold democracy, good governance, human rights, peace, and stability across the continent.
The AU adopted this approach after being widely condemned for remaining silent during the brutal regimes of Idi Amin (Uganda) and Jean-Bédel Bokassa (Central African Republic).
By all measures, Sudan today meets the criteria for AU intervention. There are ongoing atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere under Gen. al-Burhan’s de facto rule, which itself was established through unconstitutional means.
Conclusion
Instead of retreating or disowning Vice President Taban Deng’s factual remarks, South Sudan should act within the framework of the AU’s non-indifference principle. Juba should formally request the African Union to intervene in Sudan to rescue the people of Abyei, Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile—African citizens who live stateless in their ancestral homelands.
It is time for South Sudan to stop hiding in the shadow of outdated legal doctrines and take a principled stand on behalf of those suffering next door.
The writer, Dak Buoth Riek Gaak, is a lawyer and criminologist. He was a delegate to the High-Level Mediation for South Sudan (Tumaini Peace Initiative), where he represented the SSPM as its National Chairperson for Legal and Constitutional Affairs. He can be reached at: eligodakb@gmail.com
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.