Central cee

BREAKING: President Salva Kiir fires VP Benjamin Bol Mel from his position and also President Kiir has demoted former Vice President Benjamin Bol Mel to rank of Private and dismissed him from National Security Service

South Sudan: National Security Misunderstood
By Ajak Deng Chiengkou

18 August 2025
Image: Is generic not real

National security is the backbone of every sovereign state. It is the shield that protects citizens, secures borders, and preserves the integrity of the nation. For South Sudan, still in the early decades of independence, the credibility of national security is vital. Citizens must see it as a service that protects them, not an instrument of fear. Yet trust is easily shaken when the role of security is misunderstood or misused.

One of the examples illustrates the danger. Sometimes back, a man (names with held) went live on Facebook during an argument with a friend and declared, “I work for National Security. If you come to South Sudan, I will deal with you.” To him, it may have felt like a display of power. To the public, it sounded like a threat. With one careless statement, an institution of national protection was reduced to a personal weapon. Such behaviour blurs the line between protection and intimidation and damages the reputation of the entire service.

But what exactly does fear mean in this context? Fear is defined by the fact that vehicles belonging to security services, whether used by police, soldiers, or other officers, are driven through traffic at reckless speed, ignoring the rules that ordinary citizens must obey. It is defined by officers shouting at drivers and pedestrians as if the uniform exempts them from courtesy. Fear is defined by the image of a man in uniform who feels entitled to slap a citizen without cause, or to demand favours, money, or obedience without fear of the law or any consequences. At this point, the officer is no longer a protector of the nation but a danger to the nation’s wellbeing.

Fear is also defined by conduct away from the battlefield. If people fear you when you arrive at the conversation table because they believe you are secretly recording them or could fabricate evidence, you are no longer seen as a state officer but as a liability. You have exposed your vulnerability as an intelligence officer. If you sway your gun in a club or in public places to assert your status, you have not protected yourself but endangered your own security. In Western countries, if an officer even hints at their covert role, it may be treated as treason. When police officers investigate cases and lose them all in court, costing the state damages, they cease to be assets. If you are a military intelligence officer, do civilians need to know what you do? They do not, because your role is defined within the barracks. These reflections are for educational purposes. If you did not know what you have been doing wrong, you now have the opportunity to learn. If you are a superior officer, you have the responsibility to enforce rules that restore professionalism and discipline.

National security is not one man, one uniform, or one department. It is a system built on defined roles. Intelligence officers gather and analyse information quietly. Police enforce the law, make arrests, and present evidence in court. Soldiers defend the country’s borders and protect against external aggression. Customs and immigration regulate movement of people and goods. Courts and oversight bodies hold all these agencies accountable. When these roles are respected, citizens feel safe. When they are blurred, the public begins to fear those who should protect them.

Misuse has serious consequences. An intelligence officer who boasts publicly about his position compromises his safety, endangers his family, and undermines the very mission he is trained to perform. Information sources dry up, operations are exposed, and the country is left vulnerable. When citizens are intimidated instead of protected, they remain silent. They withhold vital information about drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, or criminal activity. Silence in such cases weakens the state.

Excessive force by police officers has a similar effect. Investigations collapse and cases fail in court. Criminals walk free, and the public loses confidence in the rule of law. The uniform, which should symbolise justice, becomes a source of fear.

History provides a clear warning. South Sudanese remember the years under the Sudanese regime when prisons such as the notorious White House in Juba became symbols of abuse. Citizens feared their own protectors, and entire communities lost trust in the institutions of the state. Independence was not only a political victory but an opportunity to do better. To repeat those mistakes would betray the sacrifices that won freedom.

No security service can succeed without trust. In countries where citizens believe security institutions exist to protect them, people actively cooperate—reporting suspicious activity and offering early warnings. This cooperation is not automatic. It is earned through discipline, fairness, and professionalism. For South Sudan, such trust is not optional. It is a matter of survival. The nation faces threats from illicit drugs, unsafe medical practices, cybercrime, and insecurity spilling over from regional conflicts. Officers alone cannot meet these challenges. They require the partnership of citizens.

The path forward is clear. Intelligence officers must remain discreet, never advertising their identity or using it in personal disputes. Police must rely on evidence and uphold the law with restraint. Soldiers must focus on defending the nation’s borders rather than involving themselves in civilian affairs. Leadership must ensure rigorous training, close supervision, and effective accountability. Above all, the service must protect its reputation. A single misuse can undo years of effort. The careless boast of one officer online can damage an institution, while the quiet professionalism of another who prevents violence can strengthen the nation.

South Sudan is at a turning point. We can either repeat the old pattern where security was feared, or we can build a professional, trusted system that protects every citizen. The badge should stand for discipline, not intimidation. The uniform should represent protection, not provocation. The true measure of national security is not how feared it is, but how trusted it becomes. If citizens and officers walk side by side, the nation will be secure. If citizens retreat into fear, the nation will remain vulnerable.

National security must never be misunderstood as a threat. It must be recognised as a promise: the promise that South Sudan, its people, and its future will be protected.