All is not well at the seat of South Sudan’s legislative power in Juba City. There are conflicting media reports that a storm of administrative nature is brewing at the Transitional National Legislative Assembly. The stories are largely touching on how funds allocated to the House are spent, and discrimination in payment of benefits to the legislators and employees.
These are grave issues demanding clarity as to source of allegations and pursuit of detail for packaging solid and convincing stories. Granted, the media in South Sudan operate in a highly constricted environment where those in high political office seek to have both their way and say in coverage. Indeed, the practice of journalism suffers serious heavy-handed official controls from the Juba administration. Freedom of the media and access to information has hit its nadir.
However, journalism demands that those writing news strive to get it right in terms of many crucial values: impact, timeliness, prominence, proximity, the bizarre, conflict, currency, and human interest. All these must be tethered to balance and fairness, the classic buzzwords of journalism ethics.
A critical analysis of the media coverage of South Sudan’s TNLA in recent days reveals a growing level of professional carelessness that can’t be fully blamed on government restrictions.
For example, on January 28, 2025, Sudans Post published a story to the effect that the 650 legislators had received medical allowances, while those for the employees were reduced by half. Titled, ‘South Sudan lawmakers receive $1,000 medical allowances amid staff pay cuts’, the story made allegations with far-reaching implications without disclosing sources and providing context. The first three paragraphs were heavy.
“South Sudan lawmakers are receiving $1,000 each in medical allowances, while staff at the parliament have seen their own payments slashed, sparking protests and arrests, sources told Sudans Post on Monday.
“The 650 members of the Transitional National Legislative Assembly, established per terms of the revitalised peace agreement, received the allowances on Monday, according to a source within the parliament who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“However, staff allowances were cut from $100 to $50, leading to protests and the arrest of some employees by security forces, the source said.”
What are the allegations? One, each lawmaker got a $1,000 medical allowance while staff allowance (of whatever type, the writer didn’t specify) was chopped from $100 to $50. Two, that as a result of the flagrant bias, TNLA employees protested, and some were arrested. Three, that Sudans Post got this crucial information from a source “within” parliament. Don’t worry that readers weren’t told whether the same source works there or is a frequent, nosy visitor. Pray, was it the first time the legislators were being paid the medical allowance in dollars? And was it an enhanced figure?
Sudans Post’s source – who declined to be named for reasons the story didn’t say – had more ‘inner dossier’ on the impact of the ‘discrimination’ on the collective psyche of the TNLA employees. Something is afoot: “Staff are demanding the reinstatement of their original $100 allowance and are considering a strike, the source said. They also called for the removal of the parliament’s leadership, accusing them of corruption and mismanagement.” This, again, according to the faceless, nameless source.
The paper interviewed a second anonymous source, a parliamentary staff, who, speaking for the majority, claimed the reduction in their allowance was the result of manipulation by a cabal of corrupt officials. “Moreover, $100 was the amount intended but because those who cut $50 wanted to corrupt the money[sic]. This lack of transparency is total corruption.” Intriguingly, this new source put a new spin to the story: “The staff member clarified that the payments were not strictly medical allowances, but rather funds provided by the president’s office to support MPs.” Why now? Is President Salva Kiir Mayardit compromising the legislators?
Late last year, the same legislators were united in speedily amending the country’s constitution to extend the term of the transitional government by two years and to delay the general election until December 2026. On Friday, September 20, 2024, the Revitalized National Legislative Assembly approved the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan, 2011 (Amendment) Bill (No.12, 2024) agreed with the presidency and gave the two-pronged decision the required legislative authority. With that, President Salva Kiir stays in power for two more years, and the elections – scheduled for December 2024 – were postponed until December 2026.
If that shocker wasn’t enough, Radio Tamazuj went on air with a story claiming that a top employee of the legislature acted beyond his powers and – without authority – paid out increased staff allowances. “John Onorio, the Controller of TNLA, was found to have increased staff allowances to $100 per person instead of the approved $50, an action deemed a serious breach of financial regulations and administrative policies”, it announced on February 1, 2025. Although the station attributed the story to a letter by TNLA clerk Kaku Ngong dated January 31, 2025, it failed to give context to the story. Could Onorio have empathised with the plight of the staff over their reduced allowances and acted without seeking permission from the speaker?
Radio Tamazuj correctly observed that “the suspension (of Onorio) raises concerns about financial transparency within parliament as South Sudan grapples with broader governance and accountability challenges.” But it failed to cite one or more cases of fiscal impropriety that had visited TNLA. It added that the TNLA leadership, including the speaker and the deputy speaker, to whom the clerk’s letter had been copied, “have yet to make a public statement.”
There was no proof that the station made any effort to get comments from the said officers. It also made a sloppy comment amounting to the reporter straying into the story. Here: “Observers note that this case could lead to stricter financial oversight within TNLA, prompting wider investigations into the legislative body’s management.” Who were those “observers”? Consumers weren’t told.
And in concluding the story, Radio Tamazuj seemed to have packed with its consumers in what seemed like Samuel Beckett’s tragicomedy, Waiting for Godot. The station announced: “More details are expected regarding the extent of the financial breach and whether other officials were involved.” Who, other than its journalists, should take the story forward?
Lesson learnt? Journalists in South Sudan must continue pushing own professional envelope by providing the necessary story-telling elements for completeness of content and enhanced consumer believability.
