South Sudan’s police recently arrested, detained, then released four lecturers of Rumbek University of Science and Technology in a baffling manner.
Sudans Post reported on May 15, 2025, that the dons were only released after representatives of their academic association met state authorities, “including the acting governor and state security advisor.” However, in its convoluted intro, the publication did not specify the dates the lecturers were nabbed.
“Four lecturers from Rumbek University of Science and Technology, who were detained by South Sudan’s National Security Service (NSS) in Lakes State’s capital Rumbek on Saturday, were released on Wednesday, the university’s academic registrar said.” Also, the story didn’t mention the “acting governor” and the area the leader represents.
Of the four lecturers affected, the story only mentioned one name, Makur Awan Maguang, the student affairs dean. It left readers to guess who the remaining four were, including their subject specialties.
The story did not directly explain why the dons had a run-in with the law, save for cautiously domiciling it in a bare quote attributed to Maguang, cobbled through atrocious grammar: “We in academia, we are not for destruction, so that is an allegation … We didn’t incite the students to go on strike as it was alleged… and this led to my detention… I was very safe without being tortured. Now we are normal, and we are released and out now without condition.”
Had Rumbek University students gone on strike? If so, the story required additional information (such as why? and when?) for context. Put differently, who was the accuser of the lecturers? The reporter didn’t say.
Readers would have expected to be told where the lecturers were arrested and how. Were they picked from the lecture halls, at home, or from wherever? And to what holding police cells were they taken for processing or detention? The story didn’t say.
Another important aspect missing in the story was the reason the lecturers, if guilty of the alleged offence(s), were never taken to a court of law to allow for the correct jurisprudential process. In a seeming ambush, readers were taken straight to backdoor “negotiations” between the lecturers’ academic association and some state operatives who were not judicial officers in a manner amounting to a kangaroo court. Pray, is this how the law works in South Sudan? What role do “an acting governor and state security advisor” (whatever that means) have to play in the country’s justice system?
The university’s academic registrar, Mathew Malou Mariec, was quoted as saying the freed lecturers had resumed duties. There was no proof the writer confirmed the claim. Intriguingly, in what amounts to functional laziness, one of the freed lecturers was interviewed for the story. Why was it difficult to escalate the proof by interviewing the vice-chancellor? And why did the reporter find it impossible to interview some university students to confirm if the dons were, indeed, back in the lecture halls?
There was another contradiction in the story. On one hand, Garnop Makur, a member of the academic staff association, was quoted as thanking the university’s vice-chancellor (whose name the writer didn’t disclose) for “advocating” for the release of his colleagues. On the other, the same official was calling on the same vice-chancellor “to engage with the staff to address their concerns.”
Speaking of the staff “concerns” the story failed to mention any, and to clarify whether only the lecturers were affected or their non-teaching colleagues and the students were also witnessing varied difficulties. The story should have listed some of the issues at the heart of the lecturers’ complaints.
Lesson learnt? A poorly written, thinly sourced and factually jumbled story makes for difficult reading. The story titled, ‘NSS frees Rumbek University lecturers’ and published by Sudans Post is a case study on how not to write a news story.
