Since independence, South Sudan has struggled to establish a viable administration and has been plagued by widespread corruption, political conflict and violence between communities. In 2013, a conflict broke out between troops loyal to President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, and troops loyal to Vice-President Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer. The conflict spread rapidly across the country along ethnic lines, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and a humanitarian crisis with millions of displaced persons. Kiir and Machar signed a peace agreement in 2015 that led to the creation of a transitional government of national unity the following year. However, fighting broke out again between the two groups in Juba, plunging the country back into conflict and spawning new armed opposition groups. In 2018, both parties signed the revitalised peace agreement, which brought most of the fighting to an end and laid the foundation for a unified national army, a transitional government and elections. The transitional government was established in 2020, when Machar returned to Juba as first vice-president. Since 2020, the implementation of the peace agreement has stalled due to a power-sharing dispute, which has contributed to an increase in communal violence and a severe food crisis. In 2022, the transitional government extended the transitional period by two years. Elections scheduled for December 2024 were postponed for two years in the summer of that year.
The outbreak of war in Sudan in April 2023 has severely damaged South Sudan's already precarious economy. Civil servants and soldiers in South Sudan had not received salaries for over a year as of November 2024, increasing tensions and the risk of conflict. This may be one of the reasons for the ongoing restructuring of the security sector in the final months of 2024.
The sources consulted by Cedoca make no mention of an armed conflict with warring parties in the capital Juba. This is also reflected in the ACLED data on political violence. For the research period from January 2023 to 31 January 2025, ACLED registered 29 incidents of political violence in the capital Juba, of which it categorises twelve incidents as battles (clashes between armed parties) and seventeen incidents as violence against civilians. These incidents resulted in nineteen fatalities, six of which were civilians.
In addition to political violence, an analysis of local news media, such as Eye Radio and Tamazuj Radio, shows that the city is affected by criminal violence. Reports from Juba and surrounding areas indicate that arbitrary arrests and detentions by security forces and militias are widespread.
Juba faces severe constraints in public services and infrastructure. Access to electricity is not guaranteed for all city residents. The city lacks an adequate water distribution system, which means that a large proportion of the city's population does not have access to drinking water. The economic crisis is also reflected in high unemployment and a decline in living standards. Freedom of movement in the city is regularly restricted by illegal checkpoints and curfews.
Policy
The policy implemented by the Commissioner General is based on a thorough analysis of accurate and up-to-date information on the general situation in the country of origin. This information is collated in a professional manner from various, objective sources, including the EUAA, the UNHCR, relevant international human rights organisations, non-governmental organisations, professional literature and coverage in the media. When determining policy, the Commissioner General does not only examine the COI Focuses written by Cedoca and published on this website, as these deal with just one aspect of the general situation in the country of origin. The fact that a COI Focus could be out-of-date does not mean that the policy that is being implemented by the Commissioner General is no longer up-to-date.
When assessing an application for asylum, the Commissioner General not only considers the actual situation in the country of origin at the moment of decision-making, he also takes into account the individual situation and personal circumstances of the applicant for international protection. Every asylum application is examined individually. An applicant must comprehensively demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or that there is a clear personal risk of serious harm. He cannot, therefore, simply refer back to the general conditions in his country, but must also present concrete, credible and personal facts.
There is no policy paper for this country available on the website.
