A dispute between the National Social Insurance Fund (NSIF) and the National Employees Union of South Sudan (NEUSS) has escalated, with both sides trading accusations over the union’s legal status and its role in a court case challenging aspects of the social insurance system.
The latest exchange follows an NSIF statement issued on Monday in which the Fund described NEUSS as an “unlawful group” and questioned its registration and legal standing.
NSIF said NEUSS does not appear in official records of registered unions held by the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs or the South Sudan Workers’ Trade Union Federation.
The Fund also said NEUSS had no legal authority to issue public statements directed at employers, NGOs, international organisations, diplomatic missions and other entities operating within the NSIF mandate.
NSIF further stated that it was not a party to a court case filed by oil sector trade unions and had not been served with the application, meaning it could not formally respond to issues raised in the proceedings.
NEUSS has rejected the allegations, saying it is a legally registered trade union and accusing NSIF management of making false and defamatory statements about its status.
In a statement issued on October 5, NEUSS said it holds Certificate of Registration No. 39/2026, issued by the Registrar of the Workers Trade Unions and Employers Association on July 3, 2026.
The union said the certificate officially recognises NEUSS as a registered trade union and argued that NSIF is not the institution responsible for determining whether it is legally constituted.
NEUSS said any doubts about its registration should instead be verified with the Registrar or addressed before the competent court.
The union also rejected NSIF’s claim that it lacks legal standing to participate in judicial proceedings.
NEUSS said its application identifies NSIF as the second respondent and argued that questions concerning standing, joinder, jurisdiction and service should ultimately be determined by the court rather than through public statements.
“The courtroom not a press release is the proper place to determine questions of standing, joinder, jurisdiction and the legality of the contested measures,” NEUSS said.
At the centre of the disagreement is the implementation and institutional administration of South Sudan’s national social insurance system, including issues concerning employee contributions, deductions and benefits.
NEUSS said its communication to employers was intended as labour-relations advocacy and not as an attempt to incite the public.
The union said it supports social insurance as a principle but disagrees with what it described as the current implementation and institutional configuration of NSIF, which it argues do not comply with requirements of the NSIF Act 2023 and principles of institutional governance, representation and accountability.
NEUSS said those issues are now before the court.
The union also accused NSIF of attempting to turn a legal dispute into a campaign against NEUSS instead of addressing the substantive questions raised by workers and their representatives.
NEUSS has demanded that NSIF withdraw its description of the union as “unlawful,” “unregistered” or “illegal” and publicly correct and retract the statements.
It also warned that failure to do so could lead to legal action, including possible defamation proceedings.
NSIF, for its part, said it reserves the right to seek legal redress against groups or individuals it believes undermine public confidence in the institution, incite the public or breach government communication protocols.
The Fund said it remains open to engagement with legally registered stakeholders, including employee and employers’ associations, workers’ unions, beneficiaries and other organisations within its mandate.
The NSIF is a statutory institution responsible for administering South Sudan’s social insurance framework, placing it at the centre of discussions over employee contributions and social protection benefits.
The current dispute follows an NSIF administrative circular issued on September 21, 2026, which the Fund cited in its latest statement.
NEUSS says its concerns relate to how the social insurance system is being implemented and governed, while NSIF maintains that it is operating within its statutory mandate.
With the dispute already before the courts, both sides have now called for the legal questions to be determined through the judicial process.
NEUSS said it is prepared to engage with the Ministry of Labour, employers and other stakeholders on a transparent and sustainable social insurance system, but maintained that questions of legality should ultimately be settled by the competent institutions.
The court has yet to make a determination on the competing claims presented by the two sides.
