The Government of Lakes State has suspended Lakes State Media (LSM), accusing the outlet of “promoting dissent” and “hosting interviews with defected groups and rebels,” in what observers describe as a politically charged move that raises fresh questions about media freedom and due process in South Sudan.
The decision, contained in a letter signed by William Koji Kirjok, the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports and Acting Minister of Information, directs Lakes State Media to immediately halt operations and change its name before resuming any activities.
“By hosting interviews with defected groups and rebels, Lakes State Media is inadvertently endorsing dissent against the government,” the letter reads.
“Such coverage reflects negatively on the image of the state and goes against efforts to maintain peace and stability.”
The letter further argues that the use of the name “Lakes State Media” misrepresents an official state institution and is therefore “illegal,” insisting that the outlet adopt a name “that better reflects its independent status.”
However, legal analysts and journalists question whether the state ministry has the legal mandate to suspend a private outlet without due process through the Media Authority, the national regulator responsible for press oversight.
“Only the national Media Authority has the power to suspend or revoke media licenses,” said one media law expert in Juba, who requested anonymity.
“A state ministry acting on its own may be exceeding its jurisdiction.”
The suspension followed Lakes State Media’s announcement of a planned interview with Nhial Deng Nhial, leader of the South Sudan Salvation Movement (SSSM), a former senior government official who recently defected to form an opposition movement.
Sources close to the outlet say the interview was intended to focus on “political transition and reconciliation,” but the state government viewed it as “promoting rebel narratives.”
While the government’s letter frames the decision as an attempt to protect state integrity, critics argue it fits into a wider pattern of tightening control over independent voices, especially ahead of the country’s anticipated electoral period.
CEPO’s Edmund Yakani condemned the suspension of Lakes State Media ahead of an interview with opposition leader Nhial Deng Nhial, calling it a clear sign of shrinking political space. He urged authorities to restore media freedom and allow the outlet to operate without interference.
Yakani say the move risks undermining the very principles of openness and forgiveness that national leaders, including President Salva Kiir, have emphasized in recent speeches.
“We cannot call for national dialogue and reconciliation while silencing divergent opinions,” said one Rumbek-based journalist familiar with the issue.
As of Thursday, Lakes State Media’s platforms remained inactive, and management has yet to issue a public response.
The case has once again placed South Sudan’s media freedom and governance practices under scrutiny and revived a familiar question: when local authorities silence the press in the name of stability, are they upholding the law, or stretching it?
South Sudan’s legal framework, notably the Media Authority Act of 2013, enshrines the principle that the right to freedom of expression, including the public’s right to a pluralistic media, is a fundamental human right.
This is further protected under Article 24 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan.
The Media Authority Act stipulates that any provision within any law restricting freedom of expression and media must be specifically and narrowly defined, subject to tests of necessity and proportionality.
This means any government action that limits media activities must be justified, proportionate, and in line with constitutional guarantees.
Furthermore, the Broadcasting Corporation Act of 2013 emphasizes the importance of operational and administrative autonomy for public broadcasters, ensuring they can function without undue interference from the government.
The government’s suspension of Lakes State Media, particularly in response to an interview with an opposition leader, raises concerns about potential violations of these legal provisions.
Such actions could be seen as an infringement on the media’s right to operate independently and the public’s right to access diverse viewpoints.
Legal experts and civil society organizations may view this suspension as a challenge to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and media independence.
The government’s justification, citing the media’s engagement with opposition figures, would need to be scrutinized to ensure it aligns with the principles of necessity and proportionality outlined in the Media Authority Act.
In conclusion, while the government asserts its authority over media operations within the state, the legal framework provides strong protections for media freedom.
Any actions that appear to contravene these protections should be carefully examined to uphold the constitutional rights of individuals and media organizations in South Sudan.
