Land and reparative justice in South Sudan

The report examines how land conflict in South Sudan is rooted in historical grievances and exacerbated by civil wars, leading to widespread land grabbing by military and political elites. It highlights the failure of the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) to explicitly address land within its transitional justice framework. Based on citizen interviews, the report finds a strong preference for restitution over compensation and communal reparations over individual ones. It recommends that the Compensation and Reparations Authority (CRA) be used to address land-related human rights violations and that the government expedite the adoption of a national land policy to resolve conflicting statutory and customary tenure systems.

• Land conflict in South Sudan is historically rooted in the 1997–2007 liberation period and was further intensified by the civil wars of 2013 and 2016.
• Land grabbing is frequently carried out by senior government officials and military generals, who often view such acquisitions as a reward for their role in the liberation struggle.
• The politicisation and militarisation of land has occurred through the appointment of chiefs by political and military leaders to advance their own interests, often bypassing community consultation.
• Women are disproportionately affected by land grabbing due to limited inheritance rights within customary systems and difficulties in the land-registration process.
• The current land administration system is plagued by corruption and inefficiency, resulting in the issuance of multiple title deeds for the same property due to a manual registration process.
• There is a significant disconnect between the 2011 Transitional Constitution, which states land belongs to the people, and the government's power to regulate land use, which often privileges state interests.
• The 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) fails to explicitly include land issues within its transitional justice framework, treating land reform and reparations as separate components.
• A high percentage of citizens believe the Compensation and Reparations Authority (CRA) could provide redress for land-related violations, with a strong preference for the return of land (restitution) over financial payment.
• Among respondents, there is a clear preference for communal reparations over individual ones, with 70% supporting this approach to reduce corruption and support public infrastructure.
• Despite the declining authority of traditional leaders, there is overwhelming support (93%) for the use of customary land dispute resolution in the current context.

APA

Kolok, J. D., Mahdi, M., & Ngari, A. (2020). Land and reparative justice in South Sudan. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ear-38.pdf

Chicago

Kolok, Jame David, Maram Mahdi, and Allan Ngari. Land and reparative justice in South Sudan. Institute for Security Studies, 2020. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ear-38.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Kolok |first1=Jame David |last2=Mahdi |first2=Maram |last3=Ngari |first3=Allan |title=Land and reparative justice in South Sudan |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=December 2020 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ear-38.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{kolok2020land, author = {Kolok, Jame David and Mahdi, Maram and Ngari, Allan}, title = {{Land and reparative justice in South Sudan}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2020}, month = dec, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ear-38.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }