Kiir’s Fiery Defense of the 28 States Decree
South Sudanese President Salva Kiir used a recent convention of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Government (SPLM-IG) to deliver one of his most forceful defenses yet of his controversial decision to create 28 states. Speaking before party loyalists and senior officials, Kiir portrayed the decree as a necessary step for decentralization, improved service delivery, and stronger local governance, despite ongoing criticism from opposition groups and international observers.
The 28 states decree, issued by Kiir in 2015, redrew South Sudan’s internal boundaries, replacing the original 10 states established at independence. Critics have argued that the move was both unconstitutional and politically motivated, designed to consolidate power and reward allies. Supporters, however, insist that the new administrative units bring government closer to the people and recognize local identities that were previously marginalized.
A Sudden Call-Out: Kisanga’s Name Echoes in the Hall
The atmosphere at the SPLM-IG convention shifted sharply when Kiir abruptly called out the name of Kisanga, a figure he associated with political dissent and subversion. The unexpected mention stunned many in the audience, with some delegates exchanging uneasy glances as the president departed from his prepared remarks to address what he described as dangerous activities working against peace and unity.
By naming Kisanga directly, Kiir signaled a willingness to publicly confront individuals he believes are undermining the state from within. The surprise call-out was widely interpreted as both a warning to perceived rebel sympathizers and a reaffirmation of the president’s resolve to retain control over the political narrative surrounding the 28 states and the security situation in the Greater Equatoria region.
Accusations Against Rebel Elements in Greater Equatoria
Kiir’s speech turned especially combative when he addressed what he described as rebel elements operating in the Greater Equatoria region. He accused these groups of exploiting local grievances, manipulating ethnic tensions, and disrupting the government’s attempts to implement administrative reforms tied to the 28 states decree.
According to Kiir, the presence of armed and unarmed opposition networks in Greater Equatoria has slowed down development, hindered reconciliation, and undermined citizens’ trust in the state. He framed the insurgent activity as not only a security threat but also an obstacle to the broader project of national reconstruction, arguing that any resistance to the 28 states system amounts to resistance against the sovereignty and stability of South Sudan itself.
Greater Equatoria at the Heart of Political Contestation
The Greater Equatoria region has long held political and symbolic importance in South Sudan. Historically seen as a relatively more stable and agriculturally rich area, it has also been a stronghold for various opposition movements at different points in the country’s turbulent history. Kiir’s decision to focus his strongest accusations on this region underscores its strategic significance in the struggle for political legitimacy and territorial control.
Local leaders and civil society groups in Greater Equatoria have voiced concerns that the new state boundaries may deepen communal tensions, particularly where ethnic fault lines intersect with new administrative demarcations. This has created fertile ground for rebel narratives that frame the 28 states as a tool of domination rather than inclusion. Kiir’s speech sought to reverse that perception by framing the decree as a tool for empowerment rather than marginalization.
The Political Logic Behind the 28 States
Beyond his criticism of alleged rebel collaborators, Kiir devoted substantial time to justifying the rationale behind the creation of 28 states. He insisted that the policy responds to longstanding demands for representation and local autonomy, arguing that smaller, more localized administrative units can better address security, development, and service delivery challenges.
Supporters within SPLM-IG have echoed this argument, claiming that closer governance structures enable communities to participate more actively in decision-making and allocate resources more effectively. Proponents say that previously neglected counties now have greater political weight, access to budgets, and a formal voice in national discussions.
Constitutional and Peace Agreement Concerns
Opponents of the decree, including various political factions and legal experts, maintain that Kiir overstepped his constitutional authority by unilaterally redrawing state boundaries without broad consensus or a constitutional amendment. They argue that the decision violated the spirit and letter of power-sharing arrangements envisioned in past peace deals, particularly those that distributed political positions according to the original 10-state structure.
Further, critics claim that the 28 states system risks entrenching ethnic enclaves, intensifying competition over land and resources. Disputes over newly designated borders have, in some instances, erupted into localized clashes, reinforcing fears that the administrative reconfiguration could fuel the very instability it purports to address.
Intra-Party Dynamics Within SPLM-IG
The SPLM-IG convention itself was not merely a platform for a policy speech; it was also a crucial moment for consolidating Kiir’s authority within the party. By publicly defending the 28 states decree and denouncing rebel sympathizers, Kiir sought to rally the party base, discourage internal dissent, and project an image of cohesion at a time of ongoing political fragility.
Party insiders indicate that not all SPLM-IG members initially supported the 28 states project, particularly those who feared losing influence under the new boundaries. However, Kiir’s assertive stance has progressively narrowed the space for internal opposition, making open criticism of the decree politically risky. The naming of Kisanga at the convention was perceived by some as a pointed demonstration of what can happen to those seen as drifting toward the opposition.
Regional and International Reactions
Regional actors and international partners have responded to the 28 states policy with caution and, in some cases, open skepticism. While there is acknowledgment that administrative reforms may be needed to strengthen governance, many observers argue that such changes must emerge from inclusive dialogue rather than unilateral decrees.
Diplomats and mediators involved in South Sudan’s peace processes have repeatedly emphasized that the configuration of states should be addressed through negotiated settlements that balance representation, resource sharing, and security guarantees. They warn that any arrangement perceived as imposed from above risks reigniting conflict, especially in contested areas like Greater Equatoria.
Balancing Security, Governance, and Public Confidence
At the core of Kiir’s defense is a belief that strong centralized leadership is necessary to navigate South Sudan’s post-conflict challenges. He has framed the 28 states decree as part of a broader strategy to rebuild the country, arguing that administrative reform must go hand in hand with disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of armed groups, as well as economic recovery.
Yet, for many citizens, the lived reality remains marked by insecurity, displacement, and limited access to basic services. In this context, debates over the number and boundaries of states can feel distant from daily struggles unless they translate into tangible improvements—better schools, safer roads, functioning markets, and inclusive local decision-making.
Public Perception and Trust in Institutions
Public opinion on the 28 states remains deeply divided. Some communities perceive the new states as an opportunity to assert long-suppressed identities and to secure greater recognition within the national framework. Others see the arrangement as exacerbating fragmentation, concentrating power among certain elites, and complicating efforts to build a coherent national vision.
For Kiir, winning the argument over the 28 states is not just a matter of administrative policy; it is a test of his political legitimacy. By confronting rebel narratives and naming perceived opponents, he has chosen an aggressive strategy that might rally his base but risks further alienating those who already question the fairness of the decree. The durability of his approach will ultimately depend on whether institutions can gain enough trust to deliver justice, security, and development under the new structure.
Looking Ahead: Dialogue or Deepening Division?
The future of the 28 states decree is likely to be shaped by negotiations, both formal and informal, among political factions, community leaders, and regional mediators. While Kiir signaled no willingness to reverse course during his convention speech, the realities on the ground—ongoing displacement, intermittent violence, and economic hardship—may eventually push all sides toward compromise.
Key questions remain unresolved: Should the number of states be revisited through a constitutional review? Can boundary disputes be resolved without reigniting conflict? How can local governance be strengthened in a way that is both inclusive and sustainable? The answers will determine whether the 28 states become a foundation for stability or another chapter in South Sudan’s cycle of contestation and mistrust.
Conclusion: A High-Stakes Defense of a Contested Decree
By using the SPLM-IG convention as a stage for a vigorous defense of his 28 states decree, Salva Kiir reaffirmed his commitment to a controversial vision of administrative decentralization. His decision to call out Kisanga by name and to condemn alleged rebel elements in Greater Equatoria underscored a strategy aimed at drawing sharp lines between loyalists and opponents.
Whether this strategy will strengthen South Sudan’s fragile peace or deepen political and regional divides remains uncertain. What is clear is that the debate over the 28 states strikes at the heart of questions about power, identity, and representation in a country still searching for a stable and inclusive political order.