Ready or Not? Inside the 2nd South Sudan Country Forum on the December 2026 Elections

On 23rd and 24th September 2026, stakeholders gathered in Juba for the 2nd South Sudan Country Forum, organised by the South Sudanese Network for Democracy and Elections (SSuNDE) and the East and Horn of Africa Election Observers Network (E-HORN), a part of the EU co-funded AHEAD Africa project that is aimed at assessing what has changed since then and what still needs to happen before the 22 December 2026 elections.

A forum at a pivotal moment

The forum agenda built on the commitments made at the first Country Forum in 2024 covered institutional and electoral preparedness, security, inclusion, information integrity and citizens’ engagement.

The timing relevant as the Transitional Government established under the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) had just reached the end of its mandate. The peace framework requires it to be dissolved three months before the elections, and that happened on 22 September, the day before the forum opened. Preparations were continuing for an electoral process covering 102 national constituencies, with 39 political parties reported as fully registered as of 1 July 2026.

What the evidence says

The discussions drew on research by the Standard Action Liaison Force (SALF) under the AHEAD Africa framework. An assessment that covered six states and one administrative area. It looked at citizen awareness, the legal framework, and the capacity of the National Elections Commission (NEC), political parties, security institutions, the judiciary and civil society.

The findings point to a public that is engaged but cautious:

• Awareness is high: 86% of respondents know about the upcoming elections.

• Elections are valued: 84% rate them as important or very important.

• Willingness to participate is strong: 76% would definitely or probably take part, among youth.

Readiness, however, remains limited and uneven. Knowledge of key electoral procedures is still insufficient, and trust in electoral institutions is moderate but fragile. Institutions face limited financial and logistical resources, planning delays and weak coordination, while legal experts pointed to gaps and ambiguities in the electoral framework.

Security as a major concern. Only 43% of citizens perceive their environment as secure, and conflict-prone areas such as Jonglei, Upper Nile and the Greater Pibor Administrative Area (GPAA) stand out. The humanitarian context adds further complexity, with over 10 million people requiring assistance and nearly 2 million displaced.

Access to information challenge. Radio is the main source for 67% of respondents, followed by social media (14%) and community meetings (6%). Radio’s reach reflects its value in rural areas and in vernacular languages. As social media grows in influence, especially among urban youth, it brings opportunities for civic engagement as well as risks of misinformation and political propaganda.

Where Digital Rights Meet the Ballot

Digital Rights Frontline took part in the session, which looked at the legal framework shaping the electoral conversation and what it will take to keep the digital space safe, open and trustworthy in the weeks ahead. The panel addressed pressing questions on addressing harmful misinformation, independent monitoring, fact-checking and platform accountability before polling day and how the Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act 2026 and the forthcoming Data Protection Bill should be applied, and where they need reform.

Political setting, legal framework and security

Participants called for authoritative clarification on how the R-ARCSS, the Transitional Constitution and electoral legislation interact, noting that the R-ARCSS takes precedence under Article 8.3 where conflicts arise.

The forum also noted that the electoral process is unfolding amid ongoing conflict, localised violence and insecurity in several parts of the country,fragmentation among armed actors and unresolved transitional security arrangements make the situation worse. Security arrangements, the forum said, should remain neutral, coordinated, rights-respecting and consistent with the R-ARCSS, the Constitution and applicable law.

Preparedness, inclusion and participation

Participants examined voter registration and verification, the accreditation of domestic observers, and women's participation and safety. They also covered youth participation and the protection of young people from manipulation and violence, accessibility for persons with disabilities, displaced persons, returnees and marginalized communities. Participants considered what journalists need in order to report safely and the legal reforms are required, including clear and accessible mechanisms for resolving electoral disputes.

The forum noted that the electoral timeframe is highly compressed and that voter registration had not yet begun at the time it met.

Calling for:

• Publication and regular updating of a realistic electoral operational timetable;

• Adequate financial, logistical, technical and human resources;

•  Timely voter registration and verification;

• Sufficient preparation for polling, counting and results management;

•  Accessible electoral complaints and dispute-resolution mechanisms; and

•  Regular public reporting on progress, gaps and corrective measures.

Information, data protection and digital rights

A third strand of discussion asked how harmful misinformation can be countered without restricting legitimate civic expression and the role digital rights monitoring and fact-checking can play. Participants raised the Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act 2026 and the forthcoming Data Protection Bill. They asked how both should be applied and reformed so that they protect voters' personal data and online expression rather than limit participation.

The forum recognised the risk this poses to public confidence in the electoral process. As Dr. Kennedy Masime, Authorised Representative of E-HORN, put it:

"The electoral process also requires accessible and reliable information. Misinformation and disinformation, weak data-protection safeguards and barriers to information can undermine public confidence and disproportionately affect communities that already face difficulties accessing reliable information."

Calling for:

• Accurate, timely and accessible electoral information;

• Stronger protection of personal and electoral data;

• Responsible and ethical media reporting;

• Strengthened fact-checking and public-interest journalism;

• Equitable access to reliable electoral information;

• Journalist safety and professional independence; and

• Reporting that avoids needlessly inflaming political or communal tensions while maintaining legitimate scrutiny of public institutions.

Civic space and fundamental freedoms

The forum also raised concerns about freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly and movement, questioning how security and surveillance powers are exercised. Participants referred to Sections 54 and 55 of the National Security Service Act, as amended in 2024, and to continuing concerns about their potential impact on civic and political space.

Calling for the review, repeal or appropriate amendment of measures that unduly restrict constitutionally protected freedoms to ensure that security and surveillance powers are exercised strictly within the Constitution and applicable law. In addition, it urged stronger civic and voter education and an enabling environment for peaceful participation.

Priority cross-cutting recommendation

Fighting falsehoods without punishing critics; responding to misinformation matters as much as the misinformation itself. Blanket takedowns, internet restrictions and vaguely worded offences tend to land on critics and journalists, while doing very little to stop organised disinformation campaigns.

Eyes on the digital space; independent monitors who can document online hate speech, coordinated manipulation, harassment of candidates especially women and journalists, and any disruption to connectivity. Alongside them, fact-checkers ready to debunk rumours quickly, before they harden into narratives that fuel tension. 

Two principles for two laws; Voter registration involves sensitive personal information, and citizens will only trust registration and verification if they believe their data is safe. The absence of a Data Protection Bill leaves a gap that should be filled with clear limits on how voter data is collected, stored, shared and deleted, backed by real accountability for misuse.

The second is to narrow the offences. Provisions in the Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act must be precise enough that they cannot be turned against journalists, observers, activists or ordinary voters sharing their opinions. 

The forum closed by agreeing on priority actions, institutional commitments and follow-up mechanisms. These are meant to carry its work into accountability beyond the two days in Juba. Its headline recommendation is to establish a coordinated electoral-readiness mechanism. This would involve relevant institutions and stakeholders, with clear responsibilities, measurable benchmarks and regular public reporting. 

Civil society, hand in hand

The picture from Juba is of an electorate that wants to vote but needs better information, stronger institutions and greater safety to do so. Whether South Sudan is ready for the elections remains an open question. Whether democratic rights are protected during them is something civil society can influence, both online and offline.

In the weeks that follow, civil society organisations will need to work hand in hand because no single organisation can safeguard the electoral period alone. The strength lies in coordination: sharing data, speaking with one voice on shared priorities, and holding institutions to the commitments made at forums like this one. As December approaches, this collaboration is how readiness is built and also how South Sudanese citizens can be confident that their voices, their data and their right to choose are protected.