Six journalists from South Sudan’s state broadcaster, SSBC, were detained on January 3 after officials from the National Security Service arrested them following the broadcast of a video depicting an event connected to President Salva Kiir. The detention was reported by a leading international non-governmental organization based in New York, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which cited multiple media sources and local accounts.
The press crew members taken into custody include Joval Tombe, described as the control room manager, along with Victor Lado and Joseph Oliver, who are listed as cameramen and technicians. Also detained were Jacob Benjamin, another cameraman and technician, Mustafa Osman, noted as a cameraman and technician, and Cherbek Ruben, identified as a control room technician. The sequence of events raises questions about the handling of broadcast materials and the league of accountability for those who protect and transmit political information in the country’s media landscape.
At the time of the arrests, authorities from SSBC asserted that the broadcaster had not released the contested footage to the public. The official statements suggested that the frames in question had not been published by the station, differentiating the actions of SSBC from the distribution of the video on social media and other channels. This distinction adds complexity to the narrative surrounding who possesses control over sensitive video content and who bears responsibility for its dissemination.
CPJ has emphasized that journalists should not face detention for simply performing their professional duties. The organization identified the individuals involved and urged authorities to ensure their immediate release and reinstatement, calling for an environment where reporters can operate without fear of harassment or arrest. The appeal reflects ongoing concerns about media freedom, safety for journalists, and the risk of retaliatory measures against those who document political events or are perceived to be connected to the dissemination of such material. The CPJ stance stresses that freedom of the press remains a core component of civic accountability and public oversight in South Sudan, particularly in situations involving high-profile figures and state institutions.
Observers note that the incident underscores broader tensions between state security apparatuses and journalistic practice within the country. The detention of staff linked to reporting on political moments raises critical questions about due process, the transparency of investigative procedures, and the protection of newsroom personnel during periods of political sensitivity. Advocates for media freedom argue that ensuring the safe operation of reporters is essential for an informed citizenry, especially in environments where official narratives may be contested or where access to verifiable information is restricted. The episode also highlights the fragile balance between national security concerns and the public’s right to know, a tension that many observers say requires careful, rule-based responses from authorities and clear channels for lawful redress when journalists are detained or restricted.
While the precise charges, if any, have not been clarified in the public record, the ongoing situation has drawn international attention. The CPJ and other observers continue to monitor developments, seeking confirmation of the detainees’ status and any legal basis for their detention. The focus remains on ensuring that individuals engaged in journalism can perform their duties without intimidation, and that due process is observed in any allegations of wrongdoing related to reporting activities. This case adds to a rising corpus of international concerns about media freedom in South Sudan and the protective measures available to journalists working in the country’s evolving information environment.