![People wait outside the citizenship office in Juba to apply for South Sudanese nationality certificates [Photo by Refugees International/the Guardian]](https://i0.wp.com/www.sudanspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/South-Sudan-nationality-o-008.jpg?resize=850%2C412&ssl=1)
The order dated March 12, 2025, and purportedly issued by IGP Gen. Abraham Manyuat Peter, suspends all nationality by marriage applications. The IGP cited concerns about “illegal procedures” and foreigners marrying South Sudanese women solely to obtain citizenship, with subsequent divorces.
“Therefore, under the powers vested upon me as Inspector General of the National Police Service Act 2009 Amendment 2022, I, Gen. Abraham Manyuat Peter, do hereby issue this Order for the Suspension of Nationality by Marriage until further directives from this end,” the order stated.
The document claimed that the Directorate of Civil Registration, Nationality Passport and Immigration (DCRNPI) was facilitating “illegal procedures” and that there was a “desire among citizenship seekers for nationality by marriage, especially foreigners who marry South Sudanese ladies, as their main goal is to acquire nationality by marriage and subsequently divorce after obtaining citizenship, as evidenced by several cases.”
The IGP’s order aims to address alleged fraudulent practices and safeguard the integrity of South Sudan’s nationality process, potentially leading to a review of existing laws and stricter controls.
However, Juol Nhomngek, a member of the Reconstituted Transitional National Legislative Assembly, condemned the order as illegal and unconstitutional.
“IGP does not have powers to amend the Nationality Act, 2011. This order of the IGP is illegal as it contravenes the Act of Parliament and the supremacy of the Constitution under Article 3(3) of the Transitional Constitution,” Nhomngek said.
He argued that citizenship by marriage is a fundamental right that can only be amended by Parliament.
“The IGP, even the Minister of Interior or any other Minister, does not have powers to suspend the provision of the Act made by Parliament, including the citizenship by marriage which is one of the fundamental rights,” he added.
Nhomngek explained that altering such legislation requires a proposal to the cabinet, approval from the council of ministers, and parliamentary scrutiny before presidential assent.
Ter Manyang Gatwech, Executive Director of the Center for Peace and Advocacy (CPA), echoed Nhomngek’s concerns.
“The Inspector General of Police does not have the authority to revoke nationality by marriage. Such a decision undermines the Parliament and the Constitution of South Sudan,” Gatwech said.
CPA expressed deep concern, stating the decision “demonstrates a lack of understanding of South Sudan’s Constitution, which does not grant the Inspector General of Police the authority to make unwise decisions.”
Gatwech pointed out that South Sudan’s Nationality Act, 2011, allows foreigners married to South Sudanese nationals to acquire citizenship through naturalization after five years of residency, without renouncing their previous nationality.
The Nationality Act, 2011, Chapter 4, Section 13, outlines the eligibility for citizenship by marriage:
“13. Married Alien (1) An alien married to a South Sudanese National may acquire a nationality by naturalization, upon the approval of the Minister on an application submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the regulations, if such an alien is a lawful wife or husband of a South Sudanese National and has been living with her husband or his wife in South Sudan for a continuous period of not less than five years before the date of his or her application.”
The Act also specifies that those who acquire citizenship through marriage are not required to renounce their original nationality, and that the President may, under certain circumstances, waive the residency requirement.
While citizenship by marriage is a recognized legal pathway in many countries, eligibility criteria must be met, as noted by Global Citizen Solutions. The controversy in South Sudan centers on the IGP’s authority to suspend a process enshrined in law.
