South Sudan worker body rejects claim it is illegal

JUBA — The National Employees Union of South Sudan has rejected the National Social Insurance Fund’s claim that it is an illegal and unregistered organisation, after the union challenged the implementation of the country’s social insurance scheme.

The latest development followed a NEUSS advisory urging employers covered by the Fund’s mandate to exercise restraint over worker registration and contribution requirements while the case remains before the Court of Appeal.

NSIF responded on Monday, saying the advisory contravened its Administrative Circular No. 1 of 2026, issued on September 21. The Fund said NEUSS does not appear in official records of registered unions with the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs or the South Sudan Workers Trade Union Federation.

NSIF described NEUSS as an “unregistered and illegal” group and said it had no legal standing to participate in the proceedings. The Fund also said it was not a party to the case filed by oil-sector unions and had not been served with NEUSS’s application.

“NSIF management remains open to direct and constructive engagement with all legally registered stakeholders,” the Fund said. It also reserved the right to seek legal redress against groups or individuals it accused of undermining confidence in the institution or breaching government communication protocols.

NEUSS rejected the claims, saying it holds Certificate of Registration No. 39/2026, issued by the Registrar of Workers Trade Unions and Employers Association on July 3.

“If NSIF genuinely had doubts about NEUSS’s registration status, the proper and responsible course would have been to seek formal verification from the Registrar, rather than publicly declaring a duly registered trade union ‘illegal’,” the union said.

The case is linked to the rollout of the social insurance system established under the National Social Insurance Fund Act, 2023. The law provides benefits including retirement, disability and survivors’ benefits and gives the Fund responsibility for administering the scheme.

Oil-sector unions challenged the Ministry of Labour’s Public Circular No. 5 of 2026, which requires employers to register workers and remit social insurance contributions to NSIF. NEUSS later sought to join the proceedings.

The oil-sector unions said they support social insurance but have raised concerns about its implementation, including the governance of the Fund, the appointment of its managing director and procedures for registering workers and collecting contributions.

NEUSS said its challenge concerns the implementation of the scheme, not social insurance itself.

“Our legal challenge is not an opposition to the establishment of a national social insurance framework; rather, it is a call for adherence to due process to create a credible and transparent workers’ rights institution,” the union said.

NEUSS also disputes NSIF’s position that the Fund is not a party to the proceedings. The union said its application identifies NSIF as a respondent and that questions of standing, joinder and jurisdiction should be determined by the court.

“The courtroom, not a press release, is the proper place to determine questions of standing, joinder, jurisdiction and the legality of the contested measures,” NEUSS said.

NEUSS has asked NSIF to withdraw its descriptions of the union as “unlawful”, “unregistered” and “illegal” and issue a public apology. It said it could pursue legal action if the statements are not retracted.