Africa-Press – South-Sudan. The government of South Sudan has welcomed the decision of the US District Court in Columbia to dismiss the claims advanced against the country by victims of the Terrain Hotel incident.
Dr. Martin Elia Lomuro, the Minister of Cabinet Affairs, reflected on how the case had been a difficult one for the government. Lomuro said the case had gathered discussions on issues about human rights abuses in the country.
“Indeed, all these human rights agencies have been using it to prosecute South Sudan as a country, an institution, and even individuals,” he told The City Review.
“This would mean that if they won the case, they could freeze our assets abroad and even sell our oil and get away with it,” he stated.
Dr. Lomuro added that millions of dollars were lost by the government in an attempt to discuss compensation outside of the court mechanism.
He said government assets abroad could have been frozen and oil sales affected if the claimants had won the case against South Sudan.
According to the cabinet minister, the cases were labelled “Terrain One, Two, and Three” and were filed by different individuals in the US court.
However, Dr. Lomuro hailed the president for what he called significant achievements in paying international legal experts to defend the image of the country.
The suit filed
“What they did was to sue South Sudan as a country. There was a case against South Sudan as a country, the ministry of defence, veteran affairs, and individuals, but in the end, they all suffer from one weakness. We are a sovereign country. We have sovereign immunity.”
“People accuse us of dehumanising our own citizens, disrespecting humanitarian international law, serious violations of human rights, issues of gender-based violence, and sexual based violence, and we have been keeping quiet, so this time we thought we should stand our ground and defend the image of our country, and we thank the President for paying the money,” Dr. Lomuro said.
He said the US District Court in Columbia acted judicially and fairly in ruling the case, showing how people undermine South Sudan and misunderstand the country’s capability and experience.
Dr. Lomuro said any ruling on the contrary could have violated the nation’s immunity, which is a fundamental international right.
He stated that this should serve as a strong caution to those attempting to damage the country’s reputation, highlighting that the reputation of the nation has been damaged unnecessarily.
Lomuro said, in his opinion, the case had been exploited to impose an arms embargo and specific sanctions on some individuals.
“We have a judiciary that works. It has done its job, and if these individuals were to appeal, the right place could have been the court of appeals in South Sudan, not the US.
“Any sensible person would not consider a WhatsApp message to be a waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Where it began
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in July 2021, but the Republic of South Sudan filed a motion in May 2023 to dismiss the case, arguing that South Sudan and its political subdivisions are immune from suit in the US under FSIA.
On July 11, 2016, members of South Sudan’s armed forces attacked five aid workers at the Terrain Hotel compound, subjecting them to rape, sexual violence, beatings, and psychological trauma. One of their colleagues was executed.
The SPLA General Court Martial convicted 10 SPLA personnel of murder, rape, and assault and found the South Sudan Ministry of Defense and Veterans Affairs civilly liable, awarding the owners of the Terrain Hotel $2.25 million in damages and five of the victims $4,000 each following an investigation by the South Sudan Investigation Committee and the United Nations Independent Special Investigation concluded that government soldiers had committed the attack.
Plaintiffs filed suit against the Republic of South Sudan, demanding $123 million and $15 million each for five of them for pain and suffering while Libot seeks $8 million in economic damages and loss in earnings.
Plaintiffs claimed South Sudan waived its sovereign immunity to suit, but the Court found that purported statements and actions by government officials do not constitute an explicit waiver.
Source: The City Review South Sudan
For More News And Analysis About South-Sudan Follow Africa-Press
