By Kei Emmanuel Duku
A leading South Sudanese think tank is sounding the alarm over “off-budget” spending, warning that bypassing legal financial frameworks risks plunging the nation’s economy into further instability.
The Institute of Social Policy and Research (ISPR) has issued a sharp rebuke to the Presidency and the Economic Cluster, disputing the recent decision to greenlight 72 billion in agricultural funding without legislative oversight. In a formal letter addressed to Prof. James Wani Igga, the Vice President for the Economic Cluster, Institute of Social Policy and Research (ISPR), Chief Executive Officer James Boboya Edimond argued that while the cause is noble, the method is illegal.
The controversy centers on a high-level decision taken on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, to approve the release of SSP 72 billion for a three-month action plan for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security all while the country operates without an approved National Budget for the 2025–2026 Financial Year.
“You cannot build a food-secure nation on a foundation of broken laws,” Boboya stated. “The strategic importance of agriculture is not a license to ignore the very statutes that protect the public’s money. We are calling for a return to the rule of law before these funds vanish into the void of discretionary spending.”
In the statement, ISPR noted that it “acknowledges the strategic importance of agriculture to South Sudan’s food security, economic recovery, and livelihoods, particularly as the country prepares for the upcoming farming season.” However, the institute maintained that the approval of such a significant public expenditure outside a comprehensive and legally approved national budget framework raises serious concerns related to legality, fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability.
To bolster this argument, the ISPR pointed to the bedrock of the nation’s financial governance, the South Sudan Public Finance and Accountability Act, 2011. This Act is explicit that all public revenues and expenditures must be appropriated through a national budget approved by the Council of Ministers and the National Legislature.
Similarly, the Anti-Corruption Act obliges all public authorities to ensure transparency, prevent discretionary use of public funds, and uphold systems that safeguard public resources from misuse. Sector-specific allocations, regardless of their importance, should therefore be embedded within a holistic budget that reflects national priorities and allows for proper oversight and performance monitoring.
Boboya argue that when large sums like the SSP 72 billion are moved outside the budget, the risk of misappropriation skyrockets because the standard checks and balances usually provided by Parliament are absent.
“A budget is more than a list of numbers; it is a contract between the government and the people,” Boboya added. “When you bypass that contract, you bypass accountability.”
From the perspective of best agricultural financing and public service delivery practices, effective support to farmers requires predictable funding, coordinated planning across ministries, transparent procurement systems, and measurable results.
These conditions are best achieved through a comprehensive national budget that balances agriculture with other critical sectors such as health, education, infrastructure, and social protection, while maintaining macro-economic stability and fiscal discipline.
Without this coordination, there is a fear that the 72 billion injection will fail to reach the actual farmers on the ground, instead getting lost in administrative layers or uncoordinated procurement processes.
In a direct appeal for a course correction, the ISPR CEO demanded for the executive branch of the government to respect the legislative timeline.
He appealed the Vice President to work closely with the Cabinet to urgently finalize, pass, and present the delayed National Budget for FY 2025–2026. Doing so, the institute argues, will not only bring current expenditures into compliance with the law but also restore public confidence in public financial management systems and reinforce the government’s stated commitment to economic recovery and good governance.