Law / South Sudan

South Sudan

3 of 7 named instruments researched to a stage, across two of the ten areas of law we track: 3 in force. As of .

  1. AI law
  2. Privacy law
  3. Scraping law 2
  4. Cybersecurity law 1
  5. Communications law not researched
  6. Content moderation law not researched
  7. Product and AI liability law not researched
  8. Digital accessibility law not researched
  9. Age gating law
  10. Reuse law

in forcenot yet in forceblocked by a courtproposedno longer in force

Scraping law2 instruments, 2 in force

Research summary (272 words)

South Sudan has no scraping-specific statute, so each dimension is governed by general law that predates any dedicated cybercrime framework. The Penal Code Act, 2008 makes it an offence to gain unauthorised access to, copy, or interfere with data, a programme, or a system held in a computer or computer network (ss. 388-394), and the National Communication Act, 2012 separately bars breaking into, eavesdropping on, or hacking into a communication or communication network without authorisation (ss.

96, 98(1)(e)); because both turn on acting without the owner's or the licensee's authority, reading a public, unauthenticated page does not fit a plain reading of either. No South Sudanese court decision on the enforceability of a browsewrap or clickwrap terms of service against a scraper has been located. South Sudan has no copyright statute, so it has no text-and-data-mining exception, and its law confers no sui generis database right.

South Sudan has no comprehensive data-protection statute, so a general personal-data reach over scraped public information is not established here. No statute or reported case establishes a scraping-specific unfair-competition, misappropriation, or trespass doctrine, and none assigns legal weight to a robots.txt directive or imposes an AI-training-specific rule.

Press reporting describes further computer-misuse legislation, a 2021 provisional order and a 2026 Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act said to have replaced it on , but no official gazette or government-published text of either has been located, so their provisions are not described here; under article 86(3) of the Transitional Constitution a provisional order the National Legislature does not ratify lapses with no retrospective effect, and whether the 2021 order was ever ratified is not established here.

Computer misuse

National Communication Act, 2012, confidentiality and unauthorised interception of communications

The National Communication Act, 2012 (Act 24 of 2012), ss. 96 and 98(1)(e)Official text of the National Communication Act

archived copyRead from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived . Publisher's page: https://mojca.gov.ss/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/National-Communication-Act-24-of-2012.pdf

In force. Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

Section 96 of the National Communication Act, 2012 bars any person from disclosing or disseminating the contents of a message or communication, or opening postal material, except as the Act or its regulations specifically allow, and separately bars breaking into, eavesdropping on, illegally monitoring, or hacking into communications without authorisation from the National Communication Authority, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or a court.

Section 98(1)(e) makes intercepting, interfering with, jamming, or hacking into a communication network, radio frequency, or frequency band allocated to another licensee an offence carrying imprisonment, a fine, or both, without the Act itself stating a specific term or amount. Section 1 brings the Act into force on the date of signature. No notice of the day it was signed has been located.

What it requires

Penal Code Act, 2008, computer and electronic related offences

The Penal Code Act, 2008 (Act 9 of 2008), ss. 388-394 (Computer and Electronic Related Offences)Official text of the Penal Code Act, 2008 (Act 9 of 2008), reproduced by FAOLEX (Food and Agriculture Organization legal database)

In force since . Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

Sections 388 to 394 of the Penal Code Act, 2008 create a set of computer-misuse offences. Section 389 makes it an offence to gain access to, destroy, alter, copy, transfer, or interfere with data, a programme, or a system held in a computer or computer network without authority from its owner, and section 389(3) provides a defence where the accused was not motivated by malice and the conduct did not materially affect the data, programme, system, or the owner's interests.

Sections 390, 391, 393, and 394 separately criminalise introducing a computer virus, unauthorised manipulation of a proposed computer programme, and unauthorised use of a credit or debit card or of a password or PIN number.

What it requires

Cybersecurity law1 instrument, 1 in force

Research summary (457 words)

The one located product-security or sector-cyber-resilience duty on a private operator sits inside the National Communication Act, 2012 (Act No. 24): Section 88(3) requires every Licensee holding a National Communication Authority (NCA) licence to construct, install or operate a communication network to provide protection, technical security and safety for its facilities, equipment and communication networks, so as to ensure system efficiency and reliability, and Section 88(1) places a parallel duty on the Authority and Licensees together to protect communication networks against intrusion and vandalism.

Section 11 gives the Authority its own regulatory mandate to take appropriate measures protecting the security of information and communication networks against intrusion when regulating Internet domain names and electronic signatures, a power the Authority holds rather than a duty stated directly on a private operator, so it is recorded here as regulatory context rather than as its own instrument.

No general product-security or connected-device market-placement duty reaching an ordinary software product or app, no duty to report an exploited vulnerability or a security incident to an authority or to users on any clock, and no reasonable-security or information-security-programme statute reaching a business simply because it holds covered data was located in any South Sudanese instrument checked.

No personal-data-protection or breach-notification statute for South Sudan was located either, so no privacy-topic cross-reference is available to record here.

The Cybercrimes and Computer Misuse Provisional Order, 2021 and the Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Bill, 2025 that succeeded it, and Chapter XXVII of the Penal Code Act, 2008 (Sections 388 to 393, computer and electronic related offences), are all offence statutes directed at the person who attacks a system, a court, a network or a cardholder rather than at the person who operates one; a Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs announcement of the 2021 order's launch lists 35 such offences, from unauthorized data transmission and computer hacking to identity-related offences and disclosure of passwords, with sentences of four to twenty years.

All three stay filed under this jurisdiction's scraping-topic computer-misuse family and are not restated here. mojca.gov.ss, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs' own site, answers with an expired TLS certificate rather than a page, and the Internet Archive mirror otherwise used to reach its published Acts was itself unreachable, so the Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Bill 2025's own text, and the Ministry's complete published list of laws, are not described here.

Enforcement of the Section 88(3) duty runs to the National Communication Authority alone, through Section 97's administrative process rather than through a criminal charge or a private right of action: no criminal offence listed at Section 98 reaches a Licensee's own failure to secure its network, and no provision giving a beneficiary a private right of action over that failure was located.

Sector security regimes

National Communication Act, 2012, Licensee Security Duty

National Communication Act, 2012 (Act No. 24), sec. 88National Communication Act

archived copyRead from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived . Publisher's page: https://mojca.gov.ss/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/National-Communication-Act-24-of-2012.pdf

In force. Binds private bodies.

What this law does

Section 88(3) requires every Licensee holding a National Communication Authority licence to construct, install or operate a communication network to provide protection, technical security and safety for its facilities, equipment and communication networks, so as to ensure system efficiency and reliability.

Section 88(1) places a parallel duty on the Authority and Licensees together to protect communication networks against intrusion and vandalism, and Section 88(2) lets the Authority establish protection and safety facilities in collaboration with Licensees toward that end. A Licensee that breaches the security duty is first given an opportunity to remedy the contravention within thirty days of notice, under Section 97(1).

On failure to remedy, Section 97(2) lets the Authority shorten, suspend or cancel the licence, or impose a financial penalty, with the specific penalty amounts left to regulations rather than stated in the Act itself. Section 1 brings the Act into force on the date of signature. No notice of the day it was signed has been located.

What it requires

Where nothing was found4 areas of law

These areas of law were researched here and no instrument was recorded. Each finding says what the research checked, as of the date under it. It describes our search, not a guarantee that no such law exists.

AI law

South Sudan has no artificial-intelligence statute: no synthetic-content or bot-disclosure duty, no high-risk-system obligation, no training-data or text-and-data-mining rule, no outright prohibition reaching an AI system, no AI governance or record-keeping duty, and no sector-specific AI overlay.

The Penal Code Act, 2008 criminalises selling, distributing, or publicly exhibiting an obscene writing, book, newspaper, film, or similar article (s. 260) in terms that do not mention a computer-generated or synthetic depiction and that bind the person dealing in the material rather than a system that produced it.

Press reporting describes a Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act, 2026 said to have been signed into law on with provisions on fake accounts and the publication of false or misleading information, but no official gazette or government-published text of that Act has been located, so whether any of its provisions reach AI-generated content is not established here.

As of .

Privacy law

South Sudan has no comprehensive data-protection statute. Article 22 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 provides that the privacy of all persons is inviolable and that no person shall be subjected to interference with his or her private life, family, home, or correspondence, save in accordance with the law, a general right rather than a scheme of lawful basis, purpose limitation, data-subject rights, or supervisory enforcement.

The National Communication Act, 2012 bars any person from disclosing the contents of a message or communication except as the Act allows, but that duty is recorded with the Act's computer-misuse and interception provisions under the scraping topic rather than here, because it protects the secrecy of a communication rather than establishing a personal-data regime.

A Data Protection Bill has reportedly been under consideration since late 2025, but no draft text has been published, so it is not described further here.

As of .

Age gating law

South Sudan has no adult-content age-verification law, social-media minor-access restriction, app-store age-verification requirement, or age-appropriate design code. The Child Act, 2008 (Act 10 of 2008) sets out protections for children in areas such as health, education, labour, justice and family life, but it contains no provision on the internet, online media, or a duty on a private service provider.

The Penal Code Act, 2008 (Act 9 of 2008) criminalises selling, distributing, importing, printing or publicly exhibiting an obscene writing, book, newspaper, film or similar article (s. 260), a general obscenity offence that applies regardless of a viewer's age and imposes no gating or access-control duty on a private service, exhibitor or distributor.

As of .

Reuse law

South Sudan has no copyright statute, so no snippet-reproduction exception, press-publisher neighbouring right, bargaining code, hot-news doctrine, linking or framing rule, or text-and-data-mining opt-out has been enacted.

WIPO Lex's South Sudan collection lists only one instrument tagged with a copyright subject, the Investment Promotion Act, 2009, whose only intellectual-property content is a general pledge at section 35 to protect the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, that investors already hold under international conventions; it creates no copyright regime of its own and no exception for reproducing headlines or snippets.

As of .

Case law

  • No current case law for South Sudan AI law
  • No current case law for South Sudan privacy law
  • No current case law for South Sudan scraping law
  • No current case law for South Sudan cybersecurity law
  • No current case law for South Sudan communications law
  • No current case law for South Sudan content moderation law
  • No current case law for South Sudan product and AI liability law
  • No current case law for South Sudan digital accessibility law
  • No current case law for South Sudan age gating law
  • No current case law for South Sudan reuse law
Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

This page covers the instruments LexLint has researched to a stage. Instruments named in the law library but not yet researched are counted in the head and are not listed here. Every entry carries its own primary source on its note page. This is a research index, not legal advice.