The topography of corruption: Mr. James Deng Wal Achien and lack of accountability and transparency in the multi-million dollar J1 construction project

By the Editor*

 

"On perusal, the process was not carried out in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Asset Act, 2018 by conducting competitive tendering so that value for money could be obtained and cost reduced." Moulana Filberto Mayuot Mareng, March 25, 2022 (letter)

Photo: Government of South Sudan

The construction at South Sudan's State House, commonly known as Juba One (J1), has resumed. "The J1 project," according to the office of the president, was "ordered back into motion by President Kiir after a high-level meeting with the Oversight Committee."  

This project is causing some concerns among some people in South Sudan because of lack of transparency. While the government departments and officials involved in the project between 2021 and 2026 are aware of the details, the South Sudanese public only knows there is a construction project at J1.

Given the importance of J1 to the South Sudanese sovereignty and nationhood, there are many questions the office of the president should answer for the sake of transparency and accountability. 

The documents

 Using documentary sources from a source whose identity will not be revealed here for security reasons, this article explains why the construction is causing some concerns. The documents were forwarded to me by a concerned South Sudanese living in Juba. Concerned about the possibility that "The J1 project"  is a front for the siphoning of public funds, the individual believes the public needs to know some details about the project and the people involved in it. 

I have reached out to the office of the president, the ministry of information and the some officials involved but I have not heard back from them. I will update this article should any details change. 

Issues of concern

There are a number of issues that should concern the public. It is of course up to the office of the president to address them transparently. Unfortunately, transparency and accountability are institutional requirements South Sudanese officials ignore or disdain. They are apparently beneath them. 

The first issue of concern is the nature of the contract between the office of the president and "Rams Civil Works and Engineering Consultant Ltd" (Here after RAMS), drafted on April 8th, 2022. 

Note that the company sometimes writes the name as "RAMS for Civil Work and Engineering Consultant Ltd." The reader should also not that this South Sudanese [RAMS] company should not be confused with RAM Civil Engineering, a Canadian company. I want to make that clear. 

Doc. 1

On page 1 of the contract, the selection process is described as  a "single source selection."  Meaning there were no competitive public tenders called for the project. For an important office as the state house, and for public accountability purposes, the use of a single source selection raises ethical questions. The decision for the company to be contracted was therefore initiated and left to individual discretion of the executive director in the office of the president, James Deng Wal Achien.

Photo: I Support Deng Wal Achien Yor Facebook Account

The single-source concern was raised by the then Legal Counsel in the Ministry of Finance and Planning, Filberto Mayuot Mareng. Mareng was responding to a request for a "Letter of No Objection" by the First Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and Planning, Mr. Simon Kiman Lado. The request for the letters of no objection [to the project] was a directive of the executive director, James Deng Wal.  These letters were sent to the ministry of justice, land, finance, etc. 

Moulana Mareng duly noted in the letter that "On perusal, the process was not carried out in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Asset Act, 2018 by conducting competitive tendering so that value for money could be obtained and cost reduced." He added that "There is no justification given for resorting to single source method under section 55 of the Act." 

This makes the  award of the contract an internal, seemingly personal initiative between the executive director in the office of the president, James Deng Wal, and the companies he targeted for a multi-million dollar contract without an oversight. 

Doc 2

The second issue of concern is the cost. In the April 8, 2022 contract, the cost of the project was a "fixed contract amount" of  USD 151,164, 886. However, there are news reports that the amount for the construction of the project after a 18-month suspension is estimated at USD 300 million. 

I asked the office of the president and the minister of information for comments. I wanted them to make sense of the discrepancy or make corrections if possible. I am yet to hear from them. 

The beginnings

The process leading to the award of the contract to RAMS also raises questions about the authenticity and credibility of RAMS. This goes back to the initial phases of the project plan.

The plan to construct new office premises and three presidential villas began in 2021. The  executive director in the office of the president sent three letters to Emira Construction Company based in the United Arab Emirates. Emira's response to the three letters from James Deng Wal was positive. 

Emira therefore "came to Juba and did land mapping on the construction site" according the notes of the meeting of the State House Construction Committee chaired by Mr. James Deng Wal Achien. Following their survey of the construction site, however, Emira did not respond to the committee's subsequent communication. 

However, I have not found any company with the name "Emira" in Google search. I have contacted two companies based in UAE with similar names: Al Mira and Mira. I am yet to hear from them to confirm if any of them was the company in question. 

After being ghosted by Emira, Mr. Achien then decided to contact another company directly. There were still no tenders called, public or private.  In a letter dated January 5, 2021 (see Doc 2 above), Mr. James Deng Wal Achien wrote to "RAM Civil Engineering & Consulting." 

He argued that the office of the president plans to "construct new office premises and three (03) presidential villas at the State House at J1."  He therefore asked the company to send him "a proposal for a detailed architectural design." 

Just two days latter, on January 7, 2021, RAMS responded through its managing director, Badreldin Ahmed Ibrahim Al Mgboul. See the letter below.

Doc 3.

The name of the Company

What is interesting, and which raises questions about professionalism and attention to details in this important national project, is the name of the company. While Mr. James Deng Wal wrote the company's name as "RAM Civil Engineering & Consulting", the letter from the managing director noted the company's name as "Rams for Civil & Engineering Consultant." 

It is surprising that the chief executive director did not know or did not pay attention to the name of the company he was contacting for such an important presidential project. In a project worth over 150 millions, it is concerning that Mr. James Deng Wal did not do his due diligence about the company to which he was prepared to give millions and entrust with a presidential project. 

The company, RAMS, itself was also not attentive to details. For instance, in a document outlining the "Estimated Bill of Quantities, Materials and Workmanship", the name of the company was written as "RAMS for Civil Work and Engineering Consultant" instead of "RAMS for Civil & Engineering Consultant." 

On their Facebook page, because the link provided on their Facebook account is broken, the name of the company on their logo and the name written on the page are different as documents 4 and 5 below show.

Doc. 4

Doc. 5

This questions the professionalism and the preparedness of the executive director. It also raises questions about the company he was trying to contract. A company aiming to build an important multi-million dollar presidential project, a symbol of national sovereignty, was a company whose attention to detail is wanting. 

The series of letters between the office of the president and various departments involved in financing, procurement, land surveying, registration and incorporation, all wrote the name of company differently. There was no attention to detail. It seems they wrote what they believed was the name of the company rather than using the name provided on the company documents. 

What one discerns from the actions of the officials is that the important project was rushed. It also seems like the government officials contacted by the executive director were only doing what they were conditioned to do. This is shown by the letters of "No Objection" sent by Deng Wal to the ministry of finance, justice and land. 

For instance, the certificate of incorporation, a legal document, has the name of the company as "Rams Civil Works & Engineering Consultant Ltd."  The Counsel General, Filberto Mayuot Mareng, then the head of legal administration in the ministry of finance and planning, wrote down the name of the company as "RAM Civil Engineering and Consulting Ltd." The chief administrator in the ministry of presential affairs, Paul Polo Ongee, in a letter dated March 21, 2022, to Simon Kiman Lado, then the first undersecretary in the ministry of finance and planning, wrote the name of company as "RAMS Civil Work Engineering & Consulting Company."  In this response to Ongee about the deferral of 2% authentication fee, Lado wrote the name of the company as "RAMS Civil Works and Construction Co. Ltd." 

The revenue authority license, the tax clearance certificate and the operational license from Central Equatoria all have variations of the company's names. 

To believe that a project worth millions of national resources was treated with such lack of seriousness is concerning. 

The company origins and questionable background

What is even more concerning is the background of the company. While I do not have a definite answer as to its background, the documents do not provide a coherent answer about its registration and incorporation date. What I find are more questions than answers. 

In the April 8, 2022 contract between RAMS and the office of the president, the company is said to be "a corporation incorporated pursuant to the Laws of South Sudan, vide registration certificate No. 3, 559 issued on 20th of October 2008."  According to the contract, RAMS's managing director was authorized by the affidavit of relation, dated 17th November 2008 to sign the contract."  

Doc 6:
Reg. No. 39,159. October 11, 2021.

However, the laws of South Sudan being referred to in the contract is the Company Act of 2012.  Unless the company was registered in Sudan in 2008, referring to the laws of South Sudan in 2008 when the Act in question is a South Sudanese legislation post-independence raises serious legal and ethical questions. 

On page 2 of the contract, however, there is a mention of what seems like the real registration information for the company. The documents required for the contract to materialize are listed. 

Doc. 7

Number 5 is the "Contract's certificate registration No 39, 159 dated 11th October 2021." Since the initial letter inviting RAMS to provide a proposal for the design was sent on January 5, 2021, it seems RAMS was incorporated in South Sudan ten months after the executive director contacted the company. It appears the company was formed post hoc and ad hoc. Unless RAMS and the office of the president provide evidence to the contrary, it seems the company was formed for this project. 

In fact, most of the legal documents required by RAMS to operate in Central Equatoria and in South Sudan were obtained in 2022. Either the company was registered and not operational, or there was no such a company before the executive director sent the invitation letter to RAMS on January 5, 2021. 

While the contract says the company affidavit of relations of October 17, 2008 was used by board of directors to authorize the company's managing director to sign the contract, this is not what the actual documents say. 

The authorization letter giving the managing director the legal authority to sign the contract between RAMS and the office of the president was based on the "Memorandum & Articles of Association". This is according to a letter dated April 7, 2022. While the letter says the authorization is from the board of directors, having satisfied the required "quorum" of two members,  the four board members are also the owners of the company. They owned 100% of the shares of the company valued at USD 500, 000 at the time its incorporation.

Doc. 8

Letter of Authorization by RAMS, signed by Asim Seed Ahmed AbdelRaham Mohammed,  allowing its managing director, Badreldin Ahmed Ibrahim Al MG Boul, to sign the contract between RAMS and the Office of the President. 

 

Memorandum and the articles of association forming the company were signed by the owners on October 11, 2021. The signing was witnessed by Peter Gatkouth Kor, an "Advocate and Legal Consultant."  

Page 24 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association says: "WE, the four persons whose names and addresses are subscribed, are desirous of being formed into a company as per Articles of Association in accordance with relevant provisions of the Company Act 2012, Laws of South Sudan."  Note that this desire to form a company was signed on October 11 as mentioned above.

The "subscribers" and their shares at the time of the formation of the company are as follows:

1. Badreldin Ahmed Ibrahim Al MG Boul (Sudanese): 48%. 

2. George Nicholas Ghines (Greek South Sudanese): 32%

3. Asim Seed Ahmed AbdelRaham Mohammed (Sudanese): 10%

4. Mohammed Balla Mohammed Elkhidir (Sudanese):  10%

The above four gentlemen at the time of the formation of the company and the award of the contract, were the owners and members of the board of directors. As the share above show, they owned 100% of the shares.  They were not accountable to anyone else. The company's online presence is sketchy and the website is not working so it's difficult to find out what has changed. 

As to when the company (RAMS) was incorporated,  given the discrepancy noted here, the company and the office of the president must provide some clarifications.

However, the documents make it clear that the company and all the legal documents it required to operate in South Sudan and in Central Equatoria especially, and to take on this massive, multi-million dollar project, were obtained between January 2021 and April 2022, when the contract was signed. Meaning the company seemed to have been incorporated after it was already, in principle, awarded the contract. 

Doc. 9
Memorandum and Articles of Associations

The office of the president also needs to explain why a company worth only USD 500,000, and owned by four people with no background in such projects, was awarded a contract worth more than 150 million dollars. A message to the WhatsApp number on the RAMS Facebook account asking about previous projects similar to the J1 project they may have completed in the past yielded this short message from the young woman who manages the account: "Thank you at the moment there is nothing much but hopefully in the near future"[sic] . 

My second message to confirm if this is their first company project and what the cost of the construct is is still to be responded to. I wanted to confirm if the cost is still the original USD 151 million as in the initial contract, or it is now USD 300 million, twice the initial amount. 

The office of the president also needs to explain why a single-source selection method was chosen over competitive public tenders. As the legal counsel in the ministry of finance and planning said at the time, a better use of public funds is ensured when the best qualified company is selected after public tenders are called. As the counsel also noted, using tenders is also in accordance with the laws of South Sudan. 

_________________

*Dr. Kuir ë Garang is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. 

Editor's note: Should any details change, or should I hear from the authorities concerned, then the article will be updated accordingly.  Alternatively, I may write a follow-up article. 

Is Adut Salva Kiir a proverbial wolf in a sheep's clothing?

President Salva (left) and Adut Salva Kiir (Right)

When Adut Salva Kiir was appointed President Kiir's special envoy for special programs in August of 2025, many of us received her appointment with high hope. We overlooked the nepotistic element. We had good reason. She promised to be different. What stood out for me was her promise to South Sudanese Gen Zs and all the voiceless South Sudanese.

 At the time Kenyan Gen Zs were protesting the high cost of living in Kenya.  She duly told South Sudanese young people that they had the right to express their grievances without fear of reprisal. That was the first time a high-ranking official had said something like that. Protests are taboo in South Sudan. For the powers that be, protests reek of revolution. 

But Adut appeared different, almost presidential. She pledged with that beguiling soft-spoken voice that she is

"representing those who served our nation. I'm representing the vulnerable. I'm representing those that have unspoken voices. I'm representing our fathers, their struggle. I'm representing a nation that had high hopes. And I don't take it lightly." 

How could one not like that?

There was good reason to hope that Adut would be strategically and politically different. She had lived in Australia, a relatively freer society, a society in which institutionalism and the rule of law are very accented. She appeared to know the value of reasonable disagreements and the logic of political and civil space. She even said she would have "an open-door policy. You can come to my office and I will listen." 

There is more. 

And more importantly, she said she was "open to criticism as well. I may not like it all, but I will take it in." 

It seemed like the dawn of a new day. But we were too optimistic.

Private reports and social media engagements by people very close to the first family and J1 informants are painting a different picture. Adut was only wearing a mask of amiability, of magnanimity. 

As things stand now, Adut, it seems, is no longer interested in service provision and national development. She wants to be Adut the wielder of unbridled power, an unaccountable power. 

She has been, apparently, sucked into power politics. She is no longer someone who is interested in changing South Sudan for better. She is interested in power as South Sudan's heiress apparent. 

Mabior Riiny Lual, a former MP in the South Sudan's transitional legislative assembly as an opposition figure, wrote on his Facebook account on May 25 that Adut was about to have herself decreed into office as Vice President for economic cluster and the first deputy chairperson of SPLM, the ruling party in South Sudan. 

This means she would replace Dr. James Wani Igga. Vice President Wani is now the first deputy chairperson of SPLM and the Vice President in charge of economic cluster.

This means the SPLM and the presidency would be led by father and daughter. But there seems to be an obstacle to her ascendancy. 

In my recent conversation with Mabior on KuirthiyTV, Mabior also mentioned that Adut is the one who does not want the former Vice President, Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel, to be released from detention. According to Mabior, Adut threatened to commit suicide if Dr. Bol Mel is released.

The decree is yet to materialize. We cannot tell what will happen in the next few weeks and months. But as Dr. Ian Pospisil said in my conversation with him in December of 2025 on KuirthiyTV, South Sudan is governed through gossip. This is something South Sudanese know well.

However, what Mabior said is not without merit. On June 2, 2025, Dr. Jok Madut Jok, a prominent South Sudanese scholar and professor, and who is also very close with the seat of power in J1, said something similar to what Mabior said about Adut. 

According to Professor Jok, Adut would only entertain the release of Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel under certain conditions. 

Professor Jok Madut noted on his Facebook account about Adut's power play:

"She said that because she wants to keep BBM detained, she is compelled to keep the rest behind bars so that she doesn’t appear unfair, a twisted logic that can only come out of a twisted narcissistic and angry personality. She said to her family and the circle of supporters in J1 and in other corners of the government that she has two conditions before she can free these people.

1) She has to be appointed as Vice President and SPLM 1st Deputy chair before her father the President travels to Bahr el Ghazal, so that she is in a position to make decisions during the President’s trip.

2) She demanded that Benjamin Bol Mel returns all the money he is alleged to have taken from her father and reveal all the assets that BBM had supposedly set up for President Kiir?"

What is becoming clear, even if these reports turn out not to be the way they are being reported or talked about, is that Adut is not interested in serving the people she pledged to serve honorable and humbly when she was appointed last year.

Politicians and critics are still being arrested without charges. The political and civic space has not been improved. It continues to narrow. Salaries for public employees have not been paid for nearly two years now. Insecurity continues to blight the people of South Sudan. 

Is Adut a proverbial  wolf in a sheep skin?

Adut has so far not shown any iota of care or patriotism. Her ASK Foundation and the scholarship program are (1) a PR stunt and (2) a front for the embezzle of public resources. It's not clear where the funding for the foundation comes from. It reeks of the defunct Trump Foundation. 

Apparently, Adut is more interested in power and its consolidation. Her open-door policy is a complete nonsense. She does not speak to the people she promised to represent. And more importantly, she has adopted the politico-military attitude of the SPLA militarist traditions. 

That she was a relatively younger leader, who could change the political culture for better, is no longer forthcoming. She is more interested in power than service. She's turning out to be a very big generational disappointment. Her official travels in South Sudan are politically strategic. They also reek of regionalism, tribalism, and economism.

While I have consistently ignored messages in my inbox about Adut I received from those who knew her as a party animal in Australia, I have started to see a pattern. Adut is more interested in hedonistic adventures than public services. 

From what she has shown so far, if she wiggled her way into the presidency, we should expect the status quo to continue. There is a very good chance that Adut will manipulate her way into the presidency. And from the look of things, she is, as Dr. Jok Madut has said, very vindictive like her father. 

What now? 

Adut must distinguish herself. If anything, she has only shown why we should be terrified of her possible presidency.

But let us give Adut the benefit of the doubt. Still. Naive but necessary. 

Let her encourage the release of those in detention without charges or a day in court. She should let her father release Dr. Riek Machar and his co-accused. She can then lead the national reconciliation to end the war and unnecessary bloodshed. She should also lead the opening up of civic and political space. Let young people debate on radio and SSBC without arrests or threats of arrest. 

Adut promised to accept criticism. She is still to deliver on that. 

Will Adut shift from power politics to liberation politics (as Dr. Adwok Nyaba would say) and engender a focused people-centered leadership? Let's wait. 

____

Kuir ë Garang is the editor The Philosophical Refugee.