Support South Sudanese traders—and the families buying from them

The question

A South Sudanese woman opening a food stall and a mother buying food for her children both want a market that works. One needs a fair chance to earn a living. The other needs prices she can afford. Often, they are the same person.

That is why Juba’s debate over foreign traders should consider both sides of the counter. Helping citizens own businesses is an important goal. So is making sure families can still buy what they need.

What Kalisto said

On 5 October 2026, Juba County caretaker commissioner Kalisto Ladu urged foreign traders at Kubri Haboba market to leave small-scale retail businesses to South Sudanese. He pointed to activities such as selling chapatti, onions and tomatoes, and operating boda bodas. He encouraged foreigners to invest instead in wholesale trade, companies and factories.^[1]

On 6 October, Kalisto clarified that he had not ordered foreigners to leave Juba County or South Sudan. He rejected claims of a seven-day deadline and said expelling people was beyond his authority. His stated intention was to protect opportunities for citizens while keeping the country open to lawful foreign investment.^[1][2]

The debate also reaches beyond Juba. Uganda’s minister responsible for East African Community affairs, Rebecca Kadaga, has called for fair treatment of Ugandan traders and raised the region’s common-market commitments.^[3] Her response shows that a local trading decision can become a regional diplomatic issue. It does not, by itself, establish a legal ruling against the proposed restrictions.

The practical question is therefore wider than who should operate a stall: how can South Sudan expand opportunities for citizens while protecting customers and maintaining confidence among regional trading partners?

A trading space is only the beginning

The wish to see more citizens owning businesses is understandable. A young person should have a chance to start a business. A woman supporting her family should be able to secure a trading space and earn an income.

However, removing one trader does not automatically prepare another to take over. A shop needs stock, working capital, suppliers and customers. A food seller needs ingredients, equipment and a suitable place to trade.

Imagine a citizen who gets a stall but cannot afford enough goods to fill it. Or someone who buys stock on credit, then finds that rent and fees leave too little money to repay the supplier. Giving that person a space is a beginning. It is not yet a successful business.

Authorities should explain how citizens will be supported alongside any restrictions. Useful measures could include openly allocated market spaces, published permit fees, basic bookkeeping support and access to reliable suppliers. Where loans are offered, borrowers should understand the interest and repayment terms. Credit that a business cannot repay can leave a family worse off.

Clear rules protect everyone

Before enforcement, authorities should publish the rules, their legal basis, the activities covered and the treatment of existing licences. Traders need to know when changes would begin and how to challenge an incorrect decision.

Retail means selling directly to customers, often in small quantities. Wholesale usually means selling larger quantities to other businesses. Some traders do both. A policy separating them must explain how those cases will be treated.

Clear rules would help citizens, foreign traders and officials. They would reduce room for rumours and inconsistent enforcement. National, state and county authorities should also clarify their respective responsibilities so that traders receive a consistent message.

Kalisto has separately described efforts to clear rubbish and move roadside traders to designated areas.^[1] Cleaner roads and organised markets can benefit the public. But relocation needs preparation. Can customers reach the new location? Are rents affordable? Is there water, drainage and room for deliveries? A move should preserve the trader’s ability to earn a living.

Protection has to deliver results

Supporters of reserving small businesses for citizens may argue that South Sudanese have waited long enough and need protection now. That concern deserves a serious response. Training alone may not overcome every advantage held by established traders.

But protection should have a clear purpose, a fair process and a review date. It should help ordinary citizens build lasting businesses rather than simply change the names on licences.

Customers also need protection during a transition. If shops close before replacements are ready, people could face fewer choices or difficulty finding goods. Those are risks to plan for, not established outcomes in Juba.

The relationship between retailers and wholesalers matters too. Owning a stall offers limited security if its owner cannot obtain affordable stock. Encouraging foreign businesses to move into wholesale does not automatically guarantee fair supply terms for new local retailers.

What readers should watch

After six months, a useful review should ask whether new citizen-owned businesses are still operating, whether they can obtain stock, whether official fees are clear and whether essential goods remain available.

Authorities should also track the price of a consistent basket of everyday foods. Exchange rates, transport costs and supply problems affect prices, so a change cannot automatically be credited to—or blamed on—a retail restriction.

The strongest evidence of success would be more viable South Sudanese businesses alongside affordable, dependable supplies for customers. Neither trader nationality nor the number of closures would be sufficient on its own.

South Sudanese traders deserve support that lasts beyond opening day. South Sudanese families deserve markets where they can buy what they need. Public policy earns trust when it delivers both.