13/12/2025
OPINION| Smear campaigns politics, misogyny and the war on reform
By Akook Yai Akook
The recent claims circulated by the Nation in Review Facebook PAGE and Watchdog Press press targeting Hon. Adut Salva Kiir are not journalism in any serious or professional sense. They represent a troubling trend in South Sudan’s public discourse: the deliberate use of rumor, innuendo, and gendered attacks as political tools to undermine reform-minded leadership. This practice is corrosive, not only to individual reputations, but to governance, media credibility, and democratic culture itself.
At the most basic legal and ethical level, the publication collapses under scrutiny. It advances grave allegations without verifiable evidence, identifiable sources, or documentary support. Even more concerning is the complete absence of the right of reply, one of the oldest and most universally accepted principles of responsible journalism. Private relationships, whether factual or imagined, do not automatically qualify as matters of public interest. They only become relevant when there is demonstrable proof of abuse of office or misuse of public resources. No such nexus is established in the article. What is presented instead is speculation masquerading as fact, and gossip repackaged as “breaking news.”
This distinction matters. Freedom of expression is a foundational democratic right, but it does not extend to defamation. Media platforms carry not only the power to inform, but the responsibility to verify, contextualize, and act in good faith. When these obligations are abandoned, the result is not accountability, it is reputational violence.
Politically, the attack on Hon. Adut Salva Kiir must be understood within a broader and familiar pattern. Across political systems, reformist actors who challenge entrenched interests often become targets of coordinated smear campaigns. When policy arguments fail, when performance-based criticism cannot be sustained, and when reform threatens established networks of privilege, personal destruction becomes the weapon of choice.
Hon. Adut Salva Kiir has increasingly been associated, rightly or wrongly, with efforts to defend state interests, confront opaque practices, and resist cartel-style capture of national resources. Such positions inevitably generate resistance. What is striking, however, is the refusal of her critics to engage substantively with her record, her decisions, or her policy positions. Instead, the focus shifts to her private life, her gender, and her character, areas that require no evidence and invite maximum outrage.
Even more alarming is the overtly gendered nature of the attack. The language deployed against Hon. Adut Salva Kiir reflects a long-standing double standard in political life. When men rise to influence, they are described as powerful, strategic, or well-connected. When women do the same, they are sexualized, morally scrutinized, and publicly shamed. Labels such as “slay queen” are not neutral descriptors; they are instruments of misogyny designed to delegitimize women’s authority and reduce their public roles to caricature.
Such tactics are not merely offensive, they are strategic. Gendered attacks discourage women from entering public life, silence those already in leadership, and send a clear message that power, when held by women, will be punished differently. In this sense, misogyny becomes a political technology, deployed to preserve male-dominated hierarchies and deflect attention from substantive issues.
The consequences of this approach extend far beyond one individual. When rumor is elevated above evidence, public trust in media erodes. When gossip substitutes for analysis, citizens are deprived of meaningful information. When women leaders are routinely attacked through sexualized narratives, the pool of future leaders shrinks, and governance suffers. A political culture that rewards scandal over substance ultimately impoverishes itself.
None of this is to suggest that public officials should be immune from scrutiny. On the contrary, accountability is essential. But accountability must be rooted in facts, law, and public interest, not conjecture, prejudice, or personal vendettas. Hon. Adut Salva Kiir, like any public figure, can and should be assessed on her conduct in office, her policy positions, and her impact on governance. These are legitimate grounds for debate. Her private life, absent evidence of public harm, is not.
South Sudan stands at a critical juncture.
The challenges facing the country’s economic fragility, institutional weakness, service delivery failures, and public disillusionment, require serious conversation and responsible leadership. Media platforms have a vital role to play in facilitating this conversation. When they instead amplify smear politics, they become part of the problem they ought to expose.
The normalization of character assassination under the banner of free speech is a dangerous path. It cheapens politics, corrodes reform, and entrenches cynicism. A society that cannot distinguish between investigation and gossip risks losing both truth and accountability.
Hon. Adut Salva Kiir’s critics are free to disagree with her. They are free to oppose her politically. They are free to interrogate her public record. What they are not entitled to do is replace evidence with rumor and call it journalism.
Smear campaigns may dominate headlines for a day. Reform, dignity, and truth endure far longer. South Sudan deserves a media culture, and a political discourse that reflects this reality.
The writer Akook Yai Akook is a South Sudanese citizen and could be reached via [email protected]
+211923777288/+211912806666.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the official stance or position of South Sudan Stories. Any claims, assumptions, or interpretations made are the author's own and should not be attributed to the organization or its affiliates.
