Police Officer, Captain Ruai. Photo credit: Courtesy

When a victim forgives an offender or accepts compensation, many people assume a criminal case ends. But under South Sudan’s criminal justice system, reconciliation does not always stop prosecution.

Police Major (Legal Officer) Amil Khamis Mayen says criminal cases can continue when an offence affects the public interest because the State has a duty to protect society and uphold the rule of law.

Mayen explained the principle while discussing the case of Police Captain Richard Ruai Kuol, whose assault of a civilian near James Hotel in Juba on May 5, 2026, was captured in a video that circulated widely on social media.

Public rights and private rights

Mayen said South Sudan’s criminal justice system distinguishes between public rights and private rights.

Public rights involve offences that affect society as a whole, including public order, confidence in institutions and the authority of the law. These cases are prosecuted by the State.

Private rights relate to harm suffered by an individual, such as injuries or financial losses, where a victim may seek compensation or other remedies.

“The settlement of a private right does not automatically terminate criminal proceedings,” Mayen said.

He explained that a victim may forgive an offender or accept compensation, but such reconciliation only addresses the personal dispute. It does not remove the State’s responsibility to prosecute an offence committed against the public.

“The public right cannot be negotiated, withdrawn or waived because it belongs to society, not to the victim or the accused,” he said.

The Richard Ruai case

Captain Richard Ruai Kuol was sentenced on July 23, 2026, by the Joint Special Court to six months in prison after being found guilty of assaulting a civilian.

The sentence was backdated to May 6, 2026, when he was detained.

The court convicted him under Section 66(3) of the South Sudan Police Service Act, 2009, as amended in 2022, for unlawful use of force against civilians. He was also convicted of disciplinary offences, including misconduct and neglect of duty.

The case followed a May 5 incident in Juba’s Cinema residential area, where a video showed the police officer beating a civilian with a stick. The footage triggered public calls for accountability.

During the trial, Ruai admitted assaulting the victim but said he lost his temper after an alleged confrontation involving insults and damage to his vehicle. Prosecutors argued that the force used was excessive.

Why reconciliation did not end the case

Mayen said the trial focused on the public aspect of the offence — whether Ruai, as a police officer, violated his legal duties and abused his authority.

The court did not decide compensation for the victim’s personal injuries.

He said the victim still has the right to file a separate civil claim for compensation, supported by evidence such as medical records showing the injuries and damages suffered.

According to Mayen, Article 48(2) of the South Sudan Code of Criminal Procedure allows injured persons to pursue separate legal remedies.

Accountability and compensation are different

Mayen said criminal accountability and private compensation serve different purposes.

The criminal process protects society by ensuring that public officials and security personnel are held accountable for unlawful conduct, while private claims allow victims to seek compensation for personal harm.

He added that serious crimes such as homicide fall outside the jurisdiction of police disciplinary courts and must be handled by competent criminal courts.

The Richard Ruai case highlights the difference between forgiveness between individuals and the State’s responsibility to enforce the law when public trust and institutional discipline are affected.