Constitutional Roots of Diya
Blood compensation, or diya, sits at the heart of South Sudan’s constitutional and penal framework. Legal scholar Monyluak Aguer says Article 206 anchors the practice, giving bereaved families a sanctioned route to seek redress after homicide convictions.
The Courtroom Choice: Execution, Diya, Forgiveness
Once guilt is confirmed, judges consult the “guardians of the blood”. Aguer notes they may demand qisas, accept diya, or offer forgiveness, a triad that can suspend the gallows within minutes of a verdict.
If compensation or pardon is chosen, the court converts the matter into a public right, transferring ownership of punishment to the state. Prison terms usually follow, ensuring society’s interests remain protected even as families reconcile.
State Interest Versus Private Reconciliation
Aguer insists diya is not a loophole. Failure to pay can prolong incarceration until settlement. The public prosecutor may argue for reduced jail time, yet cannot erase it, reflecting a delicate balance between mercy and deterrence.
Equality Before the Law Remains Vital
Constitutional clauses demand impartiality. “Status should never tip the scales,” Aguer stresses, adding that officials may face stiffer penalties because their actions ripple across society. Presidential pardons may halt execution, yet convictions stay on record.
Calls for Penal Code Reform
South Sudan’s 2008 Penal Code predates the current constitution. Aguer urges lawmakers to revisit homicide provisions so that diya procedures align with modern expectations, digital evidence and cross-border realities.