The Aftermath of Disarmament on Community Security in Warrap State, South Sudan: The Case of Gogrial East County


  • Aliel Akol Mawach Department of Security Studies and criminology, Mount Kenya University
  • Rev. Dr. Elijah O.S. Odhiambo Department of Arts, Governance and Communication Studies, Bomet University College, Kenya


Community Security, Disarmament, Gogrial East County, Proliferation of Small Arms, South Sudan, Warrap State


South Sudan has been in the limelight for security-related issues stretching beyond the independence and autonomy of the country. The insecurity saw many people armed with weapons in pursuit of protecting themselves from the constant insecurity. Traditionally, security issues were confined to the realm of states; however, a new emerging paradigm of security has given the community a say on these issues by putting the individual at the center of the debate. The fundamental indicators of community security in Gogrial East in the aftermath of disarmament are the safety of the local people in their communities, the protection of their animals while grazing in fields and at watering points, their security at home, their protection against raid attacks from armed clans, and human killings involving firearms. The purpose of the study was to establish the aftermath of civilian disarmament in Warrap State, South Sudan. This study was guided by the Post-Modernist Approach and Neo-Realist Approach theories. The study utilized a qualitative research design. The target population was 146,276. The village elders in the area of study, youth who serve as warriors in the cattle camps, and members of the Peace Committees in the homesteads formed the sample size. Additionally, representatives of law enforcement officers (LEOs) from the Sudan People's Defense Force, South Sudan National Police Services, and the Community Police. Lastly, the study incorporated key informants (KI) such as politicians, CSOs, and community elders. The study adopted purposive sampling, stratified sampling, and random sampling with the strata of interest; a sample size of 110 using Mugenda and Mugenda and Borg and Gall formulas was used. Primary and secondary data collection were used. Questionnaires, interview guides, and focus group discussions were the data collection instruments. The study adopted multiple sources of data, ranging from primary to secondary. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used for data analysis and presentation. The data obtained was presented in percentages, pie charts, bar graphs, and tables. The qualitative data captured was analyzed using a narrative approach. The study found that the government of South Sudan and the military comprehend their role to protect the state, but more importantly, the people of South Sudan as stipulated in the constitution, especially those affected by the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. On a positive note, the level of state security after the disarmament of 2018, especially the security of the local people in their communities and the safety of their animals while grazing in fields and at watering points, there is security at their homes (cattle camps), and their protection against raid attacks from armed clans and human killings involving firearms in Gogrial East County is significantly safer currently. As the SSPDF continues to refine the disarmament program and operations in Gogrial East, the need for increased focus on community security has also increased. The study recommends that state and civil society organizations should look for ways to supplement community safety initiatives by funding educational and employment-generating initiatives so that children, youth, the unemployed, and other marginalized groups have more opportunities to secure gainful employment. This process will address some of the root causes of personal, community, and national insecurity. Mental disarmament of communities rather than physical disarmament is preferred. If the communities are mentally disarmed to fully understand the danger of illegal firearms and get assurance of their protection by the government, they will voluntarily surrender their arms.


Alruwaili, M. H. (2002). Literary critic guide, dalil alnnaqid al'adabi [Arabic]. Arab Cultural Center.

Axworthy, L. (2001). Introduction. In R. McRae & D. Hubert (Eds.), Human security and the new diplomacy: Protecting people, promoting peace (pp. 3-13). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.

Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (Eds.). (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. x-xx). Sage Publications.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. (1979). Educational research: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Buzan, B. (2000). New patterns of global security in the 21st century. International Affairs, 67(3), 431-451.

Carames, A., & Sanz, E. (2008). Analysis of the disarmament and reintegration (DDR) programmes existing in the world during 2007. Barcelona, Spain: Escola de Culturea de Pau.

Cooper, N. (2006). Putting disarmament back in the frame. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 368-369.

Dye, D. (2009). Arms control in a rough neighbourhood. Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for Security Studies.

Elias, N. (2012). On the process of civilisation: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations (E. Jephcott, Trans.). In S. Mennell, E. Dunning, J. Goudsblom, & R. Kilminster (Eds.), The collected works of Norbert Elias (Vol. 3). Dublin, Ireland: University College Dublin Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87-104). London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Gebreselassie, S. (2018, February 19). Disarmament process in the Greater Lakes hampered by availability of guns and lack of trust. UNMIS News. Retrieved from

Halliday, F. (1994). State and society in international relations. In Rethinking international relations (pp. x-xx). London, UK: Palgrave.

Hettne, B. (2010). Development and security: Origins and future. Security Dialogue, 41(1), 31-52.

Hobbes, T. (1983). De cive: The English version (H. Warrender, Ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

International Monetary Fund. (2003). Evaluation of poverty reduction strategy papers and the poverty reduction and growth facility. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund Independent Evaluation Office.

Johnston, L. (2006). Transnational security governance. In J. Wood & B. Dupont (Eds.), Democracy, society and the


Kate, G. (2011). Methodological challenges in qualitative research: Kate Gerrish discusses how the researchers who wrote this issue's themed papers tackled their methodological challenges. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), 4-5.

Knight, M., Norman, L., & Delano, V. (1993). Testing the neoclassical theory of economic growth: A panel data approach. Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, 40(September), 512-541.

Landman, T. (2006). Holding the line: Human rights defenders in the age of terror. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(May), 123-147.

Landman, T. (2012). Projecting liberalism in a world of realist states: David Forsythe and the political science of human rights. Journal of Human Rights, 11(3), 332-336.

Liotta, P. H. (2002). Boomerang effect: The convergence of national and human security. Security Dialogue, 33(4), 473-488.

MacFarlane, S. N., & Khong, Y. F. (2006). Human security and the UN: A critical history. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Mkutu, K. A. (2008). Disarmament in Karamoja, Northern Uganda: Is this a solution for localised violent inter and intra-communal conflict? The Round Table, 97(394), 99-120.

Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: Acts Press.

Muhereza, F. E. (1999). Violence and the state in Karamoja: Causes of conflict. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 22(4).

Nworgu, G. B. (1991). Educational research: Basic issues in methodology. Ibadan, Nigeria: Oluseyi Press Ltd.

Rothschild, E. (1995). What is security? Daedalus, 124(3), 53-98.

Saferworld. (2018). Communities tackling small arms and light weapons in South Sudan. Retrieved from

SIPRI. (2005). The Nairobi protocol for the prevention, control and Reduction of small arms and light weapons in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Solomon, C., & Ginifer, J. (2008). Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration in Sierra Leone Case. Centre for International Cooperation and Security, University of Bradford.

Specker, L. (2008). The R phase of DDR processes: An overview of key lessons learned and practical experiences. Clingendael Institute.

UNDP. (2009). Community security and social cohesion: Towards a UNDP approach. New York, NY: Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, UNDP.

United Nations. (2006). Conference to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. New York, 26 June - 7 July 2006. Retrieved from

Vignard, K. (2003). Beyond the peace dividend-disarmament, development and security. Disarmament Forum, 3, 11.

Walt, S. M. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35, 211-239.

Wasike, S., & Odhiambo, E. O. S. (2016). A critique of the usefulness of theories in explaining socio-political phenomenon. Asian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 29-33.

Whitehead, L. (2010). State sovereignty and democracy: An awkward coupling. In P. Burnell & R. Youngs (Eds.), New challenges to democratization (pp. 23-41). London, UK: Routledge.



How to Cite

Mawach, A. A., & Odhiambo, E. O. (2024). The Aftermath of Disarmament on Community Security in Warrap State, South Sudan: The Case of Gogrial East County. African Journal of Empirical Research, 5(3), 23–33.