Bank of South Sudan headquarters in Jebel, Juba. (Photo: Eye Radio).
A United States Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., has ruled in favor of Qatar National Bank (QNB) in its legal suit against the Republic of South Sudan and the Bank of South Sudan (BOSS), enforcing an international arbitral award that orders the government and its central bank to pay more than $1.02 billion.
In a ruling delivered on July 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted QNB’s motion for default judgment against the Government of South Sudan and summary judgment against the Bank of South Sudan, officially confirming the May 2024 binding decision of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
The dispute traces back to 2018, when QNB entered into a $700 million credit arrangement, known as the “Facility Agreement,” with the Government of South Sudan, backed by the Bank of South Sudan as guarantor. The agreement called for quarterly repayments beginning in 2019.
According to court filings, South Sudan failed to adhere to the agreed repayment schedule, leading QNB to declare a breach of the Facility Agreement and demand immediate repayment. Although South Sudan made partial repayments totaling approximately $70 million between 2020 and 2022 using proceeds from state oil sales, significant outstanding balances remained.
In September 2020, QNB initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICSID in Washington. Following hearings on jurisdiction and the merits of the case, the arbitral tribunal issued its decision in May 2024, holding both South Sudan and the Bank of South Sudan jointly and severally liable.
The tribunal ordered South Sudan and BOSS to pay $1,021,282,210 as of May 5, 2024, reflecting principal, interest, and management fees after deducting previous repayments. It also awarded post-award interest and ordered the respondents to cover QNB’s legal and arbitration costs.
Seeking to enforce the award, QNB filed a petition with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2025 under U.S. legislation implementing the ICSID Convention (22 U.S.C. § 1650a).
The Government of South Sudan did not enter an appearance or defend the enforcement action, prompting the court to grant QNB’s motion for default judgment against the sovereign state.
The Bank of South Sudan, however, appeared in the proceedings and cross-moved for summary judgment. The central bank challenged the enforceability of the award on several grounds, including arguing that QNB was “under the control of a foreign state to such an extent that the dispute was between two states” and raising allegations of potential corruption.
Judge Kelly rejected each of BOSS’s arguments, emphasizing the strictly limited role U.S. federal courts play in reviewing international arbitral awards issued under the ICSID Convention.
Quoting precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kelly wrote: “Courts in Contracting States are not permitted to examine an ICSID award’s merits, its compliance with international law, or the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction to render the award; under the Convention’s terms, they may do no more than examine the judgment’s authenticity and enforce the obligations imposed by the award.”
Addressing the jurisdictional objections, Judge Kelly found there was “ample evidence that the Arbitral Tribunal did ‘fully and fairly’ consider its own jurisdiction over the parties” during the arbitration proceedings, in which BOSS was represented by counsel.
The judge also rejected the corruption arguments, stating that reviewing such claims “is flatly inconsistent with the Court’s limited role in reviewing ICSID awards.”
He added that federal courts are “not even permitted, under the exceedingly deferential standard set out in 22 U.S.C. § 1650a(a), to disregard an award under the ICSID Convention because of alleged fraud or corruption in the arbitration process itself; internal ICSID procedures address such allegations.”
The court concluded that the arbitral award presented by QNB was authentic, valid, and binding under international law and U.S. federal statutes.
“Based on a straightforward application of Section 1650a, the Arbitral Award is enforceable against South Sudan,” Judge Kelly concluded, finding that the same enforceability applied to the Bank of South Sudan.
The court granted default judgment against the Republic of South Sudan, granted summary judgment enforcing the award against the Bank of South Sudan, denied BOSS’s cross-motion for summary judgment, its motion to strike filings, and its request to conduct discovery.
The court indicated it will issue a separate order requiring the parties to submit a proposed final judgment detailing the exact amount due, including any applicable post-award interest.
Previous Post
Duop Lam accuses SSPDF of uncoordinated deployment in Nasir trial defence
