By William Madouk
Spokesperson for the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces (SSPDF), Maj. Gen. Lul Ruai Koang has firmly denied claims that the army reached an agreement with Dynamic Defence Solutions to supply vehicles.
This comes after Dynamic company published on their Facebook page, stating that they had inked a deal with the South Sudan People’s Defence Force (SSPDF) to supply vehicles and top-tier solutions.
“We are pleased to announce that Dynamic Defence Solution FZE has successfully secured a deal to supply vehicles to the South Sudan Army,” partly read the statement seen by this outlet.
“As the prime supplier, Dynamic Solution is proud to support the South Sudan Army’s operational needs,” it added.
Dynamic firm alleged that their team visited Bilpham to finalize a partnership agreement.
“This deal underscores our commitment to delivering top-tier solutions in the region,” it concluded.
In rebuttal, Gen. Lul trashed the allegation, adding that no deal or agreement was reached with Dynamic Solutions.
“The office of SSPDF would like to unequivocally deny claims by Dynamic Defence Solutions that it had reached an agreement to supply vehicles to the national army,” said Lul.
“SSPDF takes this opportunity to officially distance itself and brush aside claims by Dynamic Defence Solutions that it was contracted to supply vehicles,” he added.
He admitted that delegates from Dynamic escorted by Assistant Chief for Defence Forces for Logistics and Director for Transport & maintenance visited the Director General of Procurement, but no deal was signed.
“The officials only used opportunity availed to them to market the company’s areas of speciality and capabilities,” Gen. Lul added.
Besides, the army leadership clarified that no Memorandum of Understanding was signed between SSPDF and Dynamic Defence Solutions, citing that the country is still under an arms embargo.
“Purchase of classified/strategic equipment is beyond the jurisdiction of SSPDF and the directorate of procurement,” Bilpham mouthpiece noted.
“SSPDF is still under arms embargo hence no legal basis and authority to engage in defence contract,” he clarified.
The No.1 Citizen Newspaper was not able to independently verify whether there was an agreement or no deal.