H.E. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf.
Chairman of the African Union
African Union Commission
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Your Excellency,
Please accept our compliments on your exceptional leadership during this pivotal moment for our continent. Your vision inspires us all and demonstrates your leadership’s profound foundations.
The African Union continues to play a vital role in fostering unity, stability, and sustainable development across Africa. In this context, the Union would like to draw your esteemed attention to the increasingly fragile political landscape in East Africa, particularly South Sudan. From protracted civil conflicts and delayed electoral processes to transnational insurgencies and humanitarian crises, the region is at a crossroads that demands decisive, nuanced, continental action.
More details here: https://www.peaceau.org/uploads/auciss.executive.summary.pdf
The attached report evaluates the African Union’s (AU) response to the political crisis in South Sudan during the leadership of H.E. Moussa Faki from March 14, 2017, to March 13, 2025. It highlights the AU’s significant shortcomings in leadership, coordination, and proactive engagement in addressing the civil war and humanitarian crisis in South Sudan. The lack of emphasis on serious violations by the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC) and the Revitalised Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC) is also noted in the context of the AU’s failures during this period.
The quarterly reports are accessible here: https://www.jmecsouthsudan.com/index.php/reports/rjmec-quarterly-reports?limit=20&limitstart=0
Mr. Chairman, there is a need for a new approach in your current leadership to embrace strategic rethinking, and more assertive diplomatic and, if possible, military engagement moving forward.
Given the region’s current trajectories, we believe there is significant potential for a repeat of the past situations in South Sudan and the failures by the previous administration of the AU, unless there is a change in an overall strategic approach for South Sudan within the AU/IGAD context.
Thank you.
REPORT
Title: African Union’s Failures in the South Sudan Political Crisis (2017-2025) Under Moussa Faki’s Chairmanship.
Prepared by: Dr Ayine Nigo (PhD/FHEA)
Your Excellency,
South Sudan has remained mired in political instability since its independence in 2011. The 2013 and 2016 outbreak of civil war, followed by recurring peace agreements and repeated violations, has left millions displaced, hundreds of thousands living in refugee’s camps, women raped, villages and communities shattered, children forced out of school, youth unemployed, and tens of thousands dead (estimated at 400,000 since 2013). As the continent’s premier
intergovernmental body, the AU was expected to play a pivotal role in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. However, during the tenure of the previous Chairman (2017–2025), the AU’s response fell short of expectations.
This report presents the potential consequences of repeated scenes from 2013/2016 and worse regarding a possible transformative power shift in South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya. These scenarios project the expected political change of power in South Sudan from 2025 to 2030, which directly falls within your tenure. We sincerely hope that economic growth, increased regional integration, and technological innovation unique to East Africa should characterize your leadership.
With an Entrenched democracy, the region could witness an economic boost and substantial transformation, driven by its youthful population, which constitutes a considerable portion of the workforce. The demographic advantage will only be tempered by persistent challenges, including high rates of youth unemployment and a mismatch between the skills possessed by the workforce and those demanded by employers. Addressing these issues will be critical for unlocking the region’s economic potential. If this trajectory ensues, by 2030, East Africa is expected to be more interconnected than ever, leveraging advancements in transport, energy, and digital systems to promote regional integration. This interconnectedness will facilitate trade and mobility and encourage collaborative approaches to tackling shared challenges. The success of this transformation hinges on how regional leaders prioritize and address critical issues such as climate shocks/resilience, youth employment, and governance reform.
While East Africa stands at the cusp of significant opportunities for growth driven by innovation and integration, it must simultaneously confront the challenges of instability and political miscalculation in the next three years, with South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya possibly governed by new leadership. The shift of power in South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya will highlight opposition groups’ crucial role and influence on the political environment. However, if all three scenarios unfold simultaneously and poorly managed by the AU, East Africa could be plunged into fragmentation, rising insecurity, and heightened nationalist sentiments. Armed groups, militias, and jihadist threats, especially in northern and Western Uganda, eastern DRC, and Somalia, might expand their influence.
Given these developments going an abated, the AU will face significant strain as they work to address leadership crises in three key countries. Established foreign investments from China, the US, and the Gulf States with substantial stakes in infrastructure and military collaborations in East Africa may ramp up their involvement through diplomatic efforts or by supporting specific leaders to safeguard their interests, forcing the East African Community (EAC) into severe disruptions.
Finally, we believe that the chaos that might ensue in Juba will affect Kampala and Nairobi and hinge on the transition process, whether peaceful, military-driven, or chaotic, and how the various factions and oppositions react to the emerging power vacuum.
Mr. Chairman, we present the Failures under the Previous Chairmanship of the AU from 14 March 2017 to 13 March 2025 as follows.
Lack of Decisive Leadership and Diplomatic Engagement: The former Chairman exhibited a lack of decisive engagement with South Sudanese leaders, particularly President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar, regarding their obligations under the revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS). Unlike his predecessors, who actively pursued shuttle diplomacy and high-level mediation efforts, this Chairman’s absence from critical negotiations and regional summits significantly diminished the African Union’s (AU) influence during pivotal moments. As a result, the AU’s capacity to advocate for peace and stability was notably weakened, especially during escalations of violence that erupted sporadically across the country. The Chairman’s failure to assertively press for compliance with the agreement contributed to the troublesome trend of postponing elections, a vital provision within the peace deal. This disengagement undermined the trust between the key political figures and left the AU’s role in the peace process markedly silent during a period that demanded strong and consistent leadership to help navigate the complexities of South Sudan’s ongoing challenges.
Marginalization of Civil Society and Grassroots Peace Actors:
Under its previous leadership, the African Union (AU) did not effectively engage with civil society organizations, women’s groups, and youth movements—stakeholders that play crucial roles in fostering inclusive and sustainable peacebuilding. The AU inadvertently adopted a top-down approach to conflict resolution by primarily focusing on state actors. This method diminished the potential for grassroots involvement and led to a lack of legitimacy and acceptance among the communities most impacted by the conflict. As a result, essential voices and perspectives from these critical groups were often overlooked, hindering the overall effectiveness of peace initiatives and failing to address the nuanced needs of those directly affected by violence and instability.
Ineffective Coordination with IGAD and Other Regional Bodies:
The African Union (AU) encountered significant challenges in its role as a leader and coordinator in the ongoing crisis in South Sudan, particularly in its interactions with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the organization officially tasked with mediating the conflict. Throughout critical periods of regional discord, especially concerning the deployment of peacekeeping forces and the timelines for holding elections, the AU’s responses were notably passive. This inaction resulted in missed opportunities to harmonize regional efforts, weakening the potential for a coordinated response. The lack of assertive leadership from the AU undermined its credibility. It limited the collective leverage that could have been exerted to resolve the conflict, exacerbating the already dire humanitarian situation in South Sudan.
Stalled Implementation of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan:
The African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council approved the establishment of a Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS) to foster transitional justice and address the ongoing human rights violations in the country.
However, during the tenure of the previous Chairperson, there was no significant advancement in the operationalization of this crucial court. This stagnation has not only delayed justice for the countless victims of conflict and abuse but has also undermined the foundations of the rule of law in South Sudan. The AU’s lack of urgency in implementing robust accountability mechanisms has inadvertently encouraged a climate of impunity, allowing continued human rights abuses to persist without repercussions. As a result, many victims remain without recourse or hope for justice, highlighting an urgent need for the AU to intensify its efforts in ensuring the establishment and functioning of the HCSS. Only through meaningful accountability can the cycle of violence and human rights violations be broken, thereby restoring faith in governance and the rule of law in South Sudan.
Absence of a Clear Strategy, Inaction, or Monitoring Mechanism:
During the tenure of the previous Chairman, the African Union (AU) notably lacked a cohesive and articulated political strategy for South Sudan, resulting in no new frameworks or roadmaps being established to guide the peace process. This deficiency was compounded by significant challenges faced by key institutions such as the Monitoring and Verification Mechanism (MVM), the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC), and the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC). These bodies struggled with chronic underfunding, severely limiting their operational capacity and hampering their ability to effectively report violations and advocate for necessary changes in the peace process.
The lack of effective leadership and strategic direction from the AU created a vacuum that allowed external actors, including various regional powers and foreign investors with divergent interests, to exert disproportionate influence over the peace process. This has further complicated the road to lasting peace and stability. South Sudan continues to navigate the complexities of being a fragile state, facing imminent risks of renewed conflict, escalating ethnically motivated violence, and potential destabilization of the broader region. Without robust and coordinated international support and a clear commitment from the AU to take a more proactive role, the prospects for peace will be over, given that South Sudan has in the past transition exhausted both its best-case scenario from 2005 to 2011, the most likely scenario i.e., a managed Instability with Fragile Control (current situation). What is waiting to unfold is the Worst-Case Scenario, i.e., a total Collapse into Civil War and Urban Chaos.
The way forward for AU’s Leadership
We in the Union propose immediately launching a high-level regional mediative initiative to foster dialogue among key stakeholders, including governments, opposition groups, civil society organizations, and regional entities such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). This initiative should prioritize transparency, inclusiveness, and impartiality, and be convened at the African Union (AU) headquarters to ensure a neutral and supportive environment for discussions. The proposed dialogue should seek to develop concrete resolutions that will provide a clear pathway for the country’s progress, establishing a defined timeline to guide the implementation of these resolutions with a set date for democratic elections to transition the country from dictatorship. This structured approach will facilitate immediate resolution and contribute to the long-term stability and democratic consolidation in South Sudan.
An orderly and immediate return and withdrawal of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) from South Sudan must be paramount. Developing detailed Rules of Engagement and Civilian Protection Protocol is necessary to guide all UNMISS and AU-led military operations. This protocol must ensure that all actions taken are in strict compliance with international humanitarian law and that they prioritise protecting civilians and all communities in South Sudan, with particular attention to rural populations who are often the most vulnerable. By implementing these measures, we can help create a safer environment for civilians and contribute to lasting peace and stability in the region.
Dr Ayine Richard Simon Nigo (FHEA), School of Applied Management, Westminster Business School, University of Westminster, London.
The writer is an author and lecturer at the University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom, and is also the President of the Union of Great Equatoria (UGE). He can be reached via A.nigo@westminster.ac.uk.