South Sudan is not merely in a political crisis—it faces a relentless assault on truth, justice, and peace itself, with President Salva Kiir at the center of this betrayal. His recent creation of a consultative body for the December 2026 elections, coupled with a sudden endorsement of resuming the Kenya-led Tumaini peace talks, is not a step toward democracy or reconciliation—it is a calculated exercise in deception. By presenting a facade of dialogue and inclusion, Kiir conceals systematic exclusion, manipulates political processes, and undermines the prospects of genuine reconciliation. Inclusion without legitimacy is not dialogue—it is coercion. This distinction is moral, political, and undeniable.
The manipulation of peace initiatives has long been central to Kiir’s strategy. The Tumaini peace initiative, launched in May 2024, was nominally presented as a platform to reinforce the 2018 peace agreement, but from the outset, it was weaponized to marginalize genuine opposition and consolidate unilateral control. By July 2024, opposition parties such as the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition (SPLM-IO), South Sudan’s most consequential opposition party, formally withdrew from the talks in protest against systematic exclusion and political manipulation. Rather than correcting these abuses, the government allowed the talks to stagnate and, by August 2025, declared them dead, citing an alleged formation of a united opposition military wing—a pretext designed to absolve the regime of responsibility for sabotaging dialogue. The timeline is unmistakable: a process meant to foster inclusion and accountability was twisted into a tool of political deceit, leaving any attempt at justification collapsing under the weight of facts.
The evidence is clear and undeniable. Readers must examine the facts, trace the patterns of action, and decide whether Kiir’s claims of dialogue, inclusion, and peace hold any credibility.
The consultative body includes representatives from Kiir’s ruling party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Government (SPLM-IG), and minor opposition groups. Yet the SPLM-IO leadership, including the suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar, has been deliberately excluded. In its place, the regime installed figures from a splinter faction led by Stephen Par Kuol, compliant with the regime. This is not an oversight—it is deliberate political subterfuge. In a genuine consultative process, representation follows mandate. By excluding substantive opposition while installing compliant political actors, Kiir manufactures the illusion of pluralism while erasing meaningful voices, thereby undermining both electoral legitimacy and the potential for real peace.
Reflecting this continued marginalization, the SPLM-IO leadership under Acting Chairman Oyet Nathaniel informed this author of the Kenyan authorities’ formal contact regarding a planned resumption of the Tumaini peace talks. The leadership indicated that it is currently studying the proposal and will respond at a time of its own choosing—underscoring both its continued relevance and the regime’s failure to engage the main opposition in good faith. Instead, the government has favored the April 2025 SPLM-IO splinter group, which the mainstream SPLM-IO has dubbed a government project.
This tactic is systematic, consistent, and morally indefensible. Under Kiir, peace initiatives and consultative bodies have always been advanced or delayed based on political advantage, never principle. The current push to resume the Tumaini talks is the latest example of this ongoing pattern—timed to exploit international and domestic pressure rather than to advance justice, lasting peace, or democratic participation. Since October 2015, dialogue under Kiir has been wielded as a weapon, not treated as a moral obligation.
Elections under these conditions are a violation of the peace agreement and wholly illegitimate. True democracy requires meaningful choice, impartial institutions, security sector reform, and civic freedom—none of which exist in South Sudan. Political detainees remain silenced, armed forces are fragmented, civic space is constrained, and violence dictates participation. Any consultative body formed in this context is not a step toward democracy—it is an instrument of coercion. Participation in such a system signals compliance, not genuine consent.
The December 2026 elections cannot, under any legitimate interpretation, occur before the full implementation of the revitalized peace agreement, as explicitly required by its provisions. These elections depend on meaningful reforms, disarmament, and genuine political inclusion—steps Kiir has consistently refused. Instead, he appears singularly intent on manipulating the peace process to manufacture a veneer of legitimacy, enabling him to claim electoral victory while retaining dictatorial powers that have long suppressed the people of South Sudan and fueled the devastating civil war that began in December 2013. If Kiir continues down this path, the country will remain trapped in a profound political, social, and economic crisis, with neither peace nor justice in sight.
Continuing this pattern of systemic abuse, excluding key political players from the consultative process exposes the moral bankruptcy of Kiir’s governance. Elections conducted without genuine opposition cannot resolve the crisis of legitimacy—they only deepen it. Fragmenting political representation while claiming inclusivity replaces accountability with appearance. A self-serving consultation cannot deliver justice, and simulated dialogue cannot substitute for real peace.
Given the systematic subversion of political processes, this is not a matter of opinion—it is a matter of principle. Inclusion, dialogue, and elections hold legitimacy only when they constrain abuses of power, enforce representation, and uphold impartial governance. When staged to neutralize dissent or manipulate outcomes, they become instruments of oppression. Stability built on exclusion and performance is not peace; it is deferred collapse.
Amid the regime’s continued manipulation of consultative processes, regional mediators, international partners, and domestic observers must recognize these gestures for what they are: deliberate attempts to mask the absence of reform, perpetuate injustice, and manipulate politics under the guise of consultation. These are not signs of progress—they are proof that Kiir’s regime prioritizes self-preservation over justice, appearance over reform, and simulated inclusion over meaningful participation in democratic processes and peacebuilding. These actions are deliberate, calculated, and profoundly unjust.
The consequences of this deception, however, extend far beyond South Sudan’s borders, spreading across the East African region. They create grave strategic challenges—from refugee flows and cross-border insecurity to arms proliferation and the erosion of regional norms that uphold accountability and good faith mediation. Ethically, the normalization of performative peace corrodes the credibility of regional guarantors and signals that power, not principle, governs conflict resolution. A South Sudan trapped in a managed crisis becomes a permanent source of volatility, undermining regional integration, security cooperation, and trust in mediation frameworks led by East African states. Logically, deception disguised as peace does not stabilize the region; it institutionalizes instability and rewards bad faith governance. Regional leaders must acknowledge these realities if lasting peace is to be achieved.
In the final analysis, the legitimacy of these efforts will be determined by their ability to confront injustice rather than perpetuate it. In 2026, Kiir’s consultative body and the resumed Tumaini talks fail this test—they entrench manipulation, manufactured inclusion, and deception, undermining legitimacy and denying the possibility of lasting peace. The Tumaini peace initiative appears designed to favor or manipulate opposition leaders who show indifference to the country’s future under Salva Kiir.
When consultation becomes a pretense, a consultative body that excludes the principal opposition is not consultation; it is managed pluralism. Peace initiatives designed to deflect accountability, impede much-needed reform, exclude real dissent, and neutralize political pressure are not peace—they are performative consultation.
The people of South Sudan deserve full accountability, genuine peace, and authentic democracy. Anything less constitutes betrayal. There can be no compromise with exclusion, coercion, or manipulation. The path to lasting peace and legitimacy demands unwavering dialogue, inclusive representation, and strict adherence to agreements safeguarding the people.
Duop Chak Wuol is an analyst, critical writer, and former editor-in-chief of the South Sudan News Agency. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado, focusing on geopolitics, security, and social issues in South Sudan and the broader East African region. His work has appeared in leading regional and international outlets. He can be reached at duop282@gmail.com.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.