South Sudan stands at a dangerous crossroads. What is being sold to the public as accountability and the rule of law risks being little more than a political theater, a carefully staged spectacle that obscures deeper failures of governance and the urgent need for an inclusive national transformation.
The high-profile trial of First Vice-President Dr Riek Machar has become the latest focal point for this drama. But whether the courtroom produces convictions or long adjournments, the question remains: Will this moment catalyze the systemic change millions of South Sudanese desperately crave, or will it be used as a cover to entrench the very interests that sustain conflict and suffering?
A trial of a senior political figure can be a potent instrument of justice. It can also be an instrument of legitimacy or de-legitimization, depending on how it is pursued. The Machar case, brought by the prosecution before a special court in Juba that accuses him and others of grave offences, including treason and murder, has been framed by some actors as a necessary legal response to violence. Yet others warn that the process may be selective, politicized, and a performance staged to demonstrate control while diverting attention from the enduring governance failures.
International and regional actors have expressed concern about detention practices, the court’s jurisdictional basis, and the procedural transparency. If a trial is wielded selectively, it risks reinforcing the very cycles of grievance and exclusion that fuel armed mobilization. When justice looks like a victor’s justice, it does not deter violence so much as entrench suspicion and deepen fractures. South Sudanese, who have long watched power change hands through force rather than through accountable institutions, were right to ask whether the courtroom is a site for truth or a stage for political messaging.
It is important to highlight that beyond the immediate legal contest is a structural problem: The country has been dominated by armed factions, patronage networks, and personalities. Trends have shifted from militia formations to community defense groups. From slogans like “red belt” identifiers to more subtle, internal alignments inside the state apparatus, but the outcome is the same: power is concentrated, accountability is sporadic, and public voice is marginalized.
South Sudanese demand a change of system that replaces opaque decision-making with democratic structures, excludes no group from fair representation, and protects the most vulnerable. The trial of a single leader cannot substitute for comprehensive reform that addresses land and resource governance, militarized politics, economic exclusion, and the collapse of basic services. To pretend otherwise is to mistake spectacle for solution.
The rhetoric of liberation, which many in South Sudan invoke with deep moral and historical weight, must be reclaimed from the narrow political rivalry. Liberation in 2025 cannot mean the replacement of one dominant elite by another; it must mean the collective reclaiming of institutions and processes that guarantee safety, opportunity, and dignity. This requires a broad civic movement and principled leadership that places the people’s needs at the center.
Citizens, civil society, faith leaders, the business sector, and reform-minded elements within the military must coalesce around a shared program: transitional justice that is transparent and impartial; security sector reform that demilitarizes politics; decentralization that returns power to local communities; and an economic strategy that distributes resources equitably. These are not cosmetic measures. They demand patience, compromise, and political courage; qualities often in short supply where zero-sum calculations prevail.
In addition, most South Sudanese keep wondering why the trial became an obstacle to the transformation of the justice system, yet it was meant to expedite the systems in terms of transparency and accountability to the people. Some will argue that legal processes must run without being subordinated to political expediency. That is true. But when a trial becomes a pretext to freeze political space, suspend the mechanisms of accountability for those in power, or divert resources from reconstruction and services, it becomes counterproductive. The Machar proceedings, given their geopolitical salience and domestic consequences, should be conducted with scrupulous fairness and international observation where appropriate. Equally, they should not be allowed to immobilize the country’s reform agenda.
A rule-based system of accountability would mean trials that meet international standards, courts that have demonstrable independence, and parallel efforts that address victims’ needs, reparations, and reconciliation. It would also mean protecting civic freedoms so that citizens can demand reforms without fear of reprisal. Justice for alleged crimes and systemic reform are mutually reinforcing when pursued with integrity.
It is worth mentioning that this clarion call is just a wake-up and lead call for the South Sudanese to understand their relationship with the government in terms of their right to peace, stability, and freedom and justice. South Sudanese must insist that their future is not reduced to choreographed moments of political theater. If the trial of a leading politician becomes the only avenue for expression, it will leave the everyday needs of citizens unaddressed. The people who have endured famine, displacement, and the collapse of services need institutions that work for them, not just for those who hold the microphone.
This is a call to leaders at every level: demonstrate courage by prioritizing national interest; open space for civil society and media scrutiny; and accept international technical support where it strengthens rather than diminishes sovereignty. It is also a call to the international partners: support impartial legal processes, but insist on measures that strengthen institutions, protect human rights, and reduce the incentives for armed competition.
The trial of Dr Machar seems to be awakening now from a pose to a purpose. The trial must not remain a defining spectacle. South Sudan’s path to durable peace and legitimate governance will not be secured by a single courtroom drama. It will be won by painstaking institutional reform, inclusive politics, and a citizenry empowered to demand accountability and services. Let this moment be the spark that awakens a deeper transformation: not the change of faces, but the remaking of systems. That is the liberation South Sudan deserves.
Mogga Loyo is a social researcher and peace advocate and can be contacted via mogtomloyo@yahoo.co.uk.
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.