South Sudan is purportedly scheduled to hold its first national elections since independence on 22nd December 2026.
After four extensions of the transitional period since 2018, the pressure to “get it done” is intense from some citizens, government officials, partners, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the international community.
But pressure is not a plan.
The greatest questions of conducting elections are how and why.
In an actual sense, South Sudan seems politically, economically, and socially too sick to conduct the December 2026 polls.
There is first a need to diagnose South Sudan’s ailment, treat it, and conduct democratic elections after a judicious recovery.
That, of course, means some time. “Patience pains, but it pays,” as the common saying goes.
Rushing for elections without adequate preparation is a desperate, looming man-made disaster.
If we insist on conducting premature elections, we will echo Francis Imbuga’s play, BETRAYAL IN THE CITY;
“It was better while we waited. Now we have nothing to look forward to. We have killed our past and are busy killing our future”, Mosese.
The Bible, a holy book of great wisdom, calls for leaders and communities to be rooted in Christ’s teaching, the “rock,” and to have leaders with spiritual sight and vision, not blind guides. Without that, both the leader and followers end up in a pit.
“So then, anyone who hears these words of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain poured down, the rivers flooded over, and the wind blew hard against that house. But it did not fall, because it was built on rock” (Matthew 7:24-25).
“Do not worry about them! They are blind leaders of the blind; and when one blind man leads another, both fall into a ditch.” (Matthew 15:14).
“And Jesus told them this parable: ‘One blind man cannot lead another one, if he does, both will fall into a ditch’”. (Luke 6:39).
What criticisms, challenges, and lessons have we learnt from these biblical teachings?
They are bitter, but better for Africans.
Sweetness is linked to diabetes.
“Better to correct someone openly than to let him think you don’t care for him at all. Friends mean well, even when they hurt you. But when an enemy puts his arm around your shoulder…watch out!” (Proverbs 27: 5-6).
Are we ready to fall into the apparent ditch?
Personal or syndicate interests of a political or ethnic nature must not blind us.
The public interest is setting the national foundation on a rock of democracy and good governance. This is a glorious legacy of a pioneering government.
Credible planning, leadership, and decision-making must be anchored on research.
Holding elections now, without the basic conditions in place, risks producing anarchy, mayhem, cycles of violence, and vandalism disguised as a vote for democracy.
South Sudan does not need meaningless, hasty elections. It needs a credible political process that gives all citizens a real choice without costing them their lives and putting their future at stake again.
The core benchmarks of the 2018 peace agreement are unmet by far.
The Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan made elections conditional on completing four tasks: unification of forces, a permanent constitution, a national census, and institutional reforms.
The desperate attempt to amend the 2018 peace accord by having meaningless, hasty elections to save government legitimacy is a tragic slip-up.
The brilliant recommendation of the civil society to conduct genuine inclusive dialogue is realistic and visionary.
As of late 2025, to date, the National Constitution Review Commission has not produced a draft for public review.
The necessary unified forces are estimated at 30-40% trained and deployed.
A population census has not been conducted since 2008, when South Sudan was still part of Sudan.
Without such, elections become a procedural exercise with no acceptability.
Ambassador Retired Major General Charles Tai Gituai, former Chairperson of the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC), stated that the key benchmarks for free, fair, and credible elections include “the completion of the unification and redeployment of forces… and the making of a people-led and people-owned Permanent Constitution to guide the conduct of elections”.
Again, the RJMEC Interim Chairperson, Ambassador Retired Major General George Owinow, has recently cautioned the national legislature in a communique that some of the proposed amendments would alter the structure and architecture of the 2018 Peace Accord, thus undermining its legal foundation, abrogating its supremacy, and weakening the oversight role of IGAD and the African Union as guarantors. The legislators and the executives must reaffirm the supremacy and binding nature of the agreement to preserve its integrity, legality, and continuity.
The Interim Chairperson has highlighted the risk of political division and renewed large-scale violence rising, with serious implications for national and regional stability. Something we must brood over and avert.
Indeed, as the RJMEC Interim Chairperson puts it, “the Revitalized-Agreement for Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan derives its authority from the consent of all parties, and its incorporation into the constitutional framework makes it a foundational document for South Sudan,” so respecting it morally upright to preserve its legitimacy and the rule-based foundation of the transition.
Where is the inclusivity aspect in the amendment process?
It is a consensus that the 2018 peace treaty remains the most viable framework for sustainable peace, stability, unity, and democratization in South Sudan.
It has literally become either the Bible or the Quran of the Republic of South Sudan.
How moral are the proposed amendments to the 2018 Peace Accord?
What has necessitated these proposed amendments to the 2018 Peace Accord?
What is wrong with heeding advice for inclusive dialogue, fellow countrymen and women?
Where are our ears?
Elders in my society used to sarcastically ask stubborn children;
“Are your ears in the anus?
Rushing a vote before the necessary preparation is like holding a football match without agreeing on the rules of the game.
The result will be disputed, and the losing side has armed fallback options.
The security and civic space conditions do not exist enough for viable elections.
Credible elections require voters to register, campaign, and vote without fear.
That is not the case today.
Intercommunal violence persists in Upper Nile, Unity, and Jonglei States.
In 2024-2025, violence displaced over 280,000 people in Jonglei alone.
The influx of returnees and refugees from Sudan’s war has strained resources and increased tensions.
Human rights groups and UN officials report repression of journalists, civil society, and opposition figures.
The 2024 Security Bill allowed warrantless arrests, adding to a climate of repression.
1.6 million South Sudanese remain internally displaced, and 2.3 million are in refugee camps.
A key signatory to the 2018 Peace Accord, Dr Riek Machar Teny and other stakeholders remain under house arrest, detention, and court proceedings.
The National Elections Commission has not established modalities for the participation of the displaced and exiles.
As UN Human Rights Commission Chairperson Yasmin Sooka recently warned, the delay in reforms could “entrench the ruling elite and erode public trust”.
Holding elections in this environment risks turning the ballot into a tool for legitimizing the incumbency through intimidation.
Hasty elections have already cost South Sudan dearly in history.
South Sudan rushed into statehood in 2011 without resolving militia integration and revenue-sharing issues.
The 2010 general elections were held before security protocols were implemented, and the unresolved disputes exploded into a series of civil wars right away, notably the George Athor rebellion in 2010, the David Yau Yau rebellion in 2010, and subsequently in 2013 and 2016 wars.
It is said that history repeats itself.
Do we need repetition of rebellions associated with imminent fraudulent elections?
The African Union Commission of Inquiry in 2014 concluded that “the political elite’s competition for power without institutional constraints” fuelled the crisis in South Sudan.
Repeating the same sequence of political competition without reformed institutions is not learning from history; it is ignoring it for the worst to happen.
You cannot vote your way out of a 154th-place problem without first fixing the institutions.
The National Elections Commission lacks funding, technical infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks.
Financial constraints remain a hindrance in election preparations. There is apparently no commitment to funding the December 2026 polls.
December is also the peak of the flooding season in much of South Sudan’s Upper Nile Region.
What remedies have been put in place to counter such crests of stumbling blocks to conducting elections in December 2026?
Roads are impassable, airstrips are cut off, and polling materials cannot reach many counties.
Andrea Mach Mabior, an analyst, warned that “going for elections that do not meet international standards will be a waste of money”.
Spending millions on an election, which cannot be administered fairly, is not democracy. It is a theatre.
The right choice is to tie the election date to verifiable benchmarks.
A credible path would include sequencing: Complete at least 95% of force unification and release a draft constitution for public review before voting. Conduct an up-to-date population census. The 2008 population census is outdated. Establish modalities for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and diaspora voting.
Amend laws allowing warrantless arrests and ensure free media and assembly to guarantee civic and political space.
Start with local government elections in stable counties to test systems and build confidence.
As late Nicholas Haysom, former Head of UNMISS, put it clearly in 2024;
“The clock on South Sudan’s fourth extension has started ticking… it begins now. Otherwise, we can find ourselves in the same predicament in December 2026”.
Proverbs 21:5 says;
“Plan carefully, and you will have plenty; if you act too quickly, you will never have enough.”
Hasty elections, held without security, law, and trust, lead to political deficiency, more conflict, more displacement, and more pessimism.
The biblical principle of shalom (peace/wellbeing) is not just the absence of war, but the right ordering of society.
Isaiah 1:16-17 commands;
“Wash yourselves clean. Stop all this evil that I see you doing. Yes, stop doing evil and learn to do right. See that justice is done…help those who are oppressed, give orphans their rights, and defend widows”.
You cannot have justice if the vote is stolen or intimidated.
Primate Archbishop Justin Badi Arama, a right man of society, observed in 2023;
“We don’t want elections that bring back war. We want peace that makes elections possible”, remains valid up to date.
South Sudan does not need elections for the sake of elections. It needs a political process that gives people a voice without costing them their lives.
Holding elections in December 2026 without meeting the benchmarks of the 2018 peace agreement will not end the transition. It will extend it through another war, possibly.
Is that what we need?
The responsible path is to commit to a timeline, but make it conditional.
If the benchmarks are not met, delay again transparently with a plan.
That is not a weakness. That is leadership. The plan must come first. The elections must follow to set the national foundation on the rock of democracy and good governance.
This way, “Justice, Liberty and Prosperity” will reign indeed in South Sudan.
The writer, Yanta Daniel Elisha, is a Visiting Lecturer/Tutor of English, Communication & Research Methods at Kajo-Keji Christian College of The Episcopal University.
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.
and then