South Sudan has entered another decisive phase in its troubled political transition. On September 22, President Salva Kiir dissolved the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (R-TGoNU) and moved the country into a caretaker arrangement, just three months before elections scheduled for December 22. The decision followed amendments to the electoral law that removed requirements linking elections to completion of a permanent constitution and a national census. The government says the changes clear the way for the long-delayed vote. Opposition groups argue that the changes were made without sufficient consultation and have called for a broader political process.
The main question now is no longer simply whether South Sudan can reach December 22 with an election timetable intact. It is whether the country can create enough political confidence for an election to function as a mechanism of political transition rather than another trigger for confrontation.
That distinction matters because the country is emerging from a peace arrangement whose central political architecture has been weakened. The Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan was designed to bring former adversaries into a power-sharing government and prepare the country for elections. Its implementation has repeatedly fallen behind schedule, including on constitutional reform, security-sector unification and other transitional benchmarks. The latest dissolution of the unity government has effectively ended the power-sharing arrangement that defined the transitional period.
The position of Dr Riek Machar Teny has become inseparable from this question. Dr. Machar, the former first vice-president and leader of the SPLM-IO, has remained under house arrest since March 2025 and faces charges including treason and murder, which he denies with other political and Military leaders from the SPLM/A-IO . His detention has become a key issue in the peace process and a point of contention over whether the political opposition can participate meaningfully in the country’s transition.
The African Union has already articulated a position that deserves serious attention. In its August 26 communiqué on South Sudan, the AU Peace and Security Council called for the immediate resumption of direct political dialogue without preconditions. It also called for the release of political detainees, an end to hostilities and military mobilization, and inclusive, consensus-driven dialogue. The Council explicitly stated that there is no military solution to the country’s political impasse.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan has raised a similar concern from a different angle. In September, the Commission warned that elections conducted amid political confrontation, restricted civic space, weak institutions and inadequate safeguards could deepen instability. It called for genuine and inclusive dialogue involving political adversaries, including supporters of Dr. Riek Machar Teny. The Commission’s argument is not that elections are unnecessary. Rather, it is that the conditions surrounding elections will determine whether the vote contributes to stability or becomes another arena for political conflict.
That concern is reinforced by practical weaknesses in the electoral preparations. The National Elections Commission previously warned that it was running short of time and resources. More recently, the European Union said it had not seen a clear electoral budget or detailed assessment of the resources required and therefore had no funding available for the December 22 polls. The commission’s chairperson was also removed only weeks before the scheduled election, a decision that generated questions about the legal process and the impact on preparations.
Against this background, inclusive dialogue should not be confused with another conference for political speeches. It would need to address the core disputes that have prevented the transition from becoming a settled political process. That includes the status of political detainees, the security environment, political freedoms, electoral administration, constitutional questions and the relationship between the signatories of the peace agreement.
There are precedents showing why the release or easing of restrictions on political opponents can become an important confidence-building measure during political transitions. South Africa’s transition from apartheid provides one of the clearest examples. As negotiations gathered momentum in 1990, the government began releasing political prisoners. This was followed by the National Peace Accord and the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, which brought political parties and other organized interests into negotiations over the country’s democratic future. The release of political prisoners did not solve South Africa’s political crisis by itself, but it formed part of a wider sequence of confidence-building measures that opened political space for negotiation.
South Sudan has its own precedent. The country’s National Dialogue process, which concluded its national conference in 2020, was established to build consensus around issues driving conflict and insecurity. According to the United Nations Development Programme, implementation of the National Dialogue included the government’s release of political prisoners. The experience demonstrates that releasing detainees and broadening political participation are not foreign concepts in South Sudan’s own peacebuilding history.
Other countries have also used national dialogue during periods of political crisis and transition. Comparative research examining 17 dialogue processes in 12 countries, including South Africa, Nepal, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Togo and Yemen, found that national dialogues can help transfer political grievances from confrontation into formal negotiation. The same research cautions that dialogue is not automatically successful. Only about half of the agreements examined were fully implemented, while the representativeness and legitimacy of the process were decisive factors in determining outcomes.
That lesson is particularly relevant to Juba. A dialogue that excludes the principal political adversaries would risk becoming an inter-party consultation rather than a national political settlement. The distinction is already visible in the government’s current position. President Kiir Mayardit opened an inter-party political dialogue on September 24, but has warned participants against using the forum to alter or delay the electoral timetable. Opposition groups, meanwhile, have called for a review of the peace agreement and an inclusive national political dialogue.
The two positions need not remain irreconcilable. South Sudan can maintain a stated commitment to elections while simultaneously widening the political process around them. Dialogue does not necessarily mean cancelling an election. It can establish the minimum political guarantees required for parties and communities to compete without returning to armed confrontation.
The immediate issue of political detainees therefore deserves to be addressed within a wider political settlement. Where detainees are held for political reasons, their release, judicial review or other lawful resolution of their cases could serve as a confidence-building measure. Any such process would need to respect due process and distinguish political detention from legitimate criminal accountability. The objective should be to create political space without weakening accountability for serious crimes.
South Sudan’s leaders now face a narrow window. The AU and IGAD are calling for dialogue. The UN human rights mechanism is warning about the risks of elections without safeguards. Opposition groups are demanding a broader political process, while the government insists that the December timetable remains intact. These positions point to the same underlying reality: the ballot alone cannot settle a political crisis that remains unresolved.
The priority should therefore be to use the months before December to build political confidence, reopen channels between adversaries, address the status of political detainees through lawful and transparent mechanisms, protect civic and political space, and establish credible safeguards for electoral participation.
South Sudan’s first national election since independence carries enormous historical weight. Its significance will not be measured only by whether ballot boxes are opened. It will also be measured by whether those who contest the political future of the country believe they have a place in that future.
For a country whose recent history has repeatedly demonstrated the cost of political exclusion, the credibility of the transition will depend as much on the inclusiveness of the political process as on the date printed on the election calendar.
The writer, Bec George Anyak, is a former Deputy Minister of Finance & Planning and a Senior Member of the SPLM-IO under Dr.Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon.
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