Preconditions are the ingredients of any peace negotiations; they are part and parcel of peace mediation in South Sudan and other parts of the world. The preconditions are the keys that not only prepare negotiators mentally but also open their hearts as they embark on the mediation process. The preconditions are a healthy trait of the mediation process in the sense that they are tabled in the form of agenda items, which can be debated in advance or ahead of the talks. In comparison, the preconditions are akin to demand letters drafted and sent to the adverse party by the litigating counsels before the matter is taken and tabled before the court. Relatively, the adverse party in both court and mediation cases is at liberty to react and respond either way, but with caution for one reason or another.
For example, when the twin opposition groups, namely the United People’s Alliance (UPA) and the South Sudan Opposition Movement Alliance (SSOMA), demanded the unconditional release of all political prisoners ahead of the peace talks, they were partly negotiating in earnest. Hence, it is incumbent upon the regime of President Salva Kiir to react to these tabulated demands in the manner that they deem fit. In the unlikely event that these preconditions are delayed and deferred pending the commencement of the peace talks, the parties giving the conditions should not refrain or refuse to join the peace talks owing to the fact that mediation thrives on the principle of give and take.
In other words, the party that goes to mediation without preconditions and the party that goes to mediation with preconditions are not different. The act of giving a precondition depends on the individual party’s situation. In fact, some preconditions are given as a necessity, while others are not. For instance, you cannot negotiate with someone who is under confinement. The suspended First Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar, is a case in point.
Under the law and the rules of mediation, there ought to be an enabling environment where parties feel they are not under duress. Just like in a football game, the mediation process must be conducted under the stewardship and supervision of a neutral mediator who plays the role of a referee. Ideally, the mediator is not a mere spectator who sits on the fence. They play an important role in mediation exercises from the beginning to the end. In any event, the mediation team can make preconditions in order for the talks to start. In rare situations where the parties are still fighting, the mediators, with support from the peace guarantors, can put a demand on the warring parties to observe a ceasefire prior to or after the mediation.
The resumption of the High-level South Sudan Peace Talks has begun in earnest under the chairmanship of Jakaya Morisho Kikwete, the fourth President of the United Republic of Tanzania. On 20 May 2026, Kikwete held a series of consultations in Arusha with numerous opposition leaders, namely Gen. Pagan Amum, Gen. Oyai Deng Ajak, Gen. Paul Malong, and Gen. Stephen Buay Rolnyang, Dr. Cirilo Hiteng, to mention but a few. Of course, the ongoing discussions are a continuation of consultations which Kikwete started during his recent visit to Juba.
Academically, the ongoing consultation falls under the first stage of mediation. In the mediation process, the first stage is characterized by the following inter alia: mediation intake, information gathering, and registration of voluntary participation by parties to the conflict.
At the moment, we are in the preliminary stages of the mediation whose outcomes are seen through the minutes and photos taken in Arusha with the African Union envoy to South Sudan. As soon as we are done with these consultations, we shall proceed to the second mediation stage, such as issues identification, which encompasses the articulation of concerns necessary for the commencement and conclusion of the peace talks.
As we all partake and participate in these consultations, these parties need to point out the key concerns and grievances, some of which can be addressed before and after the actual negotiation.
The condition to return Stephen Buay Rolnyang’s ranks before the talks
I would like to bring to the attention of the people of goodwill that the military ranks of Gen. Stephen Buay should be restored ahead of the peace talks. In the previous mediation, the SSPM party, which is a constituent party of UPA, almost made this concern and condition as one of its ‘‘irreducible minimums’’ in the past peace initiative.
Buay should be given back the ranks that he was stripped of without convincing reasons. By law, the person who should execute the duty of returning and restoring his ranks is none other than the President and the Commander-in-Chief, General Salva Kiir Mayardit. The day his ranks were removed, I disagreed because the decision conflicted with the rules and principles of natural justice. And thus, the President should restore Buay’s ranks by way of issuing an executive order overruling the biased ruling that took away his military ranks.
In history, it would be remembered that the reason and the manner in which Buay was demoted from the army leadership echelons was unjustified and uncalled for. I am sure we all witnessed the dramatic stripping of his ranks. In my other excerpts, I stated that the removal of Buay’s ranks was more Painful than Benjamin Bol Mel’s. (Dak, 2025). If I am not wrong, Gen. Buay and Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel were the first senior military officers to be demoted and dismissed from the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF). The first was Gen. Stephen Buay, and the second was Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel. If I may reiterate, I did not welcome and approve the demotion of Buay from the army. What they did to him was one of the reasons why some of us thronged the trenches with a view to resisting such kinds of injustices and illegalities.
The idea to resist injustices has got a blessing in law and the constitution. The act of resisting injustice is a work worth pursuing because it is a noble duty. In other words, injustice and impunity are the things worth fighting against in both local and international contexts. Those who know and appreciate the law will understand this better. The action to resist is a right provided in international law. This rule is supported by an old principle of equity known as the doctrine of standing by. The phrase known as standing by is a negative option of keeping silent while something bad is being done against one’s interest. Logically, the reasonable man cannot sit quietly, watch another person do an unlawful act, and then come out later to oppose it. Naturally, the law does not encourage a person to benefit from his or her inaction and silence. At times, the law expects a person to defend and protect his or her rights at the right time. And so, he should not wait until another person has suffered a loss.
In 2012, senior advisor to Kenyan Prime minister, Dr. Miguna Miguna rightly opined on Radio 360 that, ‘‘when you see injustices against children, women, disables, underprivileged and the poor, any reasonable citizen should consider it civic duty to take a stance, because if you don’t take a stance, you are supporting the status quo of oppression and exploitation, misgovernance and injustices.’’
As we converse, many people in South Sudan formed or joined the existing opposition groups not because of the injustices done to themselves but because of the injustices done to their fellow countrymen and women in their direct watch. It is natural to defend someone whose rights are being violated. In this arduous task of defending the people’s rights, we, the patriots, are defending the constitution of the land.
You will concur that South Sudan is not a majoritarian state that pays attention to the majority alone. As much as we embrace democracy as a rule of the majority, it does not grant us the latitude to mistreat individuals, marginalized groups, and minorities in our country.
No fair hearing
The South Sudan transitional constitution 2011, as amended, is crystal clear when it comes to basic Human rights, including the right to justice and fair hearing. However, Buay was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and fair hearing as stipulated in Article 19 of our supreme law of the land. The court proceedings were characterized by prejudices.
In law, one of the important aspects of a fair hearing is that the case must be heard by an impartial judge, who must remain neutral throughout the determination of the matter. Nonetheless, the Buay tribunal was not independent, partly because it was working on directives from above. Evidently, his political foes who concocted the allegations were very determined to prosecute and push him out of the system by hook or crook.
Many agreed that the act of stripping Buay’s ranks was treated as theft done by political elites who want to sneak and remain in power illegally. The reason being they were unhappy and uncomfortable with the presence of military leaders with intellect and integrity.
Double jeopardy
In June 2018, Buay was accused and arrested over an allegation that he wanted to rebel in Mayom County, Unity State. Eventually, he was arraigned in court and tried in the General Court Martial (GCM). Lastly, when the verdict was released, he was found innocent. However, instead of him being discharged, another order was issued for him to be tried again by a different military court in Juba. The order to try him again amounts to double jeopardy, which means that an accused person cannot be tried twice for the same offence after being convicted or acquitted by a competent court of law.
Abuse of law
Moreover, the order to try him for a second time contravened the principle of ‘‘res judicata.’’ This particular principle prevents and prohibits the case from being heard twice after it has been fully and finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. The inherent meaning and purpose of res judicata is to make sure that there is a finality to the litigation, and to further discourage the harassment of the accused person or defendant.
In addition, if you revisit the facts and particulars of the case, you will ascertain that Buay was wrongly accused and charged for a crime that he never committed. Normally, the crime consists of a guilty mind and guilty action. At times, the intention to commit the crime is not enough unless it’s supported by a guilty action.
Therefore, even if Buay had an intention to rebel as alleged, he did not formally declare rebellion. In other words, he did not shoot a gun before his barbaric and bloody arrest in Unity State.
Previous preconditions
Without much ado, I have three relevant examples in support of the condition to return and restore Buay’s ranks ahead of peace talks in Arusha, Tanzania.
First, in 2014, Dr. Riek Machar Teny demanded the release of SPLM former detainees before the commencement of Peace Talks, which resulted in the signing of the defunct Agreement on the resolution of the conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS).
These former SPLM Detainees were Gen. Pagan Amum, Gen. Oyai Deng, Gen. Majak Agoot, and Dr. Cirilo Hiteng, Late John Luk Jok, Former Gov. Chol Tong, Amb. Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, to mention but a few. By then, there was disquiet and disappointment over their arrest and accusation, which were later quashed in court.
Second, in February 2026, UPA Chairperson Gen. Pagam Amum, in his letter to Tumaini Initiative Mediator Gen. Lazarus Sumbeiywo, demanded Machar’s release from Prison to return and resume the talks in Nairobi.
It was widely believed that Machar had little or no case for two reasons. One, the accusations against him and his cohorts are widely described as a political witch-hunt designed to bar him from future politics.
Two, the special court that tried Machar and co-accused lacked proper jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. The Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCISS), which is superior to the interim transitional constitution, stipulated that the accused and the perpetrators should be tried by the hybrid court that is yet to be established.
Third, in February, 2024, the Senior Youth of South Sudan (SEYOSS) under my chairmanship petitioned and pressed upon the Tumaini Initiative chairperson, Dr. William Ruto, to facilitate the release of Human Rights Activist Moris Mabior Awikjok as a condition for the talks in Nairobi. By then, Moris Mabior was an asylum seeker residing in Kenya before his illegal abduction and subsequent detention without trial in South Sudan.
In our well-thought-out letter, we demanded the release of Mabior as a condition for Tumaini talks to boost and bolster the credibility of His Excellency and Kenya to be a neutral arbiter capable of mediating the South Sudan Peace talks.
Finally, the conditions for the talks are not meant to block or delay the peace talks. Usually, the conditions are a litmus test for the parties. In fact, they are designed to examine the commitment of the parties to the conflict.
I know that the talks have begun, and thus, I am uttering these assertions knowing very well that there is an existing platform created for these conditions to be heard and determined as we move forward. I am one of the stakeholders, with the same rights and privileges to air and articulate my grievances at the right time and the right place.
In conclusion, when I communicate these conditions, no one should make the mistake of misconstruing them as an attempt to create an obstacle for the Kikwete-led mediation in the United Republic of Tanzania.
The writer is a lawyer and a criminologist by profession. He was a former delegate to the High-Level Mediation for South Sudan as a National Chairperson for Legal and Constitutional affairs of SSPM. He can be reached for comments via eligodakb@yahoo.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.
and then