South Sudan is a country at war with itself. There are active armed conflicts across all regions, particularly Jonglei, Upper Nile, Unity, Warrap, and some Equatorian states. The reality of these conflicts dominates debates and discussions regarding inter-party dialogue. These national debates are centered on how to end the war as soon as possible. The demands for national dialogue tell us that there is no doubt or dispute about the existence of war in South Sudan.
In fact, trending news articles published on Radio Tamazuj are dominated by calls for political dialogue to end the ongoing war. For instance, the main news articles titled “UPA rejects Juba-led dialogue, seeks talks abroad” and “SPLM-IO rejects Kiir-led dialogue with AU-C5 delegation” support this claim. Most South Sudanese want an inclusive dialogue because they believe war is not a solution to the problems bedeviling the country.
The Bible, in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, reminds us that there is a time for everything: peace, unity, and reconciliation. These concepts are no exception in our country. Unconditionally, we should prefer and pursue dialogue over guns because violence breeds and brings destruction, destitution, death, displacement, and deprivation like nothing else. However, the ruling SPLM Party elites are reluctant to embrace dialogue, which is the reason why the country is still in a mess. Conversely, the proposal to conduct an election in December 2026 is a recipe for chaos.
Electoral dilemma
The first and forthcoming election should be conducted at an appropriate time when there is a safe environment for contenders and voters. Personally, I cannot endorse and encourage an election at the time of anarchy unless I want to endanger the lives of our people, whom I have a duty to protect and empower through information. As Panyijiar County Commissioner Gai Riek Gaak noted during the memorial service for legendary Chief Zacharia Majoak Kacha in Ganyliel Town, “the electoral processes cannot be conducted under the current situation.”
My take is that elections should follow the drafting and adoption of a permanent constitution. The sooner we start and conclude the inter-party dialogue, the better. Since 1995, Africa and East Africa have had eighteen criteria for free and fair elections, none of which have been implemented so far.
The folks and fellows who are pushing and propagating for an unripe election to take place will be in for a rude shock. In his book, Constitution-making from the Middle, Kenyan Chief Justice Emeritus Prof. Willy Mutunga opined that “an election that is not free, fair and peaceful is a stolen election. (Mutunga. 1999).
As a people, we are now united in the rejection of an election slated for December 2026. Evidently, the South Sudanese churches have expressed reservations and rejection of the election. In their joint pastoral statement, the church leaders stated objectively that “the dilemma is that, on the one hand, there is an urgent desire to conclude the transitional period and establish a legitimate elected government, while on the other hand, there is the equally important responsibility to ensure that the electoral process does not contribute to insecurity, injustice and national fragmentation.” Clearly, the South Sudanese people of goodwill are showing concern about this matter of election because they know where the 2013 crisis emanated.
Conflict
In Latin, they “say res ipsa loquitur,” which means the thing speaks for itself. The independence of South Sudan was not granted on a silver platter. It was achieved through war, which began in 1955, one year before South Sudan got its independence from the British in 1956. Unfortunately, the foundation of South Sudan was built on chaos and armed conflicts, which are still ongoing.
Some say South Sudan descended and degenerated into war two years after independence in 2013. This argument is untrue. In fact, South Sudan never experienced peace and calm, for it had been in conflict throughout its fifteen years of independence. The guns never went silent within our borders. The bombs never stopped falling on innocent children and women. It is common knowledge that the country had been in conflict throughout its interim and independence periods. In other words, South Sudan is synonymous with conflict. The conflict has been part and parcel of our existence as South Sudanese.
At times, pundits argued that conflict is a normal feature of human life which needs to be managed carefully and constructively. The conflict becomes an unhealthy part of human existence when it is accompanied by violent conflict, as happens in South Sudan.
In his book, Working for Peace, Machira Apollos avers that “wars have existed since time immemorial, at times with immeasurable suffering among people and severe damage to property” (Apollos, 2008).
South Sudan and Uganda conflicts
In comparison, the post-independence conflict in South Sudan started like the first Ugandan war because their moves and motives are the same. In Uganda, the causes of political mistrust and financial mismanagement began with sectarian politics based on tribes and regions. By then, the Bantu people of the southwest and the Sudanic Nilotic people of the north started becoming antagonistic towards each other, leading to the conflict in the country. At the beginning, the first Prime Minister of Uganda, Dr. Milton Obote, started the civil war by attacking his political rival, the president, Buganda King Sir Edward Mutesa, and his community altogether. In 1966, a political crisis erupted in the country, precipitated by Milton Obote’s quest for absolute power, which led to a clash with the president, Sir Edward Mutesa.
“President Obote sent his army, under the command of Idi Amin, to storm the palace of the king of Buganda; the president fled into exile to London, where he died in 1969. From then on, violence, torture, and genocide became the main characteristic of Ugandan society.” (Tibamanya, 2011).
Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2005
Chronologically, in January 2005, the first SPLM leader, Dr. John Garang de Mabior, and Former Sudanese President Omar Hassan El Bashir signed and ratified the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Nairobi. Temporarily, this accord attempted not only to minimize the war for a while, but it also offered an opportunity for a referendum, which resulted in the attainment of our ultimate political goal as a country.
The strategic objective of the first South Sudanese war was to achieve our inherent and inalienable right of self-determination. In this bloody war, which came to an end after the signing of the CPA, about two million people were killed in the period between 1983 and 2005.
These two peacemakers, Garang and Bashir, were supposed to be given the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the war, in the same way Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and South Africa’s Nelson Mandela were given the prize.
The death of Dr. John Garang
Twenty-one days after the signing of the CPA, Garang died in a plane crash on his way from Uganda, where he held a meeting with the incumbent Ugandan President Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. Automatically, his death created not just confusion but conflict as well. His untimely demise and permanent departure left a leadership vacuum that is not yet filled.
Moreover, the demise of Garang left many questions unanswered. Partly, the burden lies with the Government of South Sudan, which has a mandate to set up an independent investigation to ascertain the answers to the lingering questions.
Question to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni
Just like in criminal litigation, where they say he who alleges must prove, any person who asks a question must know the answer. I have always wanted to ask Museveni about the life and demise of Garang. Whenever John Garang made a speech, especially during the signing of the CPA at Nyayo Stadium, he would quote Museveni’s works and words more than anyone. However, since Garang died, Museveni has never mentioned or reminded South Sudanese of any ideal or idea that Garang believed in. Why is that? In my view, Museveni’s conspicuous silence on the man he knew since his days in the university points to something worrisome. It raises doubts about whether they were true friends and political soulmates.
Maybe they were mere political allies who were fighting the common foes at the time. Museveni is shy of making public praise for Garang because he might be accused by those in the know of shedding crocodile tears. In his book, Sowing the Mustard Seed, Museveni wrote that he helped Garang and SPLM fight and defeat Bashir’s regime while at the same time accusing and attacking Dr. Riek Machar of launching the rebellion against Garang and SPLM in 1991. No wonder Museveni is still fighting alongside Kiir in the ongoing conflict. Under the subtitle ‘Weakening and defeating SPLM,’ Museveni stated that “Garang asked us and we permitted him to cross his tanks and heavy weapons through Laropi and Moyo to attack and capture Kajo-Keji.”
If anything, Museveni assisted Garang and SPLM to fight as his proxies against Khartoum-based regimes, which he adversely accused of supporting Ugandan rebel groups headed by Eric Odwar, Lakwena, and Kony, et cetera. Further, he claimed that Khartoum-based regimes used to attack them through these former rebels without an iota of provocation and reason whatsoever. (Museveni. (2016).
SPLM succession
Upon Garang’s departure, the SPLM deputy party leader, General Salva Kiir, ascended to the throne to serve as Vice President of Sudan as well as President of the semi-autonomous region of Southern Sudan, now the Republic of South Sudan. Legally, Dr. Riek Machar came third in the SPLM hierarchy.
When Kiir replaced Garang, Machar replaced Kiir as Vice President in Southern Sudan. Luckily, the duo did guide and steer the country toward independence in line with the spirit of the CPA.
Even though they ushered in statehood with massive support from South Sudanese and the international community, Kiir and Machar failed to build the state and democratic institutions of good governance. The euphoric and joyous political atmosphere that came with independence was replaced with politics of betrayal. The citizens felt they were being compromised and shortchanged, for the wealth of the nation went into individual pockets.
Their lives and livelihoods changed from bad to worse due to recurrent wars and runaway corruption. This common feeling of unhappiness among the citizens necessitated the call for political and social change ahead of the first general election slated for 2015.
On 8 August, 2026, US diplomat Jennifer Locetta, while addressing the United Nations Security Council high-level meeting on South Sudan’s war situation, made the bold statement. She said, “This is not the South Sudan that the world envisioned. The leaders who once claimed to end their people’s brutal marginalization now imposed their own. They used violence as a tool for political competition.”
In the list of conflicts that occurred during the transition period, if we put aside the border war of Heglig and consider it as an isolated incident between South Sudan and Sudan, you will find numerous 2010 post-election violence pitting the government and rebel groups led by Gen. Gatluak Gai Majak, Gen. George Athor, Gen. David Yau Yau, Gen. Johnson Olony Thubo and Gen. Mapiny Monytuil, to mention but a few.
The December 2013 crisis
In December 2013, the ruling SPLM Party experienced a leadership wrangle pitting President Salva Kiir against his former Vice President Dr. Riek Machar. Kiir accused Machar of orchestrating a coup against him. Machar, however, denied the allegation. Instead, he accused the president of becoming a dictator. This political bickering and bitter arguments soon plunged the country into an abyss. On 15 December 2013, fighting unfolded in the capital, Juba. Just like Obote’s case explained herein, Kiir attacked Machar’s residence to arrest or eliminate him but failed.
In the wake of the 15 December incident, the situation went out of hand because the government-affiliated militia of Kiir started targeting innocent members of the Nuer community, from which Machar hails. This cowardly and costly act of involving an armed community against an innocent community complicated matters because the fighting spread uncontrollably.
In his book, Trails of Betrayals in South Sudan’s Power Struggle, Gen. Stephen Buay wrote: “The notorious recruited Dinka paramilitary known as Mathiang Anyor and other non-civilized armed Dinka civilians in Juba took the law into their own hands, hunted down ethnic Nuer and targeted them in the capital Juba.” (Buay, 2022).
Root causes of the conflict
The root causes of the past and present war include, but are not limited to, ethnic nationalism, tribalism, regionalism, corruption, human rights abuse, dictatorship, and lack of visionary leadership, to mention but a few. The cases of tribalism and corruption are known to all and sundry. In fact, these problems define the government of South Sudan right from its inception in 2005.
Frequently, appointments of ministers and civil servants are based on patronage, tribal and regional affiliations. There are abundant cases and international reports to that effect. Consistently, South Sudan has been named the most corrupt country in the world in Transparency International reports. Nonetheless, there are a few developments and successes here and there, but I am shy to mention them here and now because they are just a drop in the ocean.
Further, the causes of civil wars are attributed to the egalitarian and egocentric nature and cultural behaviors of our people, especially the Nuer and other Nilotic people of South Sudan. This political trait makes it almost impossible for our people to be governed because they dislike dictatorship. This explains why there are many rebel groups in South Sudan.
In the book, Bound by Conflict: Dilemmas of the Two Sudans, renowned Lawyer Francis Mading Deng avers that even though egalitarianism has its merits, considering that it promotes equality and democracy, it is, however, bad because it turns the people against their own government. (Deng, 2015).
Lack of social contract
I think these consistent clashes between the people and the government are due to a lack of a social contract that can encourage and entice the people to surrender some of their rights in exchange for services and security. Pharoah Ochichi, in his book, The Laws Everyone Should Know, says, “Law came into being when the people in a nation-state entered into an agreement known as a social contract. As a precondition for the covenant, they accepted that all of them enjoy certain rights. Then they decided to give up some of their rights for the nation-state to find it easy to protect them.” (Ochichi.2023).
South Sudan does not have a permanent constitution. The current transitional constitution is a ceremonial law which was crafted ahead of South Sudan’s independence pursuant to the legal principle that says a constitution is antecedent to the state.
The betrayal of the officers and men of the South Sudanese army is another cause of conflict in our country. For example, the brutal purge of Gen. Stephen Buay and Gen. Paul Malong is a case in point.
Betrayal
Senior men and women in uniform were removed from service on allegations that they were not confirmed. Many Nuer soldiers became victims of this illegal plan. They even composed songs in which they reminded the government that the SPLM was formed in their home areas in Greater Upper Nile, where soldiers fed and feasted on their food. These are some of the political and military blunders that breed curses and conflicts in South Sudan. The misconstruing of Machar’s quest for the presidency as a Nuer problem bred widespread rebellion in the country.
In his book, Fractious Rebellion, Inside the SPLM-IO, John Young opined that “The immediate cause of the civil war was the killing of Nuer in the SPLA and among the civilian population of Juba in mid-December 2013 by a Dinka component of the Presidential Guard.”
In the aftermath of the killings of Nuer civilians and Nuer soldiers by elements of the SPLA in December, 2013, an all-out war sparked and spread across the country, pitting loyal forces of President Salva Kiir against Dr. Riek Machar. (Young, 2015).
Following the military action against Machar, he trekked to Jonglei State, where he declared armed rebellion to oust Kiir. Subsequently, late General Gatdet Yakah, the SPLA commander in Jonglei, who defected to Machar, attempted to march to Juba, but was stopped by a combined force of the South Sudan army and Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF).
SPLM-IO
When the plan to oust the Kiir regime became unsuccessful, Machar retreated to Nasir Town, where he established an outfit called SPLM-IO, which later became a political vehicle during the peace negotiations in 2015. Upon the signing of ARCISS, Machar returned to Juba to take up his position as First Vice President of the Republic.
In July 2016, two months after forming the Transitional Unity Government, renewed conflict erupted in the state house commonly known as J1. Subsequently, Machar was again chased to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) border, where he was airlifted to Khartoum by the United Nations. Upon his arrival in Khartoum, he traveled to South Africa for medical treatment. Surprisingly, he ended up being confined for two years, allegedly by the IGAD leaders.
When Abiy Ahmed first ascended to office as Ethiopian prime minister and IGAD Chairperson, he pressured and permitted Machar to be set free to join peace negotiations in Khartoum. On 12 August, 2018, Kiir and Machar signed an accord dubbed the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCISS).
However, the constituent SPLM parties of Gen. Pagan Amum and Gen. Thomas Cirilo refused to sign R-ARCISS, saying the root causes of the conflict had not been addressed in the agreement.
In a month, Machar returned to Juba to form what became known as the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU). Unfortunately, for six years, the implementation of this agreement was stuck in Chapter One.
Pope Francis and Dr. William Ruto
At one point, His Holiness Pope Francis informed and invited all South Sudanese political leaders to Vatican City, where he kissed their feet to encourage them to dialogue and implement peace. Before his demise, Pope Francis made a special trip to Juba to preach the same message of peace. Despite these rare interventions from the late Pope Francis, these leaders failed to reach a consensus.
In early 2024, Kenyan President Ruto attempted to initiate an inter-party dialogue to rescue the fading R-ARCISS after the Pope failed.
At first, Kiir and Machar agreed to partake in the Kenya-led dialogue dubbed the Tumaini Peace Initiative, where I participated as a delegate representing the South Sudan People’s Movement (SSPM) as its national chairperson for Legal and Constitutional affairs. In February 2025, two years after the peace negotiations in Nairobi, the joint mediation team of Kiir and Machar pulled out of Tumaini for reasons best known to them.
Withdrawal from Tumaini
On 30 July 2025, the head of the government delegation, Gen. Kuol Manyang Juuk, was interviewed by Eye Radio interview and he declared that the Tumaini Initiative was dead, reportedly because the opposition parties in Tumaini had no serious case. For the record, the government’s withdrawal from the Tumaini talks contributed to the ongoing war.
Usually, when the ruling SPLM says the opposition groups had no case, they mean they are incapable of fighting them militarily. Such a provocative statement often leaves the armed opposition with no other option but to showcase their military capabilities, as recently witnessed in Nasir, Akobo, Uror, Nyirol, Panyinjiar, Guit, Rubkona, et cetera.
Provocation and prosecution
The ongoing war was launched systematically. On 10 February 2025, Kiir fired the SPLM-IO-appointed governor of Western Equatoria State, Gen. Alfred Fatuyo. This incident was followed by the forceful redeployment of government forces to Nasir County against the consent of the opposition forces and the Nuer Community of Nasir County. The plot against SPLM-IO was finalized with the random detentions of its ministers and military leaders. (Buoth, 2025).
The armed clash resulted in the deaths of two hundred and fifty soldiers on the government’s side. Consequently, Machar and his seven other colleagues were charged in connection with the Nasir clash. In September 2025, the eight accused persons were arraigned in a special court, where they are still being tried in Juba. While the court process is taking place, serious fighting is still taking place in most parts of the country. The latest fighting took place in Akobo town of Walgak, where the government-appointed county commissioner James Kueth alias Kueth Nyalew was butchered by opposition forces. May his soul rest in eternal peace.
The late Kueth became the second high-ranking government official to be killed after the death of Gen. James Majur Dak. Just like General Majur was killed after the fall of Nasir, the late Kueth fell victim after the recapture of Akobo. It would be remembered that the manner in which Kueth was eliminated was repugnant to the ethics and laws of war. Since antiquity, war and conflicts have principles that govern and guide them.
However, in all these years of turmoil, we have witnessed the lack or misapplication of the principles and laws of war in South Sudan. These violation and misapplications of the principles and laws of war is another problem that needs to be tackled to end the crisis in South Sudan.
Lack of legitimacy
As I write this, the R-ARCISS is dysfunctional because the signatories are not cooperating as expected by the populace that yearns for peace. It must be made abundantly clear that the collapse of R-ARCISS makes the SPLM regime illegal despite their effective control of the state. Previously, their stay in office was validated by an agreement that no longer exists. Honestly, the raging war and conflicts are unnecessary and uncalled for because there was no justifiable reason to leave peace talks and go to war, which has so far destroyed lives and property.
Finally, there is not an iota of doubt that our country is experiencing one of its darkest and bloodiest wars, which needs to be stopped through inter-party dialogue before elections are conducted.
Way forward
In a nutshell, the quickest way forward is to release political prisoners, with unconditional acceptance of an inclusive dialogue in which we can reach a consensus to draft and promulgate a permanent constitution that will propel the country to the first election.
The writer is a lawyer and criminologist by profession. He was a former delegate to the high-level mediation for South Sudan, where he represented SSPM as its national chairperson for the legal and constitutional affairs committee. 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.
References
Apollos, M. (2008). Working for Peace: New Thinking for Peace Building.
Buay, S. (2022). Trails of Betrayals in South Sudan’s Power Struggle.
Buoth, D. B. R. (2025). Peace Under Attack: A Case of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan.
Deng, F. M. (2015). Bounded by Conflict: Dilemmas of the Two Sudans.
Museveni, Y. K. (2016). Sowing the Mustard Seed: The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in Uganda.
Mutunga, W. (1999). Constitution-Making from the Middle.
Ochichi, P. (2023). The Laws Everyone Should Know.
Tibamanya, M. N. (2011). Criminology in Africa.
Young, J. (2015). Fractious Rebellion: Inside the SPLM-IO.
and then