In its latest report to the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan paints a picture of escalating abuses. “What we have seen since May last year is a steady escalation of the conflict by government forces, who are trying to regain control of the areas occupied by the Nuer ethnic group,” Commission chair Yasmin Sooka of South Africa tells Justice Info.
“What we have seen particularly since January is aerial bombardments across seven of ten states. Civilians are particularly being targeted, and that is coupled with the forced recruitment of boys and young men, including abductions of young men who are then being taken to the frontlines. We’ve also seen widespread sexual violence. We’ve had the targeting not only of civilians but also civilian infrastructure,” she adds.
According to evidence the Commission has gathered, she says some of these crimes could amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. But David Deng, a US-trained American-South Sudanese lawyer who has been conducting peace-related research in South Sudan for some 15 years, says that mass atrocity crimes have being going on in South Sudan for years, and it is hard to judge whether they are worse now than in the past. “But definitely what I can say is that we are heading into a much more volatile period,” he tells Justice Info.
Historic Dinka-Nuer rivalry
Ethnic groups in South Sudan pulled together to fight for independence from Sudan, which they finally gained in 2011, making South Sudan the world’s youngest country. But since then, starting with civil war in 2013, they have been fighting each other. Rivalry is particularly strong between the Dinka and Nuer ethnic groups. President Salva Kiir is Dinka, while his First Vice-President Riek Machar is Nuer, and he is now in jail, on trial for treason.
As well as fighting between government and Nuer forces, Sooka says there are also “ethnic militias all over the place”, and the government has formed alliances with some against the Nuer. Among the worst abuses, says Deng, “there’s one incident in which government forces lured people out of their homes with promises of food aid, and then proceeded to kill several dozen people, including women and children”.
Ugandan government forces have been supporting those of South Sudan, which at the very least is a violation of international sanctions on military aid to South Sudan, as pointed out by Amnesty International. Senior South Sudanese government and military figures, as well as allied militia leaders, are accused of inciting ethnic violence. The current violence is particularly bad in Jonglei state, where ethnic dimensions are compounded by desires to control oil and gas resources, Sooka says, but it has also spread to other parts of the country and could “engulf most of South Sudan”. She fears that with conflict also in Sudan to the north, South Sudan could be drawn into a wider regional conflict.
The hybrid war crimes court at an “impasse”
Successive peace agreements have run into trouble. Under regional pressure, a “Revitalised Peace Agreement” was signed in 2018, but Sooka says its key elements – a permanent Constitution, power-sharing, security sector reform and unified forces – have not been implemented. Starting in 2015, peace accords also provide for three forms of transitional justice, to be set up simultaneously: a hybrid court led by the African Union (AU) in partnership with South Sudan’s government, to try those most responsible for war crimes; a Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing (CTRH); and a Reparations Authority. But none have yet been set up.
Sooka says the government lacks political will. Its resistance seems to be strongest to the hybrid court, since it may fear people in its own ranks could be prosecuted. “When I met with the president last year, his cabinet ministers in the meeting said ‘the reason they want this hybrid court, Mr. President, is that you will be indicted and prosecuted’,” Sooka recalls. Back then, she pointed out to the president that with command responsibility, he had an important role to play in setting up such a court to try people who had stepped over the line, and that it was a government commitment.
But, she says, South Sudan’s government and the AU are currently “playing ping-pong” on the issue: “The AU says it is waiting for an invitation, and the government has said quite publicly that the AU has not delivered the required guidelines to the government of South Sudan. So what you have is a bit of an impasse.”
There is also the issue of funding. Deng says international partners are behind the hybrid court in principle, “but I don’t know how many would commit money”. “There was a point at which the US had put five million dollars towards it, but then the AU didn’t spend that money and it was either reallocated, taken back or disappeared for some reason from the hybrid court,” he adds. “There is also the fact that South Sudan has its allies in the AU, and once the head of state has taken a position, it’s very hard for the AU to do anything about it. [Ugandan President Yoweri]Museveni is now protecting the government, and it’s going to be very hard for the AU to act.”
Waiting for Truth Commissioners
Both Sooka and Deng say there has been a bit more progress on the CTRH and Reparations Authority, with legislation establishing them adopted at the end of 2024. But “even as we speak, there has been no announcement about the appointment of Commissioners [for the CTRH], neither has anything been said about when this body will be set up, and what kind of funding is going to be made available to these two bodies,” says Sooka. “There’s a lot of stalling on that front as well, and that’s a pity, because I think a properly-constituted Truth Commission could do an enormous amount of work which could be of benefit to the country.”
“There’s been a selection panel established, with civic actors – representatives of civil society, women’s groups, academia, survivors, faith-based institutions – but the political parties themselves don’t have any role, according to the legislation, in that selection process,” Deng says. “The CTRH is unique among institutions in South Sudan as it is not subject to the power-sharing agreement. So that selection body was constituted, and they did interviews in December and January, identified a shortlist of individuals and forwarded those names to the Ministry of Justice.”
According to the legislation, the CTRH is to have seven Commissioners: four from South Sudan, and three from other African states, put forward by the African Union. So South Sudan’s government has four names of South Sudanese, but has not yet published them, saying again that it is waiting for the AU. Although it has been “a long struggle”, Deng thinks there is a “decent chance” that the CTRH could be set up some time soon, although the issue of funding remains. He says the South Sudanese candidates for commissioners, whose names he has seen although they are not officially published, are “quite strong”.
Reparations: “the least well thought through”
Deng says the Compensation and Reparations Authority (CRA) is the “least well thought through”. “I think probably the drafters of that part of the peace agreement didn’t properly appreciate what reparations entail, and everyone has different understandings of what reparations are,” he continues. “So it hasn’t been conceptually developed very well.”
Asked about the government’s position on this, he says they have enacted the legislation, so seem ready to move ahead, at least more than on the hybrid court. “However, the way it’s designed, the board has representation from both warring parties and other opposition groups, so it’s not an apolitical body the way the CTRH is meant to be. And now, given the standoff between the government and opposition, any decision that requires joint approval is challenging, to say the least.”
Sooka says that while legislation on the reparations mechanism has been passed, “it’s the one issue that the government won’t really talk about”. “I remember that, even going back to the peace talks, the government had a lot of reservations around the Compensation and Reparations Authority,” she says. “We have been saying to the government that compensation particularly is very much part of the tradition and culture in South Sudan. And if you look at the way many disputes are settled, this is not something strange.”
More international pressure needed
“If this body were set up, together with the Commission, I think it could go a long way to looking at the questions of reintegration, of land, and return of people to their homes. But I would argue there is not much appetite on the part of the government to actually set that body up,” she continues.
Sooka thinks the international community needs to exert more pressure. “You can’t have just an expression of concern, which I think has been the practice,” she says. “You need to have really coordinated, consistent and sustained pressure to ensure implementation of the full peace agreement and accountability for the violations.”
“Ultimately the onus is on South Sudanese to make something happen, and unfortunately we have a culture of dependency, which has come with decades of international intervention,” says Deng. “We have to find a way of overcoming that. If transitional justice is going to deliver anything meaningful, South Sudanese have to take ownership of it.”
