 |
Justice Minister Hon. Joseph Geng Akech
|
October 8, 2025 | Juba, South Sudan
South Sudan’s fragile peace is once again under strain as the government’s insistence on proceeding with the trial of Dr. Riek Machar the suspended First Vice President and key opposition leader continues to ignite political and diplomatic controversy.
The latest warning from Justice Minister Joseph Geng Akech, cautioning against public commentary on the trial, underscores a widening rift between the rule of law narrative advanced by the government and the political dialogue demanded by peace partners.
Balancing Justice and Peace
The Justice Minister’s stern statement that “matters in court are not discussed outside” is grounded in legal procedure.
Yet, in the current political climate, it has broader implications signaling the administration’s determination to keep the Machar trial insulated from political influence, even as its consequences spill into the peace process.
To the government loyalists, the trial represents a long-awaited test of accountability.
But to opposition figures and international observers, it looks increasingly like a politically motivated effort to weaken the peace agreement.
Peace Partners Cry Foul
The SPLM-IO, led by Machar, has decried the trial as an act of betrayal against the 2018 peace deal that brought him back to government.
Party representatives argue that legal proceedings against the movement’s leadership risk collapsing the fragile power-sharing arrangement.
Peace guarantors, including members of the Former Detainees (FDs) and civil society representatives on the peace monitoring body (RJMEC), have echoed similar concerns.
They argue that if the trial continues without political consultation, it could derail preparations for elections scheduled for December 2026 the final milestone of South Sudan’s extended transition.
As Luka Piong of the FDs put it, “This trial should be halted in favor of dialogue and establishment of a hybrid court.”
The Hybrid Court Dilemma
The call for a hybrid court a key but unimplemented part of the 2018 peace agreement has resurfaced as a central demand from Machar’s allies.
The hybrid court, envisioned as a joint mechanism between South Sudan and the African Union, is meant to address crimes committed during the civil war through impartial, international oversight.
Critics say that by pursuing domestic prosecution of Machar and his colleagues, Juba is bypassing that framework.
If the government truly believes in accountability, they argue, it should operationalize the hybrid court — not use special courts for politically sensitive cases.
Political Consequences of a Legal Battle
The trial’s impact on the peace process cannot be overstated. Machar remains a symbolic figure for millions of South Sudanese, especially in the Upper Nile region.
His detention and trial risk fueling resentment among his supporters some of whom still command armed forces under the SPLA-IO banner.
If the proceedings are perceived as unjust or politically biased, renewed violence in restive regions like Jonglei and Upper Nile could follow.
Moreover, the Justice Minister’s warning against public debate may unintentionally amplify suspicion, as transparency remains a crucial element for maintaining public trust.
What Lies Ahead
For President Salva Kiir’s administration, this trial represents both an opportunity and a risk.
An impartial legal process could project an image of a government committed to justice and sovereignty. But if perceived as a political purge, it could unravel years of peacebuilding efforts.
Meanwhile, the international community including IGAD, AU, and Western partners is watching closely.
Their patience is wearing thin after years of unfulfilled reforms, delayed elections, and ongoing security challenges.
Whether this trial serves justice or deepens division will largely depend on how the government balances the rule of law with political dialogue in the coming weeks.
Conclusion
The Machar trial has become more than a courtroom drama it’s a test of South Sudan’s political maturity, institutional independence, and commitment to peace.
Justice Minister Geng’s call for silence may be legally sound, but in a nation emerging from years of mistrust and conflict, silence can also breed suspicion.
To preserve the gains of the 2018 peace deal, South Sudan’s leaders must seek not only justice but reconciliation.
Comments
Post a Comment