On 31 January, Lieutenant General (Rtd) Lazaro Kipkirui Sumbeiywo, Kenya’s chief negotiator for the Tumaini Peace Initiative for South Sudan, announced a new framework for dialogue aimed at achieving a “South Sudan Consensus for Peace and Democracy.” This announcement followed closely after a high-level meeting between the South Sudan government delegation led by President Salva Kiir’s Security Advisor Tut Gatluak Manime and Kenyan President William Ruto.
The timing and content of this announcement have raised serious concerns among South Sudanese citizens, civil society actors, and faith leaders. The proposed framework prioritizes a ceasefire and preparations for elections scheduled for December 2026, a position that closely mirrors that of the Government of South Sudan in Juba.
This alignment raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: why should a regional power like Kenya allow itself to be used to legitimize the political agenda of a failed state, rather than challenge it in the interest of lasting peace?
Kenya’s abrupt shift and the question of credibility
Less than two months prior, the South Sudan Council of Churches (SSCC) met with President Ruto and appealed for his involvement in facilitating peace in South Sudan. At that time, President Ruto agreed on a critical condition: that any new talks should not revolve around the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) or the Tumaini Initiative, both of which he publicly acknowledged had failed to deliver peace. That position represented a hopeful moment for many South Sudanese who believe that recycled frameworks cannot resolve entrenched crises. Yet, by 31 January 2025, Kenya’s stance appeared to have changed dramatically. What transpired between that meeting and the new announcement remains unclear.
What is evident, however, is a sudden policy reversal that undermines confidence in Kenya’s neutrality as a mediator. However, what is clear is that the faith leaders of SSCC probably approached President William Ruto through moral persuasion and prayer; on the other hand, the political elites, it seems, appealed through economic and strategic interests. This shift has reinforced perceptions that Kenya’s mediation role is now compromised, aligning more closely with incumbent power in Juba than with the aspirations of the South Sudanese people.
Elections are not a substitute for peace.
The insistence on elections as a central pillar of the new framework is deeply troubling. Elections do not create peace; peace creates the conditions for credible elections. Without addressing the root causes of conflict, elections risk becoming a mechanism for legitimizing instability, exclusion, and continued violence.
South Sudan’s crisis is not merely procedural; it is structural. Durable peace requires confronting:
- Chronic governance failures
- Politicized and fragmented security sector
- Absence of accountability for mass atrocities
- Rampant financial mismanagement and corruption
- Collapse of service delivery
- Weak or non-existent rule of law
- Systemic inequality and exclusion
- Suppression of democratic space
To suggest that elections alone can resolve these issues is not only unrealistic—it is dangerous.
The need for a credible and neutral mediator
Peace in South Sudan cannot be brokered by a mediator perceived to have political, economic, or security interests in the outcome. Credibility is the currency of mediation, and once lost, the process itself is weakened.
The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union (AU) must take this moment seriously. To preserve institutional legitimacy, they must reassess Kenya’s role and ensure that mediation efforts are impartial, transparent, and accountable. The international community must be fully informed before the situation deteriorates further.
Equally important, South Sudanese civil society, independent voices, and grassroots movements must remain vigilant—particularly regarding political actors, including elements of the opposition, who may be easily co-opted and persuaded to betray the collective interest of the people.
Conditions for a genuine sustainable path to peace in South Sudan
Peace in South Sudan remains possible, but only if it is pursued honestly and courageously. At a minimum, the following conditions must be met:
Leadership change: Sustainable peace is unlikely while President Salva Kiir remains in power, given his central role in perpetuating the current failed ethnocentric system.
Addressing the root causes of the conflict: Peace must tackle governance failures, security reform, accountability, and economic justice.
Non-interference by the region: Neighboring states, particularly Kenya and Uganda, must refrain from manipulating South Sudan’s internal political processes.
Inclusive round-table conference: All key stakeholders—political parties, armed groups, civil society, faith leaders, women, youth, and diaspora—must participate meaningfully.
Neutral mediation and mediator: Talks must be facilitated by a mediator with no vested interests in South Sudan’s political economy.
Effective peace guarantors: Regional and international actors must commit to enforcement, not mere observation and commentary.
Robust implementation mechanisms: Agreements must include clear timelines, monitoring frameworks, and punitive measures against spoilers and intransigent actors.
Conclusion
South Sudan does not suffer from a lack of peace agreements; it suffers from misdiagnosed problems and compromised solutions. The pursuit of peace cannot be reduced to electoral timelines that serve incumbent interests. Nor can mediation succeed when it is shaped by regional politics rather than principled leadership. The people of South Sudan deserve more than recycled frameworks and performative diplomacy. They deserve justice, dignity, accountability, and a future free from manipulation—both domestic and external. Peace delayed is peace denied. Peace distorted is peace destroyed. The international community must act wisely before the cost of inaction becomes irreparable.
The writer works with the South Sudan Voice-Less Foundation in Juba, South Sudan.
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.