Opinion| Is the process of the Kenya High-level Mediation for South Sudan credible?

In January 2024, Kenyan President William Ruto wrote a letter to individual leaders of the South Sudan Opposition Movements Alliance (SSOMA) inviting them to Nairobi for consultations on pre-negotiations.

In January 2024, Kenyan President William Ruto wrote a letter to individual leaders of the South Sudan Opposition Movements Alliance (SSOMA) inviting them to Nairobi for consultations on pre-negotiations.

In response to President Ruto’s invitation, five leaders of the SSOMA formed a collective and drafted a single letter to convey their reply. The leaders were at odds regarding the location and the mediation process. While National Salvation Front (NAS), South Sudan National Movement for Change (SSNMC), and National Democratic Movement-Patriotic Front (NDM-PF) advocated for pre-negotiation consultations in Rome, the Real Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (R-SPLM) and South Sudan United Front (SSUF) had no objections to holding the meeting in Kenya. The three groups formally communicated their position on the mediation and venue. President Ruto concurred with the proposal to hold pre-negotiation consultations in Rome.

On 13 April, a delegation led by (Josphat) Nanok, the State House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Amb. Muhammad Guyo, the deputy chief mediator, was dispatched by President Ruto to meet with SSOMA in Rome. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss various issues about the initiative. However, NAS, SSNMC, and NDM-PF expressed dissatisfaction with relocating the negotiations from Rome to Nairobi. They contended that while they had previously agreed that Kenyans could be part of the mediation if Juba deemed it necessary, the venue for the talks should continue to be in Rome.

Upon their return to Nairobi, the delegation conducted consultations. It issued an invitation letter requesting NAS, SSNMC, NDM-PF, R-SPLM, and SSUF for pre-talks scheduled in Nairobi on April 29th. This letter was transmitted on 25 April. However, the participation of three groups – NAS, SSNMC, and NDM-PF – in the pre-talks remains to be determined even after pre-talks in Nairobi. Therefore, this article intends to seek clarity on two issues.

The first issue is to attempt to explain the overarching purpose of the ongoing negotiations that are currently taking place in Nairobi. During his speech, Lieutenant General Lazaro Sumbeiywo (RTD), chief mediator for the High-level Mediation for South Sudan, emphasized that the current peace negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya do not aim to investigate the root causes of the conflict. Instead, the negotiations aim to complete the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) by bringing the holdout groups back into the peace process. He further stresses that it is important to note that the negotiation process seeks to resolve the conflict by fulfilling the provisions of the previous agreement, the R-ARCSS. Therefore, the primary objective is to resolve the conflict, and the negotiators are working towards this goal by effectively implementing the R-ARCSS.

From this, it is evident that several gaps have made it challenging to implement the peace agreement since the signing of the revitalized peace agreement in 2018. Some of these gaps are unwritten, unspoken, or overlooked. The challenges of insufficient implementation, political will, underutilization of capacity, incompetence, and corruption are interwoven and contribute to the problems we are dealing with. As the negotiators seek to identify and propose solutions, the parties to the talks must consider how to address these challenges and provide practical solutions. Some chapters in the ARCSS and R-ARCSS documents are well-written, including Chapter IV, i.e., Resource, Economic, and Financial Management Arrangements.

However, despite its quality, Chapter IV has yet to be implemented due to its overly ambitious goals. As a result, its implementation has been unnecessarily delayed beyond the expected timeframe. Therefore, these gaps must be identified and addressed to ensure the successful implementation of the R-ARCSS. This will require a comprehensive review of the agreement and the identification of the underlying causes of these gaps. Such an approach will enable the development of appropriate strategies to address the challenges that hinder the successful execution of the agreement, in addition to the current negotiations in Nairobi. As per the schedule, the upcoming talks will cover assorted topics including Justice, Economic and Social Issues, Politics and Governance Issues, and Security Sector Reforms. There have been demands for an inclusive governance structure that caters to everyone, but the idea of a round table has been rejected. It is still unclear how these negotiations will help create a social contract, address the ongoing economic crisis, fulfill the collective aspiration for a functioning state, establish a truly national army to replace private armies with distinct character and doctrine and ensure security.

The second issue of concern is the reliability and standards of the Kenyan negotiating teams. Can we trust them to conduct effective negotiations with integrity? Kenya played a crucial and distinguished role in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and the creation of South Sudan by her historical significance and proximity to the people of South Sudan. The efforts made by President Ruto, the Principal Mediator, in resolving the conflict in South Sudan deserve special mention. Furthermore, Nairobi provided strategic regional, political, and diplomatic support for the process through the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) and the East African Community (EAC). It is important to note that this support was instrumental in bringing about the successful conclusion of the peace agreement, and in ensuring that South Sudan remains a stable and prosperous nation.

The Nairobi Mediation Process features distinguished personalities such as Gen Lazaro Sumbeiywo, the Chief Mediator, Dr. Paolo Impagliazzo, Secretary General of the Community of Sant ‘Egidio, the Government of South Sudan Delegation, fellow members of SSOMA (R-SPLM and SSUF/A), Gen Charles Tai Gituai, RJMEC Chairman, Amb Ismail Weiss, IGAD Special Envoy, observers, representatives of partner friends of South Sudan, and the South Sudanese themselves, among others.

However, the following questions need answers regarding the Nairobi Peace process: Will it achieve genuine peace? How does its approach differ from the R-ARCSS negotiation that took place in Khartoum in 2018? Why are splinter rebel movements/parties being invited instead of the main groups? Is there any intention of vindication for some leading holdout groups? How will the Mediation team clear the suspicion of bias in Kenya’s mediation process? Will the mediators claim that the main groups participated? These are some of the main questions that require further clarity.

South Sudanese have experienced horrific acts, such as murder, enslavement, displacement, imprisonment, torture, rape, and other gender-based or sexual crimes in the presence of the current leaders. These atrocities happened in 2013, 2016, and recently in 2022, and their impact has been devastating. Over the past three decades, prolonged conflicts, insecurity in local villages and hamlets, the cattle crisis, and climate-related disasters have forced many people to abandon their homes. This crisis has negatively affected all sectors, including health, education, sports, agriculture, commerce, and essential services, making it increasingly challenging for people to settle and become independent.

There is a growing concern that the number of people in need is expected to increase in South Sudan as a direct effect of the 2013 and 2016 wars and, worse still, the recent conflict in Sudan. The lack of a functioning constitution that incorporates the people’s opinions, insecurity, and leadership issues has made South Sudan typically a tribal state. If the mediators fail to investigate these fundamental issues, then the significance of the talks in Nairobi is questionable. The credibility of this process will only be authentic if the talks address the issues that matter to the South Sudanese people, instead of being limited to political parties and their positions.

All parties involved in negotiations must continue with the talks, as it is another way to resolve conflicts. The R-SPLM and SSUF are the main parties involved in the pre-talks. It is hoped that, while setting pre-conditions for the negotiations, the parties have considered the concerns of other stakeholders, such as South Sudanese academics, civil society organizations, and other political platforms like the National Consensus Forum (NCF).

Dr. Ayine Nigo is an author and lecturer at the University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom. He was a Dean of the School of Business and Management at the University of Juba. During the 2010 Sudan General Elections, he was a gubernatorial candidate for Central Equatoria State.

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.