The recent public statement by veteran liberation figure and Senior Presidential Advisor Kuol Manyang Juuk regarding the historical and contemporary role of First Vice-President Dr Riek Machar, has generated widespread debate among observers of the country’s liberation history. While constructive reflection is essential for national reconciliation, any narrative that selectively omits key events risks distorting the collective memory of the struggle. A balanced and factual assessment demonstrates that the liberation of South Sudan was a complex, collective process in which multiple actors, including Dr Machar, played decisive roles.
The characterization of the 1997 Khartoum Peace Agreement as a “surrender” oversimplifies a complicated phase in the struggle. The agreement, signed between the Sudanese government and several southern factions, was the first formal document in which Khartoum legally acknowledged the right to self-determination for the people of Southern Sudan. Although the main Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) did not sign the accord and it ultimately failed in implementation, its legal and political significance cannot be ignored.
Rather than representing capitulation, the agreement introduced into formal negotiation the principle that the future of southern Sudan must be decided by its people. This precedent later shaped international mediation, particularly those under the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which culminated in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
Therefore, historical evaluation must recognize that even unsuccessful negotiations can contribute to long-term political breakthroughs. The Khartoum framework laid an early foundation for the eventual referendum that led to independence in 2011.
Equally significant, and notably absent in some contemporary critiques, is the historic reunification between Dr Machar and Dr John Garang. The 2002 London, UK Joint Declaration of Unity marked a turning point after more than a decade of conflict. Following earlier divisions, Machar dissolved the Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SPDF) and reintegrated his forces into the SPLA, restoring a unified liberation movement.
This moment represented a rare example of political maturity, forgiveness, and strategic realism. Dr Garang reportedly acknowledged the importance of Machar’s earlier advocacy for self-determination. The reunification strengthened the legitimacy and negotiating power of the SPLM/A, enabling it to speak with a single voice on the international arena. Without this unity, the CPA negotiations would have been significantly weakened, and the international community might not have granted the same level of political and diplomatic support.
The central issue in the South Sudanese liberation war was the right to self-determination. International law recognizes this principle as a cornerstone of political legitimacy, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and international human rights covenants.
The demand for self-determination did not emerge suddenly in 2005. It evolved over decades of struggle. The 1991 Nasir Declaration, led by Dr Machar and Dr Lam Akol, marked a decisive shift from the vision of a reformed united Sudan, toward the demand for independence. Though controversial, this moment placed the question of sovereignty firmly at the centre of national discourse.
Dr Machar was the central figure in the subsequent peace initiatives, including the Frankfurt, Abuja, Washington, and IGAD processes between 1991 and 1993. These gradually incorporated the principle of the right to self determination in South Sudanese between 1983 and 2005 cannot be ignored. The Machakos Protocol in 2002, on self-determination, finally became the internationally accepted framework for resolving the conflict. The CPA later institutionalized this right through constitutional and international guarantees, culminating in the 2011 referendum.
Thus, the independence was not the achievement of a single individual or faction, but the result of cumulative political, diplomatic, and military efforts over decades.
The claim that Dr Machar returned to SPLA only after the CPA contradicts documented historical timelines. His return to the movement in 2000 and the 2002 reunification were instrumental in strengthening the SPLM/A. CPA was therefore a product of unity.
Moreover, the 2011 referendum, in which the majority voted for independence, demonstrated that the principle of self-determination had gained national consensus. It validated the long-standing demand by many leaders, including those who initially disagreed on strategy.
The liberation struggle of South Sudan should not be reduced to factional narratives, or used to deepen ethnic or political divisions. Attempts to erase or diminish the contributions of any leader undermine national unity and reconciliation. Records clearly show that internal conflicts weakened the movement, while unity enabled success.
The lessons of 2002 reconciliation between Dr Machar and Dr Garang remain relevant today. South Sudan’s stability depends on dialogue, mutual respect, and recognition of shared sacrifices. Historical revisionism risks perpetuating mistrust and prolonging political crises.
The recent characterization of Dr Machar’s house arrest as a purely “criminal matter” rather than a political issue, also raises serious concerns regarding the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement. Sustainable peace requires adherence to agreed frameworks, respect for political rights, and inclusive governance.
International partners, regional organizations, and the African Union have consistently emphasized the need for dialogue and respect for political processes. Framing political disputes as criminal matters risks undermining confidence in the peace agreement.
The liberation of South Sudan was a collective journey, shaped by both unity and division. Dr Machar’s role, particularly in advocating self-determination, participating in early negotiations, and reuniting the movement, forms an undeniable part of this history. Recognizing these contributions does not diminish the sacrifices of other leaders; rather, it strengthens national identity and promotes reconciliation.
History cannot be erased by political rhetoric. It must instead serve as a foundation for healing, unity, and a shared vision for the future. Only through honest reflection and mutual respect can South Sudan overcome its current challenges and build a stable, democratic, and inclusive state.
The writer, Juol Nhomngek Daniel, is a lawyer, politician, lecturer, and member of SPLM-IO. He can be reached via email: nhomngekjuol@gmail.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.