More than a decade after the December 2013 violence, South Sudan remains trapped in political paralysis, not merely over delayed reforms, but over irreconcilable interpretations of the conflict itself. The 2025 Nasir confrontation and the subsequent detention and trial of the First Vice-President, Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhorgun, have exposed the depth of these competing narratives.
The crisis in implementing the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) is therefore not procedural. It is interpretive. Political actors do not share a common account of what happened, what it means, or what justice requires. Without narrative convergence, implementation cannot mature into a durable peace.
Three contending narratives and Nasir
The government’s interpretation: Security and regime preservation
For the SPLM-In Government (SPLM-IG) and the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces (SSPDF), the 2025 events in Nasir constituted a direct challenge to state authority. Clashes involving SSPDF and allied militias on one side, and elements associated with SPLA-IO/White Army on the other, are interpreted as a violation of the ceasefire and an attempt to eliminate government forces in the area.
Within this framework, the detention of Dr. Riek Machar and senior SPLM-IO leaders is presented as a necessary act of state protection. The ongoing trial, now in its 51st sitting as of 13 February 2026, is framed not as political retaliation but as a lawful response to actions deemed destabilizing.
This position prioritizes regime continuity, centralized security control, and managed stability. Reform is subordinated to survival. In this narrative, state authority must first be secured before political concessions can responsibly follow.
The opposition’s interpretation: Political targeting and violation of peace
The SPLM/SPLA-IO rejects this account entirely. From its perspective, the Nasir confrontation represents a deliberate offensive by government forces and allied militias aimed at weakening opposition-controlled areas and dismantling the SPLA-IO military presence.
According to this narrative, what occurred in Nasir was itself a violation of the ceasefire. The subsequent arrest of Machar and other IO leaders is therefore viewed as illegal and politically motivated. The trial is understood not as judicial accountability, but as political persecution designed to neutralize opposition leadership and consolidate power.
In this framework, the government’s actions are not stabilizing measures but calculated strategies to alter the balance of power ahead of any meaningful political transition or general elections. The detention of the First Vice-President fundamentally undermines the spirit and letter of the R-ARCSS.
The international interpretation: Elite contestation and managed stability
Many international actors interpret the Nasir episode through the lens of elite rivalry. Rather than endorsing either side’s account fully, this perspective treats the crisis as another manifestation of unresolved power competition within the political class/ “gun class.”
While formally calling for ceasefire compliance and inclusive implementation of the R-ARCSS, segments of the international community appear to tolerate government dominance as the prevailing stabilizing force. The emphasis, to a large extent, remains on humanitarian access, containment of violence, and incremental reforms rather than structural political transformation.
This amounts to a preference for managed instability or managed stability over systemic reconfiguration. In effect, control is prioritized over contestation.
Why these narratives matter for implementation
These narratives are not rhetorical exercises. They determine political behavior.
If the government believes it confronted an armed attempt to dismantle state authority, then security consolidation becomes rational and necessary.
If the opposition believes it is being systematically targeted, cooperation becomes politically irrational and strategically dangerous.
If external actors prioritize containment over structural reform, pressure for transformative implementation diminishes.
In such an environment, implementation of the R-ARCSS becomes transactional rather than principled. Security arrangements, cantonment processes, and electoral preparations are interpreted not as confidence-building measures but as instruments of leverage.
Trust erodes further. Each side reads the other’s moves through suspicion. Political engagement narrows.
The risk of procedural peace without shared meaning
The central risk is clear: The R-ARCSS may survive as a document while failing as a foundation for peace.
Peace agreements cannot function where political actors inhabit incompatible realities. When legal processes are interpreted as persecution, and security operations are interpreted as aggression, procedural compliance cannot generate legitimacy.
The detention and trial of Dr. Riek Machar, alongside military offensives against SPLM/SPLA-IO-controlled areas, cantonment sites, and training centers, have intensified this divide. The resulting political climate makes it difficult to anticipate decisive outcomes from regional or continental summits, including the ongoing African Union engagements aimed at resolving South Sudan’s recurring crisis, among others.
Without narrative convergence, diplomatic initiatives risk addressing symptoms rather than the underlying interpretive fracture.
Toward narrative inclusion and political reconciliation
South Sudan’s leaders must confront a fundamental truth: peace cannot be built on parallel truths. Political negotiation must extend beyond positions and portfolios to the realm of interpretation.
Narrative reconciliation does not require uniform historical agreement. It requires a minimum consensus about the legitimacy of political competition and the limits of state power. Without that baseline, implementation will remain selective, fragile, and contested.
The Nasir confrontation and the ongoing trial of the First Vice-President are not isolated events. They are defining tests of whether South Sudan’s peace framework can withstand competing interpretations of sovereignty, legality, and political authority.
If these interpretive divides remain unresolved, the R-ARCSS will continue to operate as an instrument of elite management rather than a pathway to national reconstruction.
South Sudan does not suffer from a shortage of agreements. It suffers from a deficit of shared meaning.
Until that deficit is addressed, implementation will remain precarious and peace provisional, introspective to Abel Alier’s “Sudan peace critique, Too Many Agreements Dishonored…”
The writer, Gatkuoth Lok Gatwich, is a PhD candidate in Social Transformation (Governance) at Tangaza University, Nairobi, Kenya. He can be reached via email: dietlok7@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.