The Chairman of the South Sudan United Front-Progressive (SSUF-P), Dr Emmanuel Sunday de John, recently ublished an opinion article titled; Nigeria is wrong on South Sudan, and the continent should say so.
The article criticizes Nigeria’s call for the unconditional release of South Sudan’s detained First Vice-President Riek Machar, arguing that such a demand rewards rebellion and undermines state sovereignty. While the piece attempts to frame itself as a principled defense of Africa’s stability, it raises deeper questions about moral consistency, memory, and the ethical obligations of professionals who engage in public discourses.
The central claim advanced by Dr de John that rebellion must never be rewarded, reveals a striking historical irony. South Sudan itself emerged from a prolonged armed struggle, led by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), under John Garang. The independence in 2011 was not a diplomatic gift; it was the culmination of decades of resistance against systemic marginalization.
To argue today that any armed movement must be delegitimized, ignores the historical foundations upon which the South Sudanese state stands. It also overlooks the reality that many contemporary African governments, owe their legitimacy to liberation movements that were once labelled insurgent or rebellious.
This is not to romanticize armed struggle, but to highlight that political legitimacy is historically contingent. Rebellion, in itself, is neither inherently virtuous nor criminal. It must be assessed in the context of justice, representation, and the political environment in which it arises.
Dr de John also appears to misunderstand the nature of international diplomacy. The recognition of political actors, whether governments or armed movements, is governed not by rigid legal standards, but by political discretion. States operate under doctrines such as international comity and sovereign freedom in foreign policy.
For example, Nigeria’s call for dialogue and release does not constitute recognition of rebellion. Rather, it reflects the pragmatic approach commonly adopted in conflict resolution across the continent. From West Africa to the Horn, mediation often requires engaging armed actors in order to prevent escalation and protect civilians.
This approach is not unique to Nigeria or to the current government under Bola Tinubu. It has been applied in conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and elsewhere. Diplomacy seeks to stop violence before accountability mechanisms can function effectively. In this regard, Nigeria’s position reflects a peace-first strategy, not an endorsement of armed confrontation.
Perhaps, the most troubling dimension of Dr de John’s intervention is the inconsistency between his current argument and his previous public positions. In earlier analyses, he characterized the legal proceedings against Dr Machar as politically motivated and highlighted serious procedural flaws in the charges filed. He warned that inaccuracies in the indictment undermined judicial credibility and risked national embarrassment.
Today, however, he appears to frame the same process as a legitimate criminal proceeding that must run its course without external interference. Such a shift invites legitimate scrutiny. Intellectual integrity demands that public commentators maintain coherence, or explain the basis for changing their views. Without this, analysis risks becoming political opportunism rather than principled reasoning.
Consistency is not stubbornness; it is accountability. When positions change, transparency is necessary to maintain public trust.
De John occupies a unique space as a medical doctor, journalist, and political actor. Each of these professions is grounded in ethical principles that converge around integrity, truthfulness, and public trust. Physicians are bound by non-maleficence, the duty to do no harm. Journalists are bound by accuracy and independence. Politicians, ideally, are bound by accountability and service to the public.
The intersection of these roles places an even greater burden on ethical consistency. When a public figure moves between professions while advancing shifting political narratives, the credibility of all three domains may be compromised. The public begins to question whether the guiding motivation is truth or expediency.
This concern is not merely personal. In fragile states such as South Sudan, public trust in institutions is already low. When prominent figures appear inconsistent, it deepens cynicism and weakens confidence in governance, justice, and national dialogue.
The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition (SPLM-IO) cannot be dismissed as a terrorist organization. It is a political movement that signed the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement (R-ARCSS), a document recognized internationally. Its participation in government institutions was intended to stabilize the country and prevent a return to war.
Whether one agrees with its methods or not, SPLM-IO remains a political actor whose grievances must be addressed through dialogue. Labeling it purely in criminal terms risks collapsing the fragile peace framework and returning the country to full-scale conflict.
History shows that sustainable peace rarely emerges from exclusion. It emerges from negotiated settlements that integrate political, legal, and security concerns.
Nigeria remains one of Africa’s most influential diplomatic actors. Its engagement in South Sudan should be welcomed rather than dismissed. Constructive diplomacy, when balanced, can help stabilize fragile states and prevent regional spillovers.
African solidarity must not be reduced to defending governments or opposition movements uncritically. Instead, it should promote accountability on all sides, ceasefires, and credible political processes. A balanced approach would encourage both the government in Juba and the opposition to recommit to dialogue and electoral preparations.
The debate sparked by Dr de John’s article is valuable because it exposes deeper tensions within South Sudanese political discourse. However, it also demonstrates the danger of selective reasoning and moral inconsistency.
South Sudan does not need polarizing rhetoric that delegitimizes dialogue or oversimplifies complex conflicts. It needs principled leadership grounded in historical awareness, ethical integrity, and strategic realism.
The country’s future depends, not on who wins the argument today, but on whether its leaders, government, opposition, and commentators alike, can rise above opportunism and work toward a sustainable political settlement.
True patriotism is not measured by loyalty to power or rebellion. It is measured by commitment to justice, peace, and the dignity of the South Sudanese people.
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.