AU’s Call for Dr. Riek Machar’s Release Without Accountability Risks Undermining Justice and Stability in South Sudan
By Abraham Madit Majak
The African Union Peace and Security Council’s recent call for the release of suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar and other political detainees has once again placed South Sudan’s fragile peace process under international scrutiny. The AU warns that continued detention could further destabilize the Revitalized Peace Agreement and deepen political tensions in the country.
But while concerns about peace and political stability are legitimate, demanding the release of Dr. Riek Machar without equal emphasis on accountability raises difficult and uncomfortable questions. Peace without justice has repeatedly failed South Sudan. Ignoring accountability in the name of political compromise risks recycling the same cycle of conflict that has devastated the country for more than a decade.
The AU’s position reflects the long-standing fear among regional and international actors that political confrontation between President Salva Kiir and Dr. Riek Machar could trigger renewed violence. South Sudan’s history justifies that concern. The collapse of trust between the two leaders in 2013 and again in 2016 plunged the country into civil war, displaced millions, and shattered already weak state institutions.
However, South Sudanese citizens are increasingly asking a critical question: should powerful political figures be shielded from scrutiny simply because they are central to a peace agreement?
If allegations linked to instability, violence, or political mobilization exist against any official — whether government or opposition — they should be addressed transparently through lawful institutions. The issue is not merely whether Dr. Machar should be released, but whether South Sudan is capable of balancing peace negotiations with credible legal and political accountability.
For years, South Sudan’s political system has operated under a dangerous pattern: leaders accused of fueling tensions are often reintegrated into government through negotiated settlements without meaningful accountability mechanisms. While such arrangements may temporarily stop fighting, they rarely resolve the underlying causes of conflict. Instead, they reinforce a culture where political elites remain above the law while ordinary citizens bear the consequences of instability.
The AU’s statement risks reinforcing that perception if accountability is treated as secondary to elite political accommodation.
At the same time, the government of South Sudan also carries a heavy responsibility. Detaining major political figures without transparent legal procedures, public evidence, or judicial oversight creates uncertainty and fuels domestic and international suspicion. In politically sensitive cases, secrecy often becomes a catalyst for rumors, ethnic polarization, and diplomatic pressure.
If authorities believe there are legitimate legal grounds for detention, those grounds should be presented clearly and lawfully. A credible judicial process would strengthen state legitimacy far more than indefinite political detention. Without transparency, the government risks appearing politically motivated, regardless of its actual intentions.
The broader danger is that South Sudan’s peace process remains excessively dependent on personalities rather than institutions. Every political disagreement between senior leaders immediately becomes a national security crisis because institutions capable of managing disputes independently remain weak. This is precisely why the country continues to move from one fragile settlement to another without achieving durable stability.
The African Union is correct to warn about the risks facing the peace agreement. But preserving peace cannot mean abandoning accountability, nor can accountability become a tool for political exclusion. Both principles must coexist if South Sudan is to escape the failures of its past.
What the country needs now is not another rushed political compromise behind closed doors, but a transparent process rooted in law, constitutional order, and genuine national dialogue. South Sudanese citizens deserve a system where no leader is untouchable, but also where no citizen is detained outside clear legal standards.
The future of South Sudan will not be secured by protecting political elites from scrutiny, nor by weaponizing state institutions against opponents. It will depend on whether the country can finally build a political culture where peace and accountability are treated not as competing interests, but as inseparable foundations of national stability.
Opinions expressed in articles published by RSSVP are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Rescue South Sudan Village People. RSSVP assumes no responsibility for the accuracy, validity, or reliability of claims made by contributors.