South Sudan transition: A case of new hope and old challenges
South Sudan marked the third anniversary of the transitional government on February 22, . To help analyse the progress, Chairman of the South Sudan Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC), Gen (Rtd) Charles Tai Gituai talks about the successes and the challenges in the implementation of the 2018 Peace Agreement.
South Sudanese President Salva Kiir (left), South Sudan's opposition leader Riek Machar (right) and Mohamed Hamdan Daglo (centre)"Hemeti", Sudan's deputy head of the Transitional Military Council, hold hands together as they speak to media after their peace talk at the State House in Juba, South Sudan, on December 17, 2019.
From your perspective, is there a political will to fully implement the 2018 peace agreement?
The question is not about political will but whether there is sufficient political will. So, looking at what happened between the first agreement in 2015 and 2018 till now, there has been a lot of progress.
The government is in place and Parliament is also in place making laws. At the state level, there are governors, as well as the unification of forces Phase I, which has been completed, and they are now embarking on Phase II. We have seen economic reforms at the resource management level, especially in the oil sector.
So, when you talk about political will, we have to look at what is the difference between the past and present. We have seen a lot of progress going on, but there is slow progress.
Our expectations were that by that time we shall have done a lot. There is a political will but not sufficient. As you know, it took two years for the vice-president, Dr Riek Machar, to return to Juba and it was only in February 2020 that the government was formed.
Soon after, Covid-19 hit the world. So, there were over two years wasted when nothing was being done. That is why the extension of the transition was agreed to recover the time wasted.
…Talking about the extension to 2025, do you think it was necessary or the parties were just buying time to avoid elections?
The extension came about because we as evaluators put pressure on the transitional government to explain to us what they were going to do because time had elapsed and we were not seeing actual implementation, according to the guidelines.
The leadership went back to the parties who all agreed to the extension. It was passed by the Cabinet and then Parliament. After that, it was brought to RJMEC under Article 8.4 and we agreed to that extension. The two years’ extension was based on some critical issues that they had to undertake before the elections.
The unification of forces must be completed; the constitutional framework must be completed; the legal framework must be in place; and the election framework, which takes time. The fact that it was an agreement by the parties, we believe that they will meet the deadline.
Has the unification of the armed groups proceeded according to the agreement?
The unification of forces is in Chapter 2 on security arrangements. This is one of the very important requirements in the agreement and it was supposed to be completed during the pre-transition period. But this did not happen because of the prevailing situation then.
Naturally, it is difficult to bring together forces that had been fighting each other. This takes time because we are talking of a country that has several militias. But at least they have completed Phase I of the unification. Out of the 83,000 troops required, they have trained and absorbed 53,000 which is huge progress. We believe the remaining 30,000 will be completed before the end of April.
Essentially, it was delayed because various forces had different ranking structures, and agreeing on how to harmonise these ranks takes time. There is also the challenge of what to do with those who are not eligible so that they don’t foment a new rebellion.
They also have to come up with Strategic Defence Review on how they tend to work out the security sector reforms. So, all these are taking time but we know that the commitment is critical and we hope that they will finish the process within the remaining time.
The Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC) has not been vocal against violations of ceasefire from both sides. Does RJMEC have a sanctions mandate against violators?
Our role is to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the agreement. The issue of the violations of ceasefire purely depends on the signatories being engaged. So, when you talk about a permanent ceasefire, it is about those that signed the agreement and at the moment they are not fighting each other.
Where there is a violation, we have the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring Mechanism (CTSAMM), which is responsible for reporting the actual situation on the ground.
Once they bring the report to the committee of senior officers that there was a violation, the first point of contact is with the government to tell them that there was a violation and that they have to take action. If they can’t, we report to Igad to respond to the situation. We also write reports that we forward to the leadership of the country, Parliament, Igad’s seven heads of state, the Igad council of ministers, and the UN. We are also mandated to address the African Union Peace and Security Council on any violations. So, we have been very vocal and that is what has kept the agreement alive and enabled the transitional government to address emerging challenges.
Given that holdouts are still outside the agreement, do you think they are likely to interfere with the permanent ceasefire?
It is the responsibility of Igad to ensure that the holdouts come on board. The Rome Peace Process through the Community of Sant' Egidio has been speaking to these holdout groups to bring them on board. The government has been participating in the process. Recently when the Pope went to Juba, the president said that he had agreed for the Rome process to proceed after it was suspended last year.
What would you say are some of the achievements of the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC) since 2018?
As I mentioned, RJMEC is to ensure that the issue of South Sudan is on the international agenda. It is the RJMEC that initiated the revitalisation of the agreement in 2018, and the formation of the 10 states instead of the 32 that had been proposed by President Kiir.
Between 2018 and 2022, RJMEC has overseen the formation of the government, the legislation of 18 laws, and the unification of the forces. We have seen the establishment of the Judicial Review Committee and the improvement of humanitarian situation and about 600,000 refugees have returned to the country.
We have also pushed for reforms in socioeconomic management and the establishment of oversight institutions. Issues such as transitional justice and constitutional reform processes are in progress courtesy of pressure from RJMEC.
Why do we see a lot of inter-communal conflicts even after their leaders signed the peace agreement?
The issue of inter-communal conflict must be understood within its context. One, there are fights based on traditional cattle rustling, those based on revenge, and those based on natural calamities such as floods that force herders to drive their cattle to other people’s areas, and there is a conflict between pastoralists and farming communities who get agitated because of livestock invading their crops. We have seen these clashes in Jonglei in Upper Nile. It is important to separate inter-communal fighting from that of the belligerents that signed the agreement.
What do say about the fact that some critical institutions which should have been reconstituted to pave the way for the implementation of crucial aspects of the agreement are not in place?
Yes, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Under Article 1.19, there are a lot of institutions and commissions that are yet to be reconstituted. The constitution-making process is yet to take off despite the president assenting to the law.
We are now waiting for the establishment of the National Constitutional Review Commission and the Constitutional Drafting Committee, which are likely to take time. The Anti-Corruption Commission and the Audit Chamber are yet to be established. The roadmap has set critical issues that must be completed before the country goes to the elections.
If the National Constitutional Review Commission is yet to be reconstituted by now and yet constitutional review takes a long time. Don’t you think South Sudan is running out of time in this aspect?
The parties agreed to the extension and the agreement has given constitutional making 24 months, the longest period in the agreement. The assumption is that since the law has been signed, we expect it to be completed latest July 2024. There is no reason why we should doubt them because it is the leadership who are the implementers that have given this commitment on the timelines. Our work is just monitoring.
South Sudan is supposed to hold elections at the end of the transition. Do you think the country can hold credible elections without any glitches?
The credibility of elections will be determined by the completion of the constitutional-making process, to come up with the government that they want whether presidential or parliamentary, the delimitation of boundaries, the unification of forces, the national election law, and the Political Parties Act. If they are able to complete these processes with the support of the international community, then we don’t see why South Sudan cannot hold credible elections….
… The Kiir government feels that Troika is not supporting the implementation. What do you say?
Well, I can’t speak for Troika, but all I know is that Troika has been supportive in terms of humanitarian issues. As you know, there are 2.3 million internally displaced, and a similar number of refugees in neighbouring countries.
The Troika has been contributing a lot of money to support ordinary South Sudanese. But Troika has been insisting to see that the agreement is fully implemented. Their frustration is that they don’t see a sense of urgency in the implementation. If South Sudan can be focused and show urgency, the Troika is likely to support the country more.
The region and the international community remain skeptical that violence and fighting in South Sudan might not end soon even with the elections. Your take?
The stability of South Sudan is important to the region and the international community. We have seen the suffering but this time we have seen a sense of commitment by the leadership. The president has said many times that he will never take the country back to war. This was the same message he repeated during the Pope’s visit and we don’t see any reason not to trust him.
Even among the general public, nobody wants war. What we are seeing is a focus on stability in South Sudan. If there is support, we don’t see the reasons for the country going back to war, because those who have the instruments of violence are the ones saying that they don’t want to take the country back to war. BY DAILY NATION




Post a Comment