RJMEC Report: South Sudan Elections Face Credibility Risks, R-ARCSS Amendments Flawed

• The RJMEC's third-quarter report indicates that South Sudan's planned December 22 elections face significant credibility risks due to unfulfilled peace agreement commitments.
• The commission criticized the government for submitting peace agreement amendments to the legislature without the two-thirds RJMEC endorsement required by Article 8.4.
• Unilateral decisions, the dissolution of the Presidency, and the detention of opposition figures are hindering political consensus and dialogue.
• Ongoing armed clashes, intercommunal violence, and incomplete security arrangements pose substantial threats to the electoral process.
• RJMEC urged all parties to prioritize national interests, engage in dialogue, and adhere to the 2018 peace agreement to ensure a peaceful transition.

The RJMEC report South Sudan elections underscores a lack of political consensus on the legal framework for the polls, alongside ongoing security issues, which together erode public trust in the entire electoral process.

The upcoming December 22 elections in South Sudan face significant risks to their legitimacy, according to a recent assessment by the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC). In its third-quarter report, the RJMEC highlighted that unresolved political disputes, incomplete security arrangements, and persistent delays in implementing the 2018 peace agreement are undermining the South Sudan election credibility. The monitoring body, tasked with overseeing the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), expressed serious concerns that key commitments remain unfulfilled, jeopardizing a peaceful conclusion to the nation's transitional period.

The RJMEC report South Sudan elections underscores a lack of political consensus on the legal framework for the polls, alongside ongoing security issues, which together erode public trust in the entire electoral process.

A central point of contention raised by the RJMEC involves the government's approach to amending the 2018 peace agreement. The commission specifically criticized the submission of proposed changes to the Transitional National Legislature without the necessary endorsement stipulated by Article 8.4 R-ARCSS amendments. This crucial provision mandates that any amendments must receive approval from at least two-thirds of RJMEC's voting members. The RJMEC findings South Sudan indicate that these proposed alterations failed to meet this threshold, rendering them inconsistent with the foundational peace accord.

These constitutional amendments were reportedly designed to terminate the transitional period, dismantle the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) structures, and allow elections to proceed even without the unanimous consent of all signatories to the peace agreement. Furthermore, the report identified the unilateral dissolution of the Presidency as a violation of Article 1.1.4 of the peace agreement. This article explicitly states that the transitional government's mandate should continue until elections are conducted, unless otherwise specified within the agreement itself. The report thus brings into sharp focus a fundamental disagreement over the political and legal architecture governing the transition as the election date draws near.

While an inter-party dialogue commenced on September 24, the RJMEC noted its limited inclusivity, with several political factions opting not to participate. Among these were groups allied with detained and exiled leaders of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM/A-IO), as well as holdout groups that did not sign the original 2018 peace agreement. The commission pointed to unilateral decisions and the continued detention of opposition figures as significant impediments to achieving political consensus. The current status of this inter-party dialogue remains ambiguous, prompting RJMEC to advocate for a more inclusive process that incorporates all signatories and non-signatory groups.

Beyond political disagreements, the security landscape presents substantial risks to the electoral process. The report cited ongoing armed clashes, pervasive intercommunal violence, the presence of active armed groups, and incomplete transitional security arrangements as critical concerns. These conditions could severely impact voter registration, the safety of candidates and campaigners, access to polling stations, and ultimately, the public's acceptance of the election results.

The South Sudan transitional period challenges extend to critical areas such as constitutional reform and transitional justice, where progress has stalled. The RJMEC observed no new advancements in the permanent constitution-making process during the reporting period, noting a loss of momentum after the government decided to decouple this process from the elections. The primary responsibility for implementing the 2018 peace accord rests squarely with South Sudan's political parties and its transitional government.

In light of these findings, the RJMEC urged all parties to prioritize national interests over partisan considerations, actively engage in constructive dialogue, and foster an environment that expands civic and political space. The commission emphasized that a peaceful conclusion to the transition hinges entirely on the political will of the parties involved and their steadfast adherence to both the letter and spirit of the agreement.

Lawyers advising on political risk, investment, or governance in South Sudan must be aware of the RJMEC's findings regarding non-compliance with the 2018 peace agreement, as these legal and political irregularities could impact the legitimacy of the upcoming elections and the stability of the transitional government, potentially affecting client interests and contractual obligations.

Source: Original reporting via RJMEC's latest assessment.