SSOA: Alleges R-ARCSS Unilateral Amendment Violates Agreement

• The South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA) alleges that the SPLM Party and its allies are unilaterally amending the R-ARCSS, the Transitional Constitution, and the National Elections Act.
• This process deviates from an agreement reached by the Expanded Meeting of the Presidency on December 10, 2025, which mandated dialogue and consensus among signatory parties for such amendments.
• A leadership body established by Republican Order No. 01/2026 on January 10, 2026, specifically for conducting dialogue on election-related issues, has never convened.
• SSOA views these unilateral actions as undermining the spirit of the Revitalized Agreement and raising serious questions about the value of inter-party dialogue mechanisms.
• The ongoing dispute over the amendment process introduces significant legal uncertainty and could challenge the legitimacy of future elections and the broader transitional legal framework.

The South Sudan Opposition Alliance contends that such unilateral actions, particularly when an established dialogue mechanism remains unutilized, fundamentally undermine the integrity of the Revitalized Agreement and the legitimacy of the electoral framework.

The South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA) has raised significant concerns regarding the process by which the SPLM Party and its allies are reportedly amending key legal instruments in South Sudan. According to the SSOA, these amendments to the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, and the National Elections Act are being undertaken unilaterally. This approach, the SSOA asserts, stands in direct contradiction to the agreed-upon procedures established by the Expanded Meeting of the Presidency.

Specifically, the SSOA highlights that the amendment to the National Elections Act has been passed by the Transitional National Legislature and is awaiting presidential assent. The core of the SSOA R-ARCSS unilateral amendment complaint centers on the lack of consultation and dialogue among all signatory parties to the R-ARCSS, which was a fundamental aspect of the previously agreed framework for any such changes. This alleged deviation from established protocols introduces considerable legal uncertainty into the country's transitional governance.

The South Sudan Opposition Alliance emphasizes that the decision to modify these crucial documents was never intended to be a solitary undertaking. Instead, it was predicated on a collaborative process involving all signatory parties to the R-ARCSS, aimed at fostering a common understanding of the provisions requiring amendment and reaching consensus on any matters that might need deferral until after the upcoming elections. The current National Elections Act South Sudan dispute, therefore, is not merely about the content of the amendments but critically about the legitimacy of the process itself.

The foundation for these amendments was laid during the Expanded Meeting of the Presidency on December 10, 2025. This pivotal meeting convened to discuss a proposal to separate the permanent constitution-making process and the National Population and Housing Census from the general elections, with the objective of enabling elections to proceed on December 22, 2026. While the proposal for delinking was agreed upon in principle, it was explicitly acknowledged that implementing this decision would necessitate amendments to specific provisions within the R-ARCSS and the South Sudan Transitional Constitution amendment.

Crucially, the meeting established a clear procedural pathway: the leadership of the Parties signatory to the R-ARCSS was to engage in dialogue. The purpose of this dialogue was twofold: first, to identify the precise provisions requiring modification, and second, to achieve consensus on outstanding issues that would be postponed until after the elections. A Communiqué issued subsequent to these deliberations, in its third paragraph, formalized this commitment. It stipulated the creation of a committee tasked with initiating R-ARCSS amendments for presentation to the signatory parties' leadership, thereby paving the way for the December 2026 elections. Furthermore, it mandated the establishment of a leadership body comprising all signatory parties (ITGoNU, SPLM/A-10, SSOA, SPLM FDs, and OPP) to address election-related concerns and grievances through dialogue.

In furtherance of this agreement, the President issued Republican Order No. 01/2026 on January 10, 2026. This order formally established a leadership body, inclusive of signatory parties to the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan and other stakeholders, specifically for the purpose of conducting dialogue on election-related matters. This mechanism was designed to ensure broad participation and consensus in shaping the legal framework for the upcoming electoral cycle.

Despite the clear mandate and the formal establishment of a dialogue mechanism, the South Sudan Opposition Alliance reports a critical failure in its implementation: the leadership body created by Republican Order No. 01/2026 has, to date, never convened. This lack of engagement directly contradicts the spirit and letter of the agreement reached by the Expanded Meeting of the Presidency, which prioritized consultation and consensus for any alterations to the R-ARCSS and related laws.

In the absence of this agreed-upon dialogue, the SPLM-IG and its allies have proceeded with the alleged SPLM-IG R-ARCSS changes, along with amendments to the Transitional Constitution and the National Elections Act. The SSOA views this unilateral pursuit of amendments, while the very mechanism designed for this purpose remains inactive, as a serious undermining of the Expanded Meeting of the Presidency’s decision. It raises profound questions about the efficacy and value of establishing inter-party dialogue mechanisms if one party can unilaterally make decisions on the very issues those mechanisms were intended to address.

The South Sudan Opposition Alliance contends that such unilateral actions, particularly when an established dialogue mechanism remains unutilized, fundamentally undermine the integrity of the Revitalized Agreement and the legitimacy of the electoral framework. The R-ARCSS is, by its nature, a negotiated political agreement among its signatories, and its implementation, amendment, and interpretation must therefore be approached with agreed participation and consensus. This dispute over the amendment process could undermine the legitimacy of future elections and the overall transitional legal framework, necessitating close monitoring for potential legal challenges and implications for political stability and compliance, thereby posing a significant South Sudan election legal framework challenge.

Lawyers and compliance officers in South Sudan should be aware of the significant legal uncertainty created by the alleged unilateral amendments to the R-ARCSS, Transitional Constitution, and National Elections Act. This dispute over the amendment process could undermine the legitimacy of future elections and the overall transitional legal framework, necessitating close monitoring for potential legal challenges and implications for political stability and compliance.

Source: Based on statements from the South Sudan Opposition Alliance.