South Sudan is preparing to establish a Hybrid Court to prosecute war crimes following nearly ten years of conflict. Recent legislative actions have introduced key bills to facilitate this process, yet concerns regarding political resistance and the efficacy of such a court persist amidst ongoing debates over transitional justice in the region.
After nearly a decade, South Sudan is on the verge of establishing a Hybrid Court designed to prosecute individuals responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from the civil conflict that ignited in 2013. This development follows the recent approval by the Transitional National Legislative Assembly of two pivotal bills—namely, the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing Bill 2024 and the Compensation and Reparation Authority Bill 2024—which serve as the foundational framework for the court’s creation. Despite receiving encouragement and financial support from key international donors, including the Troika nations of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway, the political elite in South Sudan has displayed reluctance towards the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms, fearing that they may rekindle past traumas. The Hybrid Court was delineated in Chapter 5 of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), a peace accord finalized in 2018 under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. However, there remain significant discrepancies among the treaty signatories, particularly concerning the implementation of truth and justice initiatives within the newly formed Transitional Government of National Unity. Bona Deng Lawrence, the chairperson of the Standing Specialised Committee on Peace and Reconciliation, asserted that the goal of the recent legislative measures is to confront the enduring impacts of the conflict, offer justice and reparations to victims, and develop support services for both survivors and perpetrators requiring psychotherapy. Since the outbreak of civil strife on December 15, 2013—largely attributable to an internal struggle for power between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar—serious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity have emerged against both factions involved. Deputy Chair of the Information Committee, Natelina Amjima Malek, emphasized the significance of these bills, noting that they include provisions for the restoration of damaged infrastructure and financial reparations for families who experienced loss during the violent confrontations of 2013 and 2016. Nevertheless, skepticism persists regarding whether the Hybrid Court will genuinely overcome the profound political inertia that has hindered progress over the past nine years. Edmund Yakani, a civil rights activist and executive director of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organisation, expressed serious concerns, stating that “the leaders are anti-Hybrid Court.” He further noted the critical issue of how reconciliation and reparative efforts would function amidst resistance from the country’s leadership. In mid-2016, both President Kiir and Dr. Machar publicly expressed their reservations regarding the Hybrid Court in an opinion published in the New York Times, suggesting that the establishment of such a court would impede national reconciliation efforts. Furthermore, Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, a former minister for petroleum in South Sudan, suggested that allegations of war crimes are being manipulated as political leverage by international powers against African leaders, stating, “There is no proven evidence in any court of law that the leadership are guilty of war crimes.” As the conflict has resulted in over 400,000 deaths and displaced millions, with individuals fleeing to neighboring countries such as Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the reverberations of this civil strife continue to affect many within the region. Akol Miyen Kuol, a political commentator, articulated doubt over the effectiveness of the Hybrid Court, positing that traditional community reconciliation methods might be a more suitable avenue for addressing the issues of war crimes, asserting, “I think it is too early for South Sudan to resort to a Hybrid Court to address the war crimes issue. Applying such a mechanism in South Sudan now could exacerbate the already delicate situation.”
The concept of a Hybrid Court in South Sudan arises from the need for accountability and justice following a devastating civil war that has resulted in significant loss of life and widespread human rights abuses. The R-ARCSS peace agreement aims to bring about stability and reconciliation following years of conflict fueled by internal power struggles. The Hybrid Court is intended to blend international and domestic legal principles to pursue justice for war crimes committed since the onset of the civil war in 2013. Efforts toward establishing such a court have faced considerable challenges, including a lack of political will among South Sudan’s leaders, who fear reevaluating past grievances may threaten the fragile peace. Despite promises of funding from international supporters, the political landscape remains complex, with varying opinions on the most effective pathways to healing and accountability in the nation.
In conclusion, South Sudan is making strides towards establishing a Hybrid Court aimed at addressing war crimes and facilitating transitional justice. The recent passage of key legislative measures marks a significant step forward; however, substantial challenges remain due to political resistance and skepticism concerning the court’s potential effectiveness. As the country seeks to reconcile its fragmented society following years of conflict, the balance between pursuing justice and ensuring national healing becomes increasingly critical. The foundational frameworks outlined in the new bills will play a pivotal role in shaping South Sudan’s future trajectory toward peace and accountability.
Original Source: www.theeastafrican.co.ke
