Riek Machar, left, first vice president of the Republic of South Sudan, and Salva Kiir, the president, at the first meeting of the new transitional coalition government in Juba, South Sudan, in April. Credit Jason Patinkin/Associated Press

South Sudan Needs Truth, Not Trials

 Riek Machar, left, first vice president of the Republic of South Sudan, and Salva Kiir, the president, at the first meeting of the new transitional coalition government in Juba, South Sudan, in April. Credit Jason Patinkin/Associated Press
Riek Machar, left, first vice president of the Republic of South Sudan, and Salva Kiir, the president, at the first meeting of the new transitional coalition government in Juba, South Sudan, in April. Credit Jason Patinkin/Associated Press

JUBA, South Sudan — Building a nation is not an easy task. We know this because it is our life’s work.
We once fought together as brothers to win independence for South Sudan from the north. When our new country was born in 2011, we were full of hope. We believed we could move forward as one nation. Yet we then realized that what bonded our people in their quest for freedom was the struggle itself; what held us together in combat could not be so easily sustained in peace.
South Sudan descended into a conflict lasting over two years. By its end, tens of thousands of people had died and over a million and a half were displaced. We are committed to ensuring that our country never again goes through a civil war. After a peace agreement signed in August 2015, we have come together as brothers once more in government, as president and first vice president. Even with our differences — in fact, because of them — we are determined to reconcile our communities and create unity.
But bringing South Sudan together can be truly guaranteed only through one route: an organized peace and reconciliation process with international backing. In such a process, everyone in South Sudan might engage in the act of remembering through dialogue, and by so doing affirm the truth of what happened during our bloody civil war.
We intend to create a national truth and reconciliation commission modeled on those of South Africa and Northern Ireland. This commission would have wide-ranging powers to investigate and interview the people of South Sudan — from the poorest farmer to the most powerful politician — to compile a true account of events during the war. Those who tell the truth about what they saw or did would be granted amnesty from prosecution — even if they did not express remorse.
The purpose of such a process is not to seek forgiveness, but to prepare the people of South Sudan for the immense task ahead: building a nation alongside those who committed crimes against them, their families and communities.
We realize this path is not straightforward, but it will do more than any other to guarantee lasting peace. It would also lessen the risk that one side perceives itself compromised, or held more responsible than the other for the events that occurred.
In contrast to reconciliation, disciplinary justice — even if delivered under international law — would destabilize efforts to unite our nation by keeping alive anger and hatred among the people of South Sudan.
That is why we call on the international community, and the United States and Britain in particular, to reconsider one element of the peace agreement to which they are cosignatories: support for a planned international tribunal, the Hybrid Court for South Sudan. We call on them instead to commit to global backing for a mediated peace, truth and reconciliation process.
The international community must consider the current state of our country. Years of war have left South Sudan with one of the highest levels of military spending by gross domestic product in the world. The army and its former opponents now need to be integrated. Over time, tens of thousands of soldiers must be decommissioned and introduced into civilian life.
We fear that this task could be put in jeopardy if members of once opposing forces — from officers to privates — find themselves targeted with legal action. It is easy to see how some people, having known nothing but war, may prefer to return to the battlefield than stand trial in a foreign country.
By taking this path we understand the consequences. We know that it could mean that some South Sudanese guilty of crimes may be included in government, and that they may never face justice in a courtroom. However, there are recent precedents that demonstrate that this route is the most certain guarantee of stability. In Northern Ireland, a peace process brought bitter enemies to the negotiating table under a pledge of legal amnesty, and then into high office. Now, the country has guaranteed peace. The same is possible in South Sudan.
We do not wish to forget what happened during our civil conflict. Indeed, the recollection of the catastrophe unleashed during those terrible months must remain in our memories as a warning. Neither side won our war. But both sides, together, must now win the peace. That is all that matters. In that quest, it is why anything that might divide our nation is against our people’s best interests.

3 thoughts on “South Sudan Needs Truth, Not Trials

  1. The point is to punish those responisble for throwing hundres of millions on weapons bancrupting the country, punish those who are responsible for deaths of 50 000 to 300 000 people. Killings resulting from greed. Greed fir power, greed for luxury. Using young men to do evil things.

    Peace is not absence of trouble. Peace is presence of justice. It is impossible to defend impunity. Those scared of facing justice, leave now.

  2. How do they find truth without trials in South Sudan leaders when all they do is giving lies to the civilians, please send them to court they deserve to die like they killed others

  3. Attention Attention no Justice at all!

    Life imprisonment ain’t appropriate for those 16 junior’s accused of embezzlement or fraudulent and sentenced to life imprisonment on Monday this week, rather than leaving 75 people who have acquired the wealth of the nation for themselves some years back. However, everyone must be innocent until proven guilty by the law. And all the citizens are entilted to the same rights. In addition to that, i think there’s no justice overriding in South Sudan, because why are those 75 people left out with not beings trial in the court of justice? Those 16 junior’s are entitled to appeal. Nevertheless, the monies that they have Embezzled ain’t appropriate to their punishment. It’s a very severe punishment for them. Thus, it would have been better for 75 people to face the trial like the rests in the High Court of South Sudan, for embezzling billions of dollars rather millions. No justice in South Sudan and people are intimidated not to express their feelings in relation to injustice. Allow the freedom of expression. I wonder why South Sudan government sentenced those who have stolen money and leave someone who have murdered human being? Who is greater between money and human being? However, Dr Riek Machar must face the justice because South Sudan government is working very hard to sentencing the criminals. Therefore, the fraudulent is not dangerous to the public, but a person who is mentally impaired is the most dangerous and damaging to the citizens. So Riek Machar could be charge with the murder, manslaughter, intention to kill, negligent and fraudulent too. Othewise relatives, friends, colleagues and families of the accuses should match to the parliament in Juba for demonstration so that the case of accuses could be review.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *