South Sudan Advances Toward the Creation of a Hybrid Court to Address Past Atrocities

South Sudan is attempting to establish a Hybrid Court to address war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from its civil war, with the passage of two critical bills. Despite international support, the political elite remains resistant to transitional justice efforts, raising doubts about whether the Court can be effectively implemented amidst ongoing tensions. Activists urge the government to embrace these judicial reforms for national healing.

After nearly a decade of delay, South Sudan is poised to establish a Hybrid Court aimed at prosecuting individuals responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity since the onset of its civil war in 2013. The recent passage of the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing Bill 2024 and the Compensation and Reparation Authority Bill 2024 by the Transitional National Legislative Assembly marks a significant step towards this goal, as these bills lay the foundational framework for the Court’s establishment. Despite the willingness of key international donors, such as the Troika (US, UK and Norway), to provide funding as outlined in Chapter 5 of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), the South Sudanese political elite has displayed considerable resistance to transitional justice initiatives, arguing that they may reignite past grievances. The R-ARCSS, a peace accord brokered in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, includes provisions for truth and justice; however, debates persist within the coalition government regarding these components. Bona Deng Lawrence, the chairperson of the Standing Specialised Committee on Peace and Reconciliation, emphasized that the two newly passed bills aim to address the conflict’s legacy, provide justice and reparations to victims, and support mental health initiatives for both survivors and offenders. Since the civil war erupted due to a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and his former deputy Riek Machar, both factions have been accused of grave human rights violations. Natelina Amjima Malek, Deputy Chair of the Information Committee, also highlighted the significance of these legislative measures, pointing out their function in restoring damaged infrastructure and compensating families affected by the violence of 2013 and 2016. However, skepticism remains regarding the political will necessary for the effective implementation of the Hybrid Court, given the nine-year backdrop of inaction. The commitment to establish the Hybrid Court was initially solidified in a 2015 peace agreement and reiterated in the R-ARCSS. Civil rights advocate Edmund Yakani expressed doubt about the leadership’s support for the Hybrid Court, asserting, “The leaders are anti-Hybrid Court… there is also the challenge of how the commission for truth, healing, and national reconciliation and the compensation and reparation process will work in the face of hostility from the political leadership.” In a joint opinion piece in the New York Times in June 2016, President Kiir and Dr. Machar advocated for a reconsideration of the Hybrid Court’s role, suggesting that such proceedings could hinder the process of national healing. Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, a former minister, echoed this sentiment by asserting, “There is no proven evidence in any court of law the Leadership are guilty of war crimes. The war crimes are political tools of the West to blackmail Africa.” The catastrophic toll of the conflict has been severe, with over 400,000 dead and millions displaced both internally and as refugees in neighboring countries. Recent assessments also indicate that many who sought refuge in Sudan have returned to South Sudan as internally displaced persons due to renewed violence in the north. Political commentator Akol Miyen Kuol emphasized the fragile state of the nation and posited that traditional reconciliation mechanisms may be more effective than a Hybrid Court at this juncture, stating, “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 establishment of a Hybrid Court in South Sudan is rooted in efforts to address the widespread atrocities committed during the civil war which began in December 2013 due to internal power struggles. The R-ARCSS, a peace agreement signed in 2018, called for the implementation of transitional justice mechanisms to promote reconciliation and accountability. However, the political leadership’s reluctance to pursue these measures has stymied progress, leading to international calls for action and the introduction of important legislative bills aimed at facilitating the Court’s establishment. The ongoing conflict has resulted in significant human suffering, including millions of displaced persons and severe familial loss, highlighting the urgent necessity for a functional judicial process.

In conclusion, while the passage of pivotal bills to create a Hybrid Court marks a progressive move toward justice and reconciliation in South Sudan, substantial skepticism surrounds the political willingness to follow through with these initiatives. The combination of historical resistance and ongoing debates about the role of the Court, contrasted with the dire socio-political landscape, underscores the complexities that will impact the quest for accountability in a nation that has endured profound upheaval.

Original Source: www.theeastafrican.co.ke