By Amb. Maj. Gen. George Aggrey Owinow 

September 2026 marked eight years since the signing of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS). This is a moment for reflection, but more importantly, a moment for renewed resolve.

Eight years ago, the Parties to the Revitalised Peace Agreement made a solemn commitment to end the cycle of violence and place the world’s youngest nation firmly on a path towards peace, stability, democratisation and good governance. The R-ARCSS was therefore not conceived merely as a mechanism for sharing political and military power. It was designed as a comprehensive framework for transforming the political, security, socio-economic, constitutional and institutional foundations of South Sudan.

Since then, the Revitalised Peace Agreement has remained the guardrails for South Sudan’s transition, and its continued relevance is beyond question. But its survival cannot be measured simply by the fact that it remains on paper. The real test is whether its provisions are translated into functioning institutions and reforms that improve the lives of South Sudanese and make a return to violent conflict increasingly difficult. This is the context in which the country marks the Agreement’s eighth anniversary.

There have undoubtedly been achievements since September 2018. The formation of the Revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity in February 2020 was an important milestone. Many institutions provided for under the Agreement have been established, albeit with varying degrees of functionality. Some transitional justice, constitutional and electoral processes have moved forward. Signatory political parties and stakeholders have continued to engage within the framework, while the Agreement has provided an important platform for dialogue even during periods of severe political turbulence.

These gains should not be overlooked. At the same time, however, the pace and depth of implementation have remained uneven and fragile. Critical provisions of the Agreement remain incomplete, while the political and security environment has deteriorated considerably since March 2025. The resulting stalemate has slowed implementation and weakened confidence in the transition.

The central lesson of the past eight years is therefore straightforward: a peace agreement cannot implement itself. It requires sustained political will, compromise, resources and a genuine commitment by its signatory Parties to honour the commitments they voluntarily undertook. The R-ARCSS provides for reforms in governance, the security sector, legal and constitutional frameworks, transitional justice, humanitarian and economic affairs, culminating in the conduct of free, fair, credible and democratic elections.

These components are interconnected and interdependent. It is difficult to conduct credible elections without an enabling social, legal, institutional, political and security environment. It is difficult to create durable peace without a unified and professional national security architecture. And it is difficult to build public confidence without justice, accountability and constitutional reforms.

For this reason, while elections are an important milestone, they are not the destination of the peace process. As RJMEC has repeatedly emphasised, the R-ARCSS is much broader than an election timetable. Its provisions on peacebuilding, security arrangements, democratic governance, constitutional development, transitional justice and institutional reforms remain essential before, during and after elections.

With the proposed elections approaching, the more important question is therefore whether the country can create, within the limited time remaining, the political, social, legal, institutional and security conditions necessary for elections to be peaceful, credible and inclusive.

Considerable work remains. The clock is fast ticking. The political leadership should therefore approach the remaining period not simply as a race against time, but as an opportunity to resolve the outstanding tasks that could undermine the credibility and sustainability of the transition.

There can be no credible electoral process without political and civic space. There can be no meaningful political participation without security, access to basic services and infrastructure. And there can be no lasting legitimacy if significant political constituencies feel excluded from the mainstream process. The participation of all relevant stakeholders is therefore indispensable.

It is against this backdrop that the launch of the Inter-Party Dialogue on 24 September provides an important opportunity. In RJMEC’s view, the Parties should use this process to build a more inclusive and practical pathway towards credible elections and a peaceful conclusion of the Transitional Period. Its value will ultimately depend on whether it helps reduce mistrust, widen political participation and address concerns that could undermine confidence in the electoral process.

This need for dialogue speaks directly to one of the most consequential challenges facing the R-ARCSS today: the erosion of political trust and consensus. Peace agreements are fundamentally political contracts that require trust, dialogue and a willingness to accommodate competing interests. Where political disagreements become entrenched, implementation inevitably suffers. The events of the past year have demonstrated the dangers of allowing political and security tensions to overwhelm the institutions established to move the Agreement forward.

The continued detention and trial of Dr. Riek Machar and other key SPLM/A-IO leaders, and the resulting questions about inclusivity within the Transitional Government, have further complicated the political environment. RJMEC has consistently stressed the importance of political dialogue in addressing the challenges confronting the peace process. The answer to political disagreement cannot be unilateral action, but genuine dialogue. The answer to insecurity cannot be to forsake the Agreement, but rather to strengthen its security and political mechanisms and institutions. And the answer to mistrust cannot be further exclusion, but confidence-building.

The security question is equally central to the credibility of the transition. The transitional security arrangements remain among the most important unfinished elements of the Agreement. The unification and professionalisation of the country’s security apparatus were intended to create a national security architecture loyal to the Republic.

South Sudan cannot build democratic institutions while communities remain exposed to armed violence, nor can it conduct credible elections in an environment where citizens fear for their safety. Security must therefore remain at the centre of the transition. Progress on security arrangements is not separate from the political process; it is one of the conditions necessary for that process to succeed.

Another critical issue is the integrity of the R-ARCSS itself. The Agreement represents a negotiated political settlement, and its provisions cannot be selectively implemented according to short-term political convenience. Where amendments are considered necessary, they should be approached transparently, inclusively and in accordance with the Agreement’s provisions.

This is not an argument against adaptation. Peace agreements must sometimes respond to changing realities. But flexibility, realism and adaptation should strengthen the peace process rather than weaken its foundations. The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that changes made during this final phase preserve the principles, commitments and institutional architecture that underpin the Agreement.

The events of September including the dissolution of the transitional government, have altered the institutional setting of the transition, but they have not removed the need to implement the commitments that made the transition possible in the first place. At its 74th Extraordinary Session on 15 September, IGAD called for inclusive dialogue among the Parties and stakeholders to restore confidence and clarify a consensual pathway to the December 2026 elections. RJMEC similarly stressed that the R-ARCSS remains the sole viable framework for lasting peace and urged the Parties to complete outstanding tasks, including security arrangements, judicial reforms, permanent constitution-making, economic reforms and transitional justice.

The remaining period should consequently be used not simply to prepare for polling day, but to protect the peace architecture and lay the foundations for the post-election order.

The Parties should renew their political commitment to the Revitalised Peace Agreement, resolve outstanding political differences through dialogue and protect the inclusivity of the transition. They should accelerate implementation of the security arrangements, advance constitutional and institutional reforms, and ensure that transitional justice and accountability remain integral to the peace process and to the creation of the necessary conditions for credible elections.

Most importantly, the people of South Sudan should remain at the centre of the process. Behind every provision of the Agreement are millions of South Sudanese who desire basic services, peace, security, justice, opportunity and a government that works for them. The success of the transition should ultimately be measured not only by institutional milestones, but by whether it delivers a more peaceful and democratic future for these citizens.

Eight years after its signing, the R-ARCSS remains South Sudan’s most important political pathway towards a peaceful and democratic future. But a pathway only matters if it is followed.

The country now stands at a consequential crossroads. The coming months will test the political maturity of the Parties and the resilience of the peace process. The choice before South Sudan is not between the R-ARCSS and some alternative political future. It is whether to deepen implementation of the existing peace framework or risk allowing unresolved grievances, insecurity and political mistrust to once again consume the country.

As we mark eight years of the R-ARCSS, the message from RJMEC is clear: the Agreement remains a viable framework for peace, but its success ultimately depends on the political will of its Parties to implement it in letter and spirit. South Sudan has come too far and paid too high a price to allow the promise of the R-ARCSS to be diminished by political paralysis or a relapse into violence. 

Let me end with a phrase I picked from a banner displayed during the opening session of the Inter-Party Dialogue that I found befitting for the occasion: “Political differences are inevitable, but national division is not.”

God bless South Sudan as we move towards a post-election future full of hope and promise.

Amb. Maj. Gen. George Aggrey Owinow (rtd), Interim Chairperson, RJMEC