Report on Legal Proceedings Against South Sudan’s Vice President and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: Charges and Immediate Impact on SDG 16

A formal report on the charges of murder, treason, and crimes against humanity filed against South Sudan’s Vice President, Riek Machar. The Justice Minister has accused him of orchestrating deadly assaults by ethnic militias against federal forces. These legal actions present a profound challenge to the nation’s progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), threatening to destabilize the fragile political landscape and undermine the foundations of the rule of law.

Context and Specific Allegations

The charges are rooted in a violent incident that severely undermines national security and the objective of building peaceful societies (SDG 16). The key events and accusations include:

• The Nasir Assault: A March 2025 attack by the Nuer White Army militia on a government garrison in Upper Nile state, resulting in over 250 fatalities among federal soldiers.
• Alleged Orchestration: Justice Minister Geng Akech alleges that the assault was not a spontaneous act but was directed by the SPLA-IO leadership, implicating Vice President Machar’s political and military network.
• Violations of International Law: The charges assert gross violations of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, citing alleged desecration of corpses and attacks on humanitarian workers. This directly contravenes international justice mechanisms essential for SDG 16.
• Political Motivations: Mr. Machar’s house arrest and suspension from office have been interpreted by observers as a politically motivated effort by the current administration to neutralize a key rival, raising concerns about the impartiality of state institutions.

Implications for the National Peace Process and Institutional Integrity (SDG 16)

The prosecution of a key political figure like Vice President Machar has critical implications for South Sudan’s peace agreement and the development of strong, accountable institutions as outlined in SDG 16.

1. Threat to the R-ARCSS Agreement: The 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) is imperiled. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has identified the escalating hostilities and Mr. Machar’s arrest as serious violations of the pact, jeopardizing the transitional government and progress towards peace.
2. Erosion of Institutional Trust: The legal proceedings risk being perceived as a politicization of the judiciary, which would damage public trust in state institutions and undermine the rule of law—a core target of SDG 16.
3. Delayed Democratic Transition: Implementation of the R-ARCSS has already stalled, pushing elections from 2024 to 2026. This prosecution could cause further delays in essential reforms, including the creation of transitional justice mechanisms and electoral infrastructure needed for an inclusive and peaceful society.
4. Risk of Renewed Ethnic Conflict: The charges risk exacerbating tensions between the Nuer and Dinka ethnic groups, potentially unraveling the power-sharing agreement and plunging the nation back into civil war. This directly opposes the goals of reducing violence and promoting inclusive societies (SDG 16) and reducing inequalities (SDG 10).

Broader Socio-Economic and Humanitarian Consequences

The political instability resulting from this high-profile case extends beyond governance, threatening to reverse progress on multiple Sustainable Development Goals and intensify the nation’s humanitarian crisis.

• Stagnation of Development: Ongoing instability is likely to stall critical development projects, hindering progress towards SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and the development of resilient infrastructure.
• Increased Humanitarian Need: A deterioration in the security situation would prolong the country’s reliance on humanitarian aid, making it more difficult to achieve SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).
• Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17): The actions have drawn concern from international partners like IGAD, highlighting the delicate balance required to maintain collaborative efforts aimed at supporting South Sudan’s peace and development agenda.

Conclusion: Long-Term Outlook for Sustainable Development

The prosecution of Vice President Riek Machar places South Sudan at a critical juncture. The outcome will have profound and lasting implications for the nation’s ability to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The immediate risks to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) are severe, with potential cascading effects on poverty reduction, economic stability, and social cohesion. Ensuring a fair, transparent, and impartial legal process is paramount to preventing a relapse into widespread conflict and keeping the nation on a path toward sustainable peace and development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text revolves around political conflict, charges of treason and murder, violations of international humanitarian law, a fragile peace agreement, and the functioning of state institutions like the judiciary. The entire narrative of political instability, ethnic tensions, and the struggle to implement the R-ARCSS peace agreement directly relates to the core principles of SDG 16.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article mentions the role of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS). These represent multi-stakeholder partnerships and international cooperation aimed at resolving conflict and stabilizing the country, which is a key aspect of SDG 17, particularly in post-conflict and fragile states.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article directly addresses this target by reporting on “deadly assaults on federal forces that left more than 250 soldiers dead” and a militia assault leading to “250 fatalities.” It also highlights the risk of “reopening old ethnic wounds,” which could lead to further violence and death.
• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. This target is central to the article’s focus on the legal charges against the vice president. The mention of “gross violations of international humanitarian law,” the need for “transitional justice mechanisms,” and warnings that the prosecution could be a “politicization of the judiciary” all point to the challenges of promoting the rule of law and ensuring impartial justice.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article implies a failure to meet this target. It notes that the implementation of the peace agreement’s core provisions has “repeatedly stalled,” and that “constitutional reforms” and the “creation of electoral infrastructure” have been delayed. The prosecution of a vice president by the government he serves in also raises critical questions about the accountability and transparency of state institutions.
• Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity… to prevent violence. The involvement of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is a clear example of international cooperation aimed at strengthening institutions for peace. IGAD’s warning that recent events are “serious violations of the R-ARCSS” shows its role in monitoring and trying to prevent the escalation of violence.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Conflict-related deaths: The article provides a direct indicator for Target 16.1 by stating the number of fatalities from specific events: “more than 250 soldiers dead” and “250 fatalities” in the Nasir assault. This quantifies the level of violence.
• Implementation of peace agreements: The status of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) serves as a key indicator. The article notes that its implementation has “repeatedly stalled” and that recent hostilities are “serious violations of the R-ARCSS,” indicating negative progress.
• Establishment of transitional justice mechanisms: The article mentions that elections were pushed back to allow time for the “formation of transitional justice mechanisms.” The progress, or lack thereof, in creating these mechanisms is an implied indicator for measuring progress towards Target 16.3.
• Political and institutional stability: The article implies several indicators of instability, such as the house arrest and prosecution of a sitting vice president, the stalling of “constitutional reforms,” the delay of elections from 2024 to 2026, and the potential “destabilizing” of the power-sharing pact. These events serve as qualitative indicators of the weakness of institutions (Target 16.6).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: jurist.org