24/02/2026
: Nigeria is wrong on South Sudan, and the continent should say so!
A demand for Dr. Riek Machar’s unconditional release while ignoring atrocities resulting from his armed wing’s offensive is not peacemaking. It is a reward for rebellion, Africa cannot afford such a precedent.
By Dr. Sunday de John
At last week’s C-5 Plus Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nigeria’s Vice President Kashim Shettima presented a demand on behalf of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu: the “immediate and unconditional release” of South Sudan’s detained First Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar Teny Dhurgon. While this demand was projected as a friendly gesture toward peace, it was perceived as excessive interference in the internal matters of South Sudan and, others thought that it served as a diplomatic lifeline to an armed insurgency.
By all accounts, Nigeria’s statement failed to mention the March 2025 Nasir attack, a coordinated deadly assault by the “White Army”, a militia group affiliated with Dr. Riek Machar Teny’s SPLM/A-IO on a South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF) garrison (Wec Yar Adiw), which triggered this crisis.
It did not address the SPLM/A-IO’s subsequent rampage across the country, including the attacks on Torit in Eastern Equatoria, the border crossings at Nadapal, the overrunning of Panyume in Morobo County, the assaults on Pajut in Jonglei, and the seizure of Waat and Yuai in Greater Akobo, towns whose civilian populations bore the brunt of an insurgency that Nigeria’s demand statement chose to ignore.
The demand statement did not condemn the SPLM/A-IO’s January 2026 declaration to capture Juba. Basically, the statement required nothing from the armed opposition, it demanded everything from the government. This method does not truly reflect a balanced diplomacy; it is a typical exertion of disproportionate pressure to one side in an ongoing conflict.
Dr. Riek Machar Teny is not a political prisoner, his case is criminal by the definition of his current predicament. He is undergoing a criminal investigation and trial concerning a potential command responsibility for the violence involving the joint SPLM/A-IO-White Army militia, which resulted in the deaths of South Sudanese soldiers, including the decorated General David Majur Dak. He faces the same legal standards that the International Criminal Court applies to commanders and heads of state who are charged with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other atrocities globally.
Nigeria’s demand for his release before any investigation concludes, with no accountability framework in place while his armed wing continues to advance militarily, does not uphold international legal norms. It dismantles them. And if the message sent to every armed movement on this continent is that launching offensives earns you international sympathy while the government defending itself earns condemnation, Africa will reap this despicable and unpalatable harvest for decades.
The warlords will get emboldened, and they would allude to the fact that, If picking up a gun guarantees a diplomatic shield from Abuja, South Sudan will never run short of active armed factions engaging its government.
Looking at it critically, there is a painful irony in Nigeria taking this position. This is because we are aware that Abuja spent decades defending its own territorial integrity and fragmentation against armed separatist movements, at enormous human cost, on the fundamental principle that no armed faction may dictate political outcomes by military means.
An episode of this kind, teaches us that by Nigeria’s standing, history was bought with blood. If so, why is Nigeria asking Juba to do what it would never do? Nigerian leaders are aware that sovereignty is not a courtesy extended to governments that fulfill their counterparts' preferences.
Nigeria does understand well that the continent cannot tolerate the overthrow of a legitimate government through military coups. Actions of that kind, although violated by some ECOWAS member states, have a bearing on West African internal mechanisms for changing leaderships. ECOWAS has zero tolerance to unconstitutional change of governments. This is the basis, why Nigeria recently, upon request by President Patrice Talon, helped the Republic of Benin thwart a military coup on December 7, 2025.
This means, defense of the territorial integrity and sovereignty is the structural precondition of every functioning state on this continent; this must be defended consistently, or it means nothing.
Through the perspectives of neutral observers, President Salva Kiir Mayardit is not hindering the peace process. He in fact, acquiesced to Dr. Riek Machar Teny's adamant demands regarding the implementation of the agreement, even though it was fraught with significant challenges that made it difficult to implement, therefore, the basis of multiple extensions. This is one of the indicators that South Sudanese government has not obstructed progress on the path of peace.
It has lately committed to holding elections in December 2026 and has made constitutional amendments to resolve the sticky issues that have stalled the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement.
The government has engaged, and is continuously engaging with cooperative opposition groups that have opted for politics over the military incursions. These actions do not show a government with intention of dismantling peace; they reflect an effort to establish it, even in the face of an armed opponent that has openly declared its goal of regime change through military means.
The central question is not whether South Sudan should hold elections; there is a consensus that it should happen so that a futile cycle of extending agreements is broken democratically. The real issue is whether elections can be conducted while an armed faction, equipped with lethal artillery and infantry, is actively advancing toward the capital.
No democracy in the world can successfully hold credible elections under such grueling circumstances. Nigerian diplomats are aware of this reality. The path to the December 2026 elections does not pass through Dr. Riek Machar Teny’s cell but through a ceasefire. The demand for ceasefire from the SPLM/A-IO with the same urgency Abuja has shown toward Juba is necessary now.
Given this, one would conclude that the path to the December 2026 elections is not optional and must run through an enforceable ceasefire, one that demands all armed actors cease equally, not just the government defending its capital city.
As I express this, I am not placing South Sudan’s government beyond scrutiny. However, accountability must apply equally to all sides. A wise person would say that scrutiny without balance is not principled; it is merely a political manipulation. Observing closely, it appears that Nigeria’s current stance, politically rewards the party that chose war while penalizing the party attempting to maintain stability.
I acknowledge that Nigeria is a major power with genuine ethical authority on the continent of Africa, and it also has a capacity to exercise this power shrewdly. Here is a clear path forward: Nigeria should advocate for a bilateral or multilateral ceasefire and encourage all armed factions to engage equally. Also, it is indispensable for Nigeria to recognize and support the Kenya-led Tumaini mediation process in Nairobi; this should be done with the aim of arriving at a comprehensive and sustainable peace in favor of the citizens.
Also, Nigeria ought to provide resources to support South Sudan’s electoral commission in order to achieve its concern about her younger, sisterly state; instead of issuing unnecessary ultimatums and ensure that the courts in Juba can operate free from external political interference.
Nigeria should take note that South Sudan does not require rescue from its sovereignty. It needs partners who will respect it and hold all parties in this conflict to the same standard of accountability. This is what true African solidarity means. Nigeria, more than any other country, should understand this well.
Till then, yours truly, Mr. Teetotaler!
