Challenges Delaying the Hybrid Court for South Sudan’s Transitional Justice
The establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan faces significant delays despite efforts aimed at addressing conflict-related crimes. Government officials cite legal and financial barriers, while the AU stresses the need for a sequential transitional justice framework. Calls for justice continue from victims, emphasizing the urgent need for accountability in the country’s transition towards peace and stability.
The delayed establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS) remains a significant obstacle in the pursuit of justice for victims of the ongoing conflict. Designed as a framework under the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement, the court aims to investigate serious crimes committed since December 2013, such as the killing of civilians and sexual violence. Despite the urgent calls from victims, the court’s formation is hindered by various legal, procedural, and financial challenges as cited by government officials and representatives from the African Union (AU).
Michael Makuei, South Sudan’s Minister of Information, explains that prolonged delays stem from the AU’s failure to provide necessary legal frameworks for the court’s establishment, which are critical before the government can enact any laws. Makuei remarked, “It is taking long because the formation of the Hybrid Court is not in our hands. It is the AU that is supposed to give us the terms and conditions for the enactment of the law.”
He noted that once the AU supplies the required guidelines, the Ministry of Justice would proceed to draft a bill, which would then undergo legislative approval before being enacted by the President. Meanwhile, victims of the conflict await this development with growing frustration about their unaddressed needs for justice.
Prof. Joram Mukama Biswaro, the AU envoy to South Sudan, elaborated that the HCSS is part of a broader transitional justice framework, which also includes the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation, and Healing (CTRH) and the Compensation and Reparation Authority (CPRA). He emphasized that these mechanisms are interrelated and should be implemented sequentially, noting significant advancements made at a recent transitional justice conference in May 2023.
Prof. Biswaro stated, “The fact that the CTRH and CPRA have been passed into law paves the way for the Hybrid Court,” reaffirming that while the AU is drafting guidelines in consultation with the South Sudanese government, financial and logistical hurdles remain substantial. He acknowledged the slow pace of overall peace agreement implementation, which includes essential reforms necessary for credible elections.
Notably, the postponement of planned elections to December 2026 signals the potential consequences of incomplete constitutional processes tied to transitional justice. The lack of an operational judicial system raises concerns over future elections’ legitimacy and increases the urgency for accountability, as victims continue to demand justice despite delays.
“There is a legal dictum that justice delayed is justice denied,” Prof. Biswaro commented, underlining the importance of pursuing accountability as a means to restore faith in the governance process. He also proposed that alternative justice mechanisms, inspired by successful models like the Gacaca courts in Rwanda, could provide additional avenues for redress.
While the AU does not impose strict deadlines for establishing the court, Prof. Biswaro maintains that the matter is a priority and that South Sudanese citizens must consistently advocate for their rights. Makuei reiterated the government’s commitment to transitional justice but insisted on an independent, timely approach tailored to national circumstances.
Finally, James Bidal from the South Sudan Human Rights Defenders Network voiced his concerns about the impact of the court’s delay on victims, emphasizing that justice encompasses not only punishment of perpetrators but also acknowledgement and healing. He remarked, “Justice is not about punishing perpetrators. It is about recognition, healing, and ensuring non-recurrence.”
The responsibility for forming the Hybrid Court lies with the transitional government, which has been criticized for obstructing progress, including unsigned agreements with the AU. Both the South Sudanese authorities and the AU bear responsibility for the lack of action, creating an urgent need for collaborative efforts to ensure the court’s establishment.
The Hybrid Court for South Sudan was established under the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement to address serious human rights violations. Although envisioned as a critical component of transitional justice, its formation has faced delays due to unresolved legal and procedural issues. The court aims to bring accountability for crimes committed since the onset of conflict in December 2013. The complexities associated with the establishment of this court reflect broader challenges within South Sudan’s peace implementation process, particularly related to governance and judicial reform.
The continued delay in establishing the Hybrid Court for South Sudan poses significant challenges in achieving justice for conflict victims. Both the South Sudanese government and the African Union share responsibility for this impasse. As the nation enters a new transitional period, the establishment of the court is imperative, not only to address past atrocities but also to restore public confidence in the peace process and ensure accountability. Without decisive action, the aspirations of many South Sudanese for justice may remain unfulfilled.
Original Source: www.radiotamazuj.org
