Juba – A special court in South Sudan is set to convene today Wednesday to begin hearing prosecution evidence against First Vice President Riek Machar, in a trial that is already stirring controversy and deepening political tensions at the heart of the young nation. The court, which has ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case, is prosecuting Machar and seven co-accused on charges of murder, treason, and crimes against humanity, despite objections from his defense team that the tribunal lacks constitutional authority.
From Rebel Leader to Vice President
Riek Machar’s political journey has long been intertwined with the turbulent history of South Sudan. Once a bush commander fighting decades of war, Machar rose to become the country’s vice president under President Salva Kiir following the 2018 peace agreement that sought to end years of bloody conflict. That fragile power-sharing deal, however, has been repeatedly tested. Reports of his detention earlier this year, followed by the announcement of this trial, highlight the precarious balance between the country’s two most powerful political rivals.
The government accuses Machar of inciting rebellion and attempting to derail the coming elections. Authorities allege that he directly orchestrated attacks by his SPLM/A-IO faction against government positions, destabilizing fragile progress. The most serious charges stem from a March 2025 incident in which the White Army a militia linked to Machar’s Nuer ethnic base overran a government garrison, killing both soldiers and civilians. According to prosecutors, this attack was directly coordinated by Machar and his associates, constituting crimes against humanity.
Questions of Legitimacy and Fairness
The trial, which began in September 2025, has already been adjourned multiple times. Civil society leaders have voiced alarm over restrictions on journalists and observers,raising fears that the process lacks transparency and could be manipulated for political ends. Some analysts suggest that the proceedings reflect less a pursuit of justice than an extension of the long-standing political contest between Machar and Kiir.
The charges have reignited concerns that the painstakingly negotiated 2018 peace agreement is once again unraveling. Critics emphasize that the trial risks alienating Machar’s large support base, potentially igniting renewed clashes between heavily armed communities.
Tribal and Political Fault Lines
At the core of South Sudan’s turmoil is the rivalry between the Dinka and Nuer, the two largest ethnic groups in the country. President Kiir hails from the majority Dinka people, while Machar is Nuer. Their shared history of enmity stretches back to the 1990s, when both leaders, then part of the broader SPLM movement, were engaged in power struggles that split rebel factions and set communities against one another.
Although the 2018 peace deal nominally placed both men in a unity government, long-standing suspicion has persisted. Forces loyal to Kiir have often targeted Nuer communities seen as aligned with Machar, leading to cycles of armed retaliation. The result is a political struggle repeatedly framed through ethnic allegiances, even as dissent also brews within each leader’s respective ethnic constituency.
Risks of Renewed Violence
Observers warn that Machar’s trial may pour fuel on already volatile inter-communal dynamics. With the White Army and other militias retaining their strength in rural areas, any perception that the trial is politically motivated could prompt a flare-up of violence. The risk of South Sudan sliding back into full-scale war looms large, even as international partners push to secure elections and stabilize governance.
Beyond Ethnicity: The Struggle for Statehood
Though the case is often narrated through ethnic lines, many analysts stress it is fundamentally about power and governance in South Sudan. Both Kiir and Machar are figures molded by decades of armed struggle, and both have struggled to transition from rebellion to statehood leadership. The exclusionary politics that define their rivalry continue to undermine already fragile institutions.
With Machar’s fate now in the balance, the trial is more than a legal proceeding—it is a test of South Sudan’s ability to reconcile justice with peace. Whether the court’s verdict deepens divisions or lays the groundwork for accountability may determine not only Machar’s future but also the fragile survival of a nation still searching for stability.
