The Hybrid Court for South Sudan remains delayed despite demands for justice post-conflict. The AU-led court faces legal, procedural, and financial challenges, with calls for patience from officials. It is part of a broader transitional justice framework that includes the CTRH and CPRA, which need to be established first. The court’s future is linked to the peace agreement’s timely implementation, critical for upcoming elections.
The establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS), a vital element of the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement, remains delayed despite persistent demands for justice from conflict victims. This AU-led court is tasked with investigating and prosecuting serious crimes committed in South Sudan since December 15, 2013, including atrocities such as the deliberate killing of civilians and forced displacements.
The decision to create the Hybrid Court was a result of the 2015 peace agreement and was reiterated in the revitalized agreement in September 2018. However, government officials and AU representatives have cited legal, procedural, and financial challenges as reasons for the ongoing delay in its establishment.
South Sudan’s Minister of Information, Communication, Technology, and Postal Services, Michael Makuei, stated that the delay is attributed to the AU’s failure to provide the necessary legal framework for the court. He emphasized, “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.”
Upon receiving the AU’s guidelines, the Ministry of Justice will draft a Bill that needs to go through the legislative process before being signed into law by the President. Minister Makuei urged South Sudanese citizens awaiting justice to be patient during this process.
Prof. Joram Mukama Biswaro, the AU envoy to South Sudan, highlighted that the HCSS is a part of a wider transitional justice framework. He pointed out that three mechanisms outlined in Chapter 5 of the peace agreement must be implemented in sequence: the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation, and Healing (CTRH), the Hybrid Court, and the Compensation and Reparation Authority (CPRA).
Significant progress has been made since a May 2023 conference on transitional justice, where establishing the CTRH and CPRA was prioritized before addressing the Hybrid Court. “The fact that the CTRH and CPRA have been passed into law paves the way for the Hybrid Court,” Prof. Biswaro explained.
Despite acknowledgment of financial and logistical challenges, he assured that the court will eventually be established, reflecting the interests of the South Sudanese people. Furthermore, the overall slow implementation of the peace agreement has also delayed critical processes such as security and constitutional reforms, leading to the postponement of elections from December 2024 to December 2026.
To ensure credibility and inclusivity in the upcoming 2026 elections, it is essential to finalize the constitutional-making process, which is linked to transitional justice mechanisms. Prof. Biswaro also noted the frustrations of conflict victims awaiting justice but urged them to exercise patience: “There is a legal dictum that justice delayed is justice denied.”
Alternative justice mechanisms, like the Gacaca courts in Rwanda, were also mentioned as potential complements to the Hybrid Court. Although the AU lacks specific deadlines for the court’s establishment, Prof. Biswaro affirmed the importance of ongoing discussions with South Sudanese authorities to ensure progress.
Minister Makuei reiterated the government’s commitment to transitional justice, advocating for the implementation of the peace agreement according to South Sudan’s timeline rather than external pressures. Civil society, victims, and international partners are encouraged to continue pushing for accountability.
James Bidal, coordinator for the South Sudan Human Rights Defenders Network, expressed concern about the impact of the court’s delay on victims. He stated, “Justice is not about punishing perpetrators. It is about recognition, healing, and ensuring non-recurrence,” emphasizing that ongoing inaction fosters a culture of impunity and discourages victims from pursuing truth and reconciliation efforts.
As South Sudan approaches a new transitional period, the establishment of the Hybrid Court is vital for ensuring accountability, rebuilding trust in the peace process, and addressing victim grievances. Without a functional judicial system, the prospects for truly transformative justice remain uncertain.
The Hybrid Court for South Sudan is part of ongoing efforts to create a framework for justice following years of conflict. The court’s development has been enabled by previous agreements and relies on international cooperation, particularly from the African Union (AU). However, various obstacles, including legal, procedural, and financial constraints, have hindered its establishment, prompting calls for accountability from citizens affected by the violence. There is a growing recognition among key stakeholders that transitional justice mechanisms must be developed collaboratively and incrementally to be effective. The Hybrid Court is seen as an essential component in providing justice for victims, promoting reconciliation, and rebuilding trust in institutions following years of internal strife.
The delay in establishing the Hybrid Court underscores the complications surrounding transitional justice in South Sudan. While the government and AU officials have cited various challenges that hinder the process, victims of the ongoing conflict continue to seek justice. Ensuring that the court is established not only fulfills legal obligations but also provides necessary healing and recognition for those affected by the violence in South Sudan. As the nation navigates a critical transitional period, the establishment of the Hybrid Court will play a pivotal role in fostering accountability and restoring public trust in the peace process.
Original Source: www.radiotamazuj.org
