A South Sudanese lawmaker and constitutional expert, Juol Nhomngek Daniel, has raised concerns that his country may be repeating the mistakes of Sudan's past. In an opinion piece, Daniel reflected on the history of Sudan from 1956 to 2011, noting the similarities between the two countries' political trajectories. Sudan gained independence in 1956 without a durable constitutional settlement, leading to a cycle of transitional charters, constitutions, and military interventions. Daniel argues that this history serves as a warning for South Sudan.
Daniel notes that Sudan's constitutional order repeatedly failed to manage the country's immense diversity, leading to marginalization and conflict in various regions. The South, Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, and the Beja areas experienced different forms of exclusion, which ultimately contributed to the country's instability. South Sudan gained independence in 2011, but its transitional constitutional order has remained in place for its entire existence. The permanent constitutional settlement envisaged by the peace process remains unfinished, raising concerns about the country's future.
The Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was designed to break the cycle of instability by linking peace, power-sharing, security-sector reform, constitution-making, institutional reform, and elections. The agreement seeks to construct institutions capable of preventing political competition from becoming another armed contest for state capture. However, Daniel warns that the recent decision to delink the December 2026 elections from the completion of the permanent constitution has intensified concerns about the country's constitutional order.
The European Union has publicly noted that the amendments moved elections onto the Transitional Constitution, raising concerns about the process by which the peace agreement was amended. The African Union continues to call for full and faithful implementation of the R-ARCSS, while the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Africa has warned about the consequences of postponing key peace-agreement reforms until after elections. Daniel argues that a temporary constitutional arrangement can become permanent in practice without ever becoming permanent in law.
Daniel's concern is that if the constitutional foundation remains transitional, while political power becomes increasingly permanent, the country may end up constitutionalising the very imbalance that the peace agreement was designed to dismantle. He notes that the lesson of Sudan is brutal: a country can possess constitutions, parliaments, elections, peace agreements, and governments and still fail to build a state that its citizens regard as genuinely theirs. South Sudan did not separate from Sudan merely to inherit Sudan's political architecture under a new name.
The real test of independence is not the flag, but whether the state finally breaks the architecture of exclusion, centralization, and personalized power that produced the wars of the past. Daniel argues that history is not destiny, but it becomes a warning when the same political patterns begin appearing again. He urges South Sudanese leaders to read Sudan's history not as an obituary, but as a constitutional warning written in advance.
Daniel is a South Sudanese constitutional lawyer, academic, and political figure who has studied law at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda. He serves as a lecturer and Deputy Dean of the College of Law at Starford International University in Juba and is a member of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO). His views are his own and do not reflect those of Radio Tamazuj.
Key points
- A South Sudanese lawmaker warns of repeating Sudan's history of transitional constitutions and elite power struggles.
- The country's transitional constitutional order has remained in place for its entire existence, raising concerns about its future.
- The recent decision to delink elections from the completion of the permanent constitution has intensified concerns about the country's constitutional order.
