South Sudan
Expected Council Action
In May, the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution to extend the South Sudan sanctions regime, which expires on 31 May, and renew the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee, which expires on 1 July.
On 30 April, the Council members unanimously adopted resolution 2778, extending the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) until 9 May, to allow time for further deliberations.
Key Recent Developments
The past few months have witnessed a dramatic deterioration in the political and security situation in the country, placing the peace process at serious risk of collapse. In early March, violent clashes broke out in Nasir, a town in Upper Nile state, leading to the town’s capture by the White Army, an armed youth group composed of members of the Nuer community. This led the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF)—the government’s forces—to reportedly conduct airstrikes and launch attacks on opposition barracks outside Juba. In a 9 April press release, Human Rights Watch alleged that the government used improvised incendiary weapons during at least four attacks in Upper Nile state, resulting in the deaths of at least 58 people. Violent incidents involving government and opposition forces also escalated in other states, including Western Bahr el-Ghazal, Western Equatoria, Unity, and Jonglei. (For more information, see the brief on South Sudan in our April 2025 Monthly Forecast and 15 April What’s in Blue story.) According to media reports, on 20 April, the SSPDF announced that it had recaptured Nasir town from the White Army following intense clashes that reportedly resulted in heavy casualties on both sides.
On 17 March, the South Sudanese government confirmed that Ugandan troops were in the country under a bilateral agreement for technical support and training. The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-IO) condemned the deployment, accusing the Ugandan forces of violating the UN arms embargo and participating in attacks in Upper Nile state—allegations that Uganda has denied.
Responding to the escalating security situation, the government detained several political and military figures aligned with the SPLM-IO’s leader, Riek Machar. On 26 March, government security forces placed Machar under house arrest in Juba, accusing him of inciting rebellion—a move that sparked widespread domestic and international reactions, including calls for his immediate release and a return to dialogue.
These developments have placed significant strain on the SPLM-IO, exposing internal rifts and underscoring the fragility of South Sudan’s peace process. Following Machar’s arrest, senior SPLM-IO figures, including Deputy Chairman Oyet Nathaniel, fled to neighbouring countries or went into hiding amid a security crackdown. On 7 April, Oyet announced the suspension of four members of the SPLM-IO Political Bureau—including Stephen Par Koul, the minister for peacebuilding—accusing them of conspiring to replace Machar and fomenting disunity in the group. Koul rejected the suspension, arguing that Oyet lacked the authority to make such a decision.
On 9 April, a group of SPLM-IO members convened in Juba—without the participation of several top officials—and declared an interim leadership, appointing Koul as interim chair. Koul reportedly said that the interim leadership structure is temporary and will cease once Machar is released. Nevertheless, the absence of internal consensus and any attempt to displace Machar from his statutory role as First Vice President under the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) has raised serious concerns about the destabilisation of the peace framework. Recent weeks have also seen a series of significant military defections, with senior opposition military commanders—along with large numbers of personnel—joining the SSPDF, undermining the security sector reform process outlined in the revitalised agreement.
On 16 April, Council members held an open briefing on the situation in South Sudan. Special Representative and Head of UNMISS Nicholas Haysom described a rapidly deteriorating security environment, warning that, if the current trajectory continues, the conflict risks shifting from sub-national and community-based violence to a more complex crisis involving signatory parties and foreign actors.
Haysom added that UNMISS is concentrating its efforts on preventing a relapse into widespread conflict and refocusing attention towards the implementation of the revitalised agreement. He underscored the importance of UNMISS’ protection mandate in light of the deteriorating security situation. He said that the mission has responded proactively to the situation by increasing its patrols and enhancing security at its bases, with the Quick Reaction Forces on standby to address unexpected situations. Haysom highlighted, however, that UNMISS faces operational limitations in implementing its mandate, particularly due to access denials.
Sanctions-Related Developments
On 14 March, the Panel of Experts assisting the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee circulated its final report to committee members.
On 15 April, the Secretary-General transmitted to the Council an assessment report on the implementation of the benchmarks outlined in resolution 2577 of 28 May 2021 for modifying, suspending, or progressively lifting the arms embargo. The report found that the transitional government has made some progress in implementing two benchmarks, namely the completion of the Strategic Defense and Security Review process contained in the revitalised agreement and the formation of a unified command structure for the Necessary Unified Forces (NUF). It noted, however, that progress remained limited and slow. Disagreements between the SPLM and the SPLM-IO continue to hinder the formation of a unified command structure of the NUF, thereby increasing the risk of further destabilising the fragile security environment.
Furthermore, since April 2024, no progress has been made on the remaining three benchmarks, which relate to the establishment and implementation of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) process; the proper management of existing arms and ammunition stockpiles; and the implementation of the Joint Action Plan for the armed forces on addressing conflict-related sexual violence. The Secretary-General expressed concern over the stalled progress, highlighting the persistent lack of political will and insufficient funding for the DDR process and the management of weapons and ammunition. He warned that these continued shortcomings gravely undermine the prospects for lasting peace and security in South Sudan.
Human Rights-Related Developments
In a 27 March press release, the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan expressed deep concern over the country’s rapidly deteriorating security situation. The Commission warned that, without adherence to the revitalised agreement, South Sudan’s escalating crisis could spiral further, destabilising an already fragile region. Cautioning against the imminent risk of a return to full-scale conflict, the Commission urged South Sudanese leaders to engage in dialogue across political divides to de-escalate tensions and address their differences. The Commission also called on regional and international partners to intensify diplomatic pressure to secure the immediate and full implementation of the peace agreement.
Women, Peace and Security
Jackline Nasiwa—Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Inclusive Governance, Peace and Justice—briefed during the Council’s 16 April meeting. She warned that the conflict in South Sudan is having “a devastating impact on women and girls” while also deepening food insecurity and displacement, eroding civic and political space, and weakening democratic processes. Nasiwa called on the Council to demand that the parties “jointly declare an immediate cessation of hostilities” and recommit to the revitalised agreement. She urged the international community to urgently support grassroot peacebuilding and early warning and atrocity prevention mechanisms. Regarding the Council’s negotiations on the renewal of UNMISS mandate, Nasiwa highlighted the importance of prioritising gender “across the implementation of the UNMISS mandate” and urged Council members to “work together to preserve and renew this mandate in full”.
Key Issues and Options
An immediate key issue for the Council is the extension of the South Sudan sanctions regime (targeted sanctions and the arms embargo) and renewing the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the sanctions committee. In their discussions in May, Council members are likely to be guided by the findings and the recommendations of the panel’s 14 March final report and the assessment provided by the Secretary-General in his 15 April report.
One option for Council members is to renew the sanctions measures and the panel’s mandate for one year while maintaining the benchmarks and urging the parties to the revitalised agreement to make urgent progress in their implementation. Another option for Council members would be to consider listing individuals or entities found to be in violation of the sanctions regime.
A significant issue for the Council is how to prevent South Sudan from descending into civil war while addressing the structural issues that contribute to recurring violence and political instability. Although the revitalised agreement has so far prevented large-scale clashes, local violence persists, with recent unrest heightening fears of a return to a full-scale conflict. Council members could consider holding a private meeting with relevant AU officials and regional stakeholders to discuss approaches to resolving the political and security tensions. They could also consider issuing a press statement to respond to the rapidly evolving security situation.
Council members could also consider a visiting mission to South Sudan to assess the situation on the ground and engage with the various parties to the R-ARCSS. (The last Council visiting mission to South Sudan took place in 2019.)
Council Dynamics
The sanctions imposed on South Sudan remain a divisive issue in the Council. When the Council last renewed the sanctions regime in May 2024 through resolution 2731, six Council members abstained—Algeria, China, Guyana, Russia, Sierra Leone, and then-Council member Mozambique.
Several Council members—including France, the UK, and the US—continue to view sanctions as an essential tool for maintaining pressure on parties in South Sudan to implement the revitalised agreement. These members argue that the arms embargo, first imposed in July 2018 through resolution 2428, has played a significant role in reducing violence by limiting the flow of weapons into South Sudan. They have expressed concern that lifting the embargo could worsen the security situation by enabling greater access to arms in an already volatile environment. Given the deteriorating security situation and South Sudan’s vulnerability to regional security dynamics, particularly the war in Sudan, several members are also likely to emphasise strict adherence to the arms embargo provisions.
On the other hand, China and Russia have long opposed the South Sudan sanctions regime. These members argue that sanctions imposed on the South Sudanese government have hindered its ability to build and consolidate its security institutions and should be lifted or adjusted to support the country’s peace efforts. African members of the Council have also expressed concerns about maintaining the sanctions regime, which, in their view, undermines progress in the political and security spheres. It remains unclear how certain “A3 plus” members (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana) and newer Council members, such as Pakistan—which have generally been sympathetic to the host government’s concerns—will approach the vote on renewing the sanctions regime, especially amid the deteriorating security landscape.
In response to the deteriorating political and security situation in South Sudan, the US (the penholder on South Sudan) apparently proposed a draft resolution in April. It appears that while some Council members—including France, the UK, and other like-minded states—expressed support for the initiative, others, such as China and Russia, pushed back against the resolution. During the Council’s 16 April meeting, Russia argued that “the situation in South Sudan is under the control of the current [g]overnment” and emphasised that the Council’s priority should be to support the authorities’ stabilisation efforts rather than apply undue pressure. The “A3 plus” members engaged on the substance of the draft resolution but apparently favoured a press statement instead of a resolution. At press time, it remained unclear whether deliberations on the draft resolution would continue.
| Security Council Resolutions | |
| 30 May 2024S/RES/2731 | renewed the South Sudan sanctions regime until 31 May 2025 and extended the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee until 1 July 2025. |
| Secretary-General’s Reports | |
| 7 April 2025S/2025/211 | This was the 90-day report covering developments from 16 January to 31 March. |
