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.
Key Recent Developments
South Sudan’s political landscape remains highly volatile, driven in part by the actions of President Salva Kiir Mayardit in violation of the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS). Elections, currently scheduled for December 2026 following repeated postponements, are looking increasingly uncertain. Persistent financial constraints, coupled with delays in key legal and political decisions, continue to impede progress on critical transitional processes. In this context, the revitalised agreement appears to have been progressively hollowed out.
According to the Secretary-General’s 13 April report, political fragmentation has contributed directly to military escalation, increasingly hostile rhetoric, and greater assertiveness among armed actors. The report underscored the persistent lack of political will to advance inclusive dialogue and the continued focus on the elections over the full implementation of key R-ARCSS benchmarks, which has created an environment that increasingly favours one signatory party—the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by Kiir—and has seriously undermined the functioning of transitional institutions.
Meanwhile, the security situation continues to deteriorate across South Sudan, marked by sustained hostilities between the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF), the government’s forces, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-in-Opposition (SPLA-IO) alongside other opposition and affiliated groups. The situation in the Greater Upper Nile region further deteriorated, with Jonglei State recording the highest increase in fighting and related casualties. Elsewhere, the Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions remained volatile, affected by a combination of clashes between SSPDF and SPLA-IO elements, intercommunal violence, and cattle raids, resulting in significant civilian harm. (For background and more information, see the brief on South Sudan in our April 2026 Monthly Forecast and 16 April What’s in Blue story.)
The most recent quarterly report of the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC)—covering 1 January to 31 March and released on 22 April—noted that the body had received proposals from the transitional government to amend provisions of the R-ARCSS to delink constitution-making and census processes from the December 2026 elections. The RJMEC raised concerns about the prevailing political and security context, the procedure used to initiate the amendments, and their potentially far-reaching implications, such as delinking the R-ARCSS from the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan of 2011 and annulling its sanctity and supremacy. In a 26 February letter, which is not a public document, it outlined alternative approaches to safeguard the agreement and, at the time of the report, was still awaiting the government’s response.
The humanitarian situation in South Sudan continued to deteriorate, driven by conflict, displacement, disease outbreaks, access constraints, and mounting operational challenges. In his remarks at the 17 April Council meeting on the situation in South Sudan, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher said that renewed fighting since late December 2025 has displaced over a quarter of a million people across multiple states, with a further 110,000 fleeing into Ethiopia, while renewed violence in and around Akobo has driven additional displacement. He noted that, according to the World Health Organization, 1.35 million people in Jonglei State have lost access to healthcare following the destruction or closure of 26 facilities. Food insecurity is also deepening, with emergency levels expected across all ten states during the lean season through July, and more than 7.5 million people will require food assistance this year, raising concerns about the risk of famine. These pressures are compounded by anticipated flooding and spillover effects of the conflict in Sudan, which has driven approximately 1.4 million people into South Sudan.
Human Rights-Related Developments
In a 9 April press release, Siobhán Mullally, the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and girls, warned that escalating violence in South Sudan is contributing to an alarming rise in child trafficking. She highlighted reports indicating the normalisation of conflict-related sexual violence and the forced recruitment of young men and boys for use in combat and support roles. Mullally underscored the need for survivor-centred justice measures and urgent action to ensure effective access to justice for victims of all forms of conflict-related trafficking.
In a 17 April press release, the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan expressed grave concern over the discovery of burial sites in Jonglei State amid renewed violence. The Commission indicated that the remains may belong to combatants killed in earlier fighting but noted that the circumstances of their deaths and burial remain unclear, adding that it could not exclude the possibility that the sites contain civilians or individuals killed in circumstances amounting to serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. It underscored the need to secure the sites, conduct proper forensic investigations, and ensure that those responsible are identified and held accountable.
Sanctions-Related Developments
On 16 March, the Panel of Experts assisting the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee circulated its final report to committee members. On 27 March, the committee held informal consultations to discuss the final report and consider the panel’s recommendations.
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, in 2025-2026, South Sudan faced its most difficult period since the signing of the 2018 revitalized agreement. In addition to a lack of progress on the five key benchmarks, there were also deeply concerning reversals in the achievements made to date. While some limited initiatives continued, largely supported by UNMISS and partners, these efforts were insufficient to offset the broader stagnation across the benchmarks.
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 16 March final report, and the assessment provided by the Secretary-General in his 15 April report.
Another key 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. The deteriorating humanitarian situation, with restricted humanitarian access and heightened risks to civilians and aid workers, remains a major concern, as does the need to ensure accountability for human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. The broader regional context is also a major issue for Council members, as it continues to pose serious challenges to South Sudan’s political and security situation, particularly through the spillover effects of the ongoing conflict in Sudan, including its humanitarian, security, and socio-economic repercussions.
In light of the spiralling security situation, the most likely option for Council members appears to be maintaining the existing sanctions measures and renewing them alongside the mandate of the Panel of Experts for one year, while reviewing the current benchmarks to address the current situation. Following the review of the benchmarks, although likely difficult given current Council dynamics, the Council could also consider imposing additional targeted sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violations of the sanctions regime and expanding the designation criteria, if appropriate. In the meantime, an option would be to urge member states, particularly in the region, to enhance enforcement of the arms embargo and improve reporting on implementation measures in order to strengthen implementation and compliance.
Council members could consider holding an informal interactive dialogue (IID) with the various stakeholders of the South Sudanese political process, the leadership of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), and interested regional and subregional member states and organisations to discuss strategies to address the deteriorating situation in the country. (The IID is a closed format that, unlike closed consultations, allows for the participation of non-UN officials and briefers.)
A continuing issue for the Council is the obstacles facing UNMISS in fulfilling its mandate and responsibilities. These include restrictions on its freedom of movement and violations of the Status of Forces Agreement. The situation is further compounded by the implementation of contingency measures in response to the UN-wide financial crisis, which has forced the mission to scale back its capabilities and resources, including the closure of several temporary operating bases in areas with acute protection-of-civilians needs. (For more information, see our 16 April What’s in Blue story.)
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
Council members share similar concerns regarding the significant challenges facing the revitalised agreement, the deteriorating security situation resulting from fighting among armed factions, ongoing sub-national and intercommunal violence, and the deepening economic and humanitarian crises.
The sanctions imposed on South Sudan have long been a divisive issue in the Council. When the Council last renewed the sanctions regime in May 2025 through resolution 2781, six Council members abstained—China, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, and then-Council members Algeria and Sierra Leone.
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 advance the peace process. 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 traditionally expressed concerns about maintaining the sanctions regime, which, in their view, undermines progress in the political and security spheres. Nevertheless, despite maintaining these positions, these members did not appear to push strongly for lifting or modifying the sanctions regime during negotiations on resolution 2781, given the deteriorating political and security situation. (For more information, see our 29 May 2025 What’s in Blue story.)
The African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) have repeatedly called for the lifting of sanctions on South Sudan, while several regional states have expressed opposition to the arms embargo. However, it remains unclear how the current configuration of the Council’s A3 members—with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia joining Somalia—will approach the renewal of these measures.
| Security Council Resolutions | |
| 30 May 2025S/RES/2781 | This resolution renewed the South Sudan sanctions regime until 31 May 2026 and the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee until 1 July 2026. |
| Security Council Meeting Records | |
| 17 April 2026S/PV.10139 | This was the Security Council’s regular 90-day meeting on the situation in South Sudan. |
| Secretary-General’s Reports | |
| 13 April 2026S/2026/316 | This was the Secretary-General’s 90-day report covering developments since 16 January 2026. |
