23/05/2026
Civil Society Leader Applauds Government’s U-turn on Key Peace Agreement Clauses
Edmund Yakani, who leads the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO), has voiced strong approval of the government's recent move to keep Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS). These provisions, he notes, uphold the 2018 peace deal as the supreme legal framework for the country’s transition.
According to Yakani, the decision to retain these articles did not come out of nowhere. It was a direct result of persistent pressure and behind-the-scenes discussions led by civil society groups and other key players in the peace process. In his view, the government’s reversal shows that advocacy can work when stakeholders speak with one voice.
Had the cabinet chosen to scrap those three articles, Yakani argues, the very foundation of the Revitalized Government of National Unity would have been called into question. He believes that removing them would have effectively stripped the current unity government of its legitimacy and undermined the entire peace architecture painstakingly built since 2018.
“It is a welcome development that the cabinet finally chose to leave Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 untouched,” Yakani said. He added that safeguarding these clauses is not just a legal technicality. It is a matter of honoring commitments made to the South Sudanese people, who have endured years of violence and displacement.
The CEPO chief further emphasized that any attempt to weaken the supremacy clause of the 2018 agreement would have opened the door to renewed distrust among signatories and derailed implementation of key benchmarks, including security arrangements and transitional justice.
For now, Yakani called on the government to go a step further, not only by protecting these articles on paper but also by fully implementing the spirit of the peace deal in practice. He warned that keeping the text intact means little if the actions on the ground continue to contradict the agreement’s core principles.