Dr Riek Machar: Uganda's South Sudan help is totally on point

DIPLOMACY 

By Simon Mulongo 

JUBA - In a March 23 letter to the United Nations (UN), African Union (AU) and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), South Sudan’s First Vice-President Dr Riek Machar accuses Uganda’s military deployment of violating the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on South Sudan, the UN arms embargo and sovereignty norms. 

While his claims may seem principled, a deeper analysis reveals they lack legal and moral validity. 

Uganda’s deployment is a lawful, diplomatically co-ordinated action aimed at preserving South Sudan’s fragile peace and ensuring regional stability. The cornerstone of Uganda’s defence is grounded in the principle of sovereign invitation and the legality of deployment, a well-accepted doctrine in international law. 

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force unless in self-defence or sanctioned by the Security Council.

However, the International Court of Justice, in Nicaragua v. United States (1986), affirmed that military assistance requested by a legitimate government adheres to international law. 

South Sudan’s transitional constitution empowers the president with command of armed forces and international military agreements (Art. 101). 

President Salva Kiir Mayardit’s invitation to Uganda exemplifies sovereign consent, making Uganda People’s Defence Force’s intervention not an incursion, but a legally permissible act responding to urgent security needs. 

Machar’s invocation of Articles 2.1.5 and 2.1.7 of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), which mandate the withdrawal of foreign forces during the pre-transitional period, exhibits a stark legal incompleteness. 

The same agreement, in Article 8.3, categorically stipulates that bilateral security arrangements persist unless expressly revoked or supplanted by new provisions. 

Notably, the 2014 Status of Forces Agreement between Uganda and South Sudan, which Machar seeks to undermine, remains valid, as the Revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity never nullified it. 

Simon Mulongo

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 26), treaties made in good faith bind parties unless lawfully terminated. 

Uganda’s reliance on this agreement, adjusted through diplomatic channels, adheres to established legal norms.

Moreover, Machar’s fervent insistence on treaty compliance becomes paradoxical in light of his Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition faction’s persistent violations since 2018. 

This dissonance shifts the conversation from a legitimate legal obligation to a diversionary tactic, undermining the very principles he seeks to uphold. 

In essence, his call for adherence to treaties serves less as a commitment to the rule of law and more as a means to obscure his faction's own lapses and evade accountability. 
Machar’s invocation of Resolutions 2428 (2018) and 2731 (2024), which impose an arms embargo on South Sudan, warrants rigorous examination. 

These resolutions explicitly prohibit the transfer of arms to South Sudanese entities, but do not obstruct an invited state from deploying its own forces under its own command. 
Indeed, Paragraph 3 of Resolution 2428 allows actions that bolster the implementation of the R-ARCSS. Uganda’s strategic and proportionate deployment aligns with this mandate, serving as a stabilising force rather than a violator. 

Moreover, international precedents, such as in Mali (2020-2022), illustrate that foreign forces, invited by a legitimate government, have not breached arms embargoes. Uganda’s actions not only adhere to legal standards, but also embody a regional imperative. 

The AU Constitutive Act (Article 4(h)) permits intervention in cases of severe human rights violations, while the IGAD Protocol on Conflict Prevention mandates collective action to safeguard regional peace. 

Additionally, Uganda hosts over 1.5 million South Sudanese refugees, creating a humanitarian burden that risks overwhelming its infrastructure and undermining national stability. 

Thus, Uganda’s cautious and proportional response is framed within a clear intent: To avert chaos and ensure regional stability. 

To understand the current controversy, one must navigate the broader political landscape. 

Machar has skillfully employed the rhetoric of legality and peace to mask his recurrent cycles of rebellion. His trajectory — from aligning with Khartoum against Dr John Garang in the 1990s to instigating the civil wars of 2013 and 2016, and now undermining cantonment efforts — illustrates a calculated strategy: Delegitimise the state, fragment power and emerge as the self-proclaimed saviour of a nation he has contributed to destabilising. 

While engaging stakeholders respectfully is essential, we must scrutinise claims that, when selectively invoked, become tools of obfuscation rather than true enlightenment. 
Uganda’s role in South Sudan constitutes a stabilisation operation.

True peace arises not merely from treaties, but from decisive actions when those agreements are threatened. In times of political turmoil, the legal framework must illuminate our path forward.

The writer is a governance and security consultant — EMANS Frontiers Ltd