On 5 July 2026, opposition-affiliated forces attacked Walgak in Akobo County, resulting in the death of James Kueth Makuach, the government-appointed county commissioner, in a position previously allocated to the opposition under the 2018 Revitalized Agreement (R-ARCSS). The incident was not an isolated flashpoint. Fighting in Jonglei continued in the following weeks, and some South Sudanese analysts have raised concerns about the feasibility of the country’s planned 2026 elections. More broadly, the episode highlighted emerging tensions over whether national power-sharing arrangements continue to shape authority at the local level, with implications for the credibility of the broader transition.
South Sudan’s peace process is often assessed through national-level benchmarks such as the presidency, cabinet allocations, and electoral timelines. While these indicators capture the formal architecture of the agreement, they do not fully reflect dynamics on the ground. This brief identifies a deeper risk best understood as administrative militarization: a process in which shifts in security dynamics and political alignment translate into influence over local administration, revenue systems, and security coordination—potentially undermining aspects of the agreement’s implementation without any formal withdrawal.
The County as the Operating Unit of the Agreement
County administrations represent the primary interface between the state and local actors, including traditional authorities, traders, armed youth, and displaced communities. Control over a county commissioner’s office can provide access to local revenue streams, patronage networks, and relationships with armed constituencies—extending far beyond routine administrative functions. The Akobo case illustrates a broader sequence: a change in political alignment, evolving security conditions, and an administrative appointment that reflects these dynamics. While such outcomes may be presented as lawful within government frameworks, they may also be interpreted by other stakeholders as inconsistent with agreed allocations under the peace arrangement.
A Wider Pattern
Similar dynamics have been reported in several areas, including Leer, Koch, Mayendit, parts of Upper Nile, and Jonglei, where control over county headquarters and local appointments intersects with factional competition. National-level implementation indicators may confirm that ministerial positions have been allocated, yet they often do not capture whether all parties can operate effectively at the local level or whether administrative authority is influenced by prevailing security conditions. This represents a critical blind spot in conventional monitoring approaches.
Not Every Dispute Is a Breach
It is important to recognize that governments retain the sovereign responsibility to administer their territory, and not every contested local appointment constitutes a violation of the R-ARCSS. Interpreting all administrative changes as breaches risks overstating fragility and unnecessarily internationalizing routine governance processes.
A more precise standard is therefore required: whether appointments follow agreed procedures, whether affected parties retain access to non-violent dispute resolution mechanisms, and whether changes alter established power-sharing arrangements through coercive or non-consensual means. This approach allows for the distinction between legitimate governance decisions and developments that may affect the integrity of the transitional framework.
Ethiopia’s Strategic Sensitivity
Ethiopia’s most immediate exposure lies along the Gambela frontier, where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recorded more than 446,000 refugees and asylum seekers as of 31 May 2026, the majority originating from South Sudan. A diplomatically balanced Ethiopian approach should continue to uphold South Sudan’s sovereignty, maintain a position of non-interference in internal political processes, and operate through established regional mechanisms such as IGAD and the African Union. It is also important to distinguish clearly between verified cross-border security concerns and routine movements associated with refugees and local trade.
Watching the Counties
Regional and continental mechanisms could strengthen monitoring by incorporating subnational dimensions of implementation. IGAD and the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission may consider developing a diagnostic framework to track county-level appointments, political realignments, and administrative shifts, in coordination with South Sudanese authorities. Similarly, the African Union Peace and Security Council could request regular reporting on local governance dynamics as a complement to national benchmarks. Ethiopia, for its part, may prioritize contingency planning in Gambela and enhance information-sharing through IGAD, while supporting coordinated regional messaging on humanitarian access and inclusive dialogue.
Conclusion
Peace agreements rarely lose relevance only through formal political rupture. In many cases, their authority evolves gradually as local realities shift. Developments at the county level in South Sudan suggest that the sustainability of the transition depends not only on national arrangements but also on how authority is exercised and contested at the local level. Strengthening attention to these dynamics—through coordinated regional engagement and careful monitoring—will be essential to preserving the integrity of the peace process and supporting a stable political transition.
By Fenet Motuma, IFA
Disclaimer:
The content disseminated by the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) – including, but not limited to, publications, public statements, events, media appearances, and digital communications – reflects the views of individual contributors and does not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the Institute, its partners, or any affiliated governmental or non-governmental entities.
While the IFA endeavors to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and timeliness of the information presented, it makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, reliability, or suitability of such content for any purpose. The Institute expressly disclaims any liability for errors or omissions, as well as for any actions taken or decisions made based on the information provided.
The inclusion of external links, references, or third-party resources does not constitute an endorsement by the Institute. Additionally, engagement on social media platforms – including, but not limited to, likes, shares, retweets (RTs), or reposts – shall not be interpreted as an endorsement or validation of the views expressed therein.
Readers and audiences are encouraged to exercise critical judgment and seek independent verification when interpreting or relying upon any information disseminated through publications and posts on the Institute’s platforms or representative.