How Michael Makuei Nearly Torched South Sudan’s Peace Accord
The Index Post
May 4, 2026
South Sudan's Minister of Justice Michael Makuei Lueth
In a high-stakes gamble that bordered on institutional suicide, Justice Minister Michael Makuei Lueth attempted to dismantle the very legal framework that grants South Sudan’s government its authority. By branding the 2018 peace agreement “originally defective” and moving to bypass mandatory international oversight, Makuei didn’t just trigger a constitutional crisis—he attempted a "legal coup”. The maneuver has backfired, leaving the transitional government in a state of terminal paralysis, rejected by its own submissive parliament and stripped of its remaining domestic and international credibility.
JUBA, South Sudan — For nearly eight years, the 2018 peace agreement has served as the shaky scaffolding holding the world’s youngest nation together. But this month, the man tasked with defending the rule of law in South Sudan, Justice Minister Michael Makuei Lueth, stood accused of trying to pull the bolts out from under it.
In a move that has plunged the government into a profound constitutional crisis, Mr. Makuei issued a legal opinion that characterized the peace accord as “originally defective” and advised the cabinet to unilaterally bypass the international body oversight intended to prevent a return to civil war.
By issuing an opinion that advocated for the Revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) to "bypass" the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC), Makuei did more than commit a procedural error; he attempted a soft coup against the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS). This maneuver, aimed at forcing through amendments to enable a truncated electoral process, has failed. It has invited a sharp rebuke from the international community, exposed the government to charges of bad faith, and ultimately left the legislative agenda in a state of terminal confusion.
The 2018 Revitalised Agreement (R-ARCSS) is the supreme legal instrument of the South Sudanese transition. Article 8.4 of the accord mandates a specific, three-step chain of custody for any amendment: approval by two-thirds of the Council of Ministers, consent by two-thirds of the voting members of RJMEC, and final ratification by the Transitional National Legislature (TNL).
Minister Makuei’s legal opinion, formalized in Council of Ministers Resolution No. 12/2026, sought to amputate the second link of this chain. In his letter to the Parliament, Makuei argued that because "time is running out for completion of critical elections related tasks," the government should "bypass the R-JMEC and thereby deprive it of its intentions". This is an extraordinary admission of a desire to circumvent the law by a sitting Justice Minister. The R-ARCSS contains no "emergency" clause allowing the executive to ignore RJMEC oversight simply because the commission raises "very serious concerns" about the proposed changes. By advising the cabinet to act ultra vires—beyond its legal power—Makuei effectively counseled the government to commit institutional suicide.
To justify this procedural bypass, Makuei advanced a technical argument to the Parliament on April 21, 2026, that is as reckless as it is erroneous. He claimed that a perusal of the agreement reveals it is "originally defective" because it allegedly "has no arbitration or dispute resolution mechanism provisions". He argued that the RJMEC Interim Chairperson was "exploiting" this defect to obstruct government policy.
This claim represents a staggering failure of legal scholarship. The R-ARCSS does contain an explicit deadlock-breaking mechanism: Article 7.11 stipulates that in the event of any deadlock within RJMEC, the commission "will refer the matter to the guarantors"—the regional heads of state. Rather than following this accord-mandated path for dispute resolution, Makuei characterized the RJMEC’s adherence to its voting procedures as "a clear violation". He essentially argued that the primary monitoring body, by exercising its statutory right to withhold consent, had rendered itself an illegal entity that the sovereign legislature should simply ignore.
The most dangerous aspect of Makuei’s "poor and foolish" legal opinion was the proposed repeal of Articles 8.2 and 8.3 of the R-ARCSS. These articles are the "supremacy clauses" of the transition; they establish that the peace agreement is fully incorporated into the Transitional Constitution and shall "take precedence over any national legislation" in case of conflict.
By advising the repeal of these provisions, Makuei sought to strip the R-ARCSS of its status as the supreme law of the land. This move would have made the transitional government illegitimate, as the RTGoNU is a creature of the very peace agreement the Minister sought to kill. Without the R-ARCSS as the supreme legal framework, the government loses its own constitutional basis. Furthermore, the proposal sought to repeal Article 6.4, which requires a permanent constitution before elections can be held, in a transparent attempt to "delink" the vote from the comprehensive reforms promised in 2018.
Makuei’s legal strategy also ignored the fundamental requirement for executive consultation. Under Article 1.9.4 of the R-ARCSS, amendments to the transitional constitution or the peace deal "shall require the agreement" of the President, the First Vice President, and all four Vice Presidents.
Opposition officials aligned with First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar have stated unequivocally that they were not consulted, nor did they agree to the initiation of these changes. Given that Machar is currently detained and facing treason charges, international observers noted that claims of "inclusive consultations" in the capital were "illogical". By ignoring the requirement for collegial decision-making in the presidency, Makuei ensured that his amendment bill was legally defective from its inception.
The "Makuei Doctrine"—the idea that the cabinet can unilaterally ignore the RJMEC—was met with total rejection by the peace process's other pillars. On April 24, 2026, a coalition of major donors, including the United States, the European Union, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and Norway, issued a "sharp rebuke". They reaffirmed that the 2018 agreement remains the "only legal framework" for the government and warned that any amendments must "strictly follow procedures set out in the accord itself".
Domestically, RJMEC Interim Chairperson Maj. Gen. George Owinow briefed the legislature on April 20, clarifying that the government must "comply strictly" with Articles 1.9.4 and 8.4. He warned that unilateral decisions risk "sliding back into instability" and jeopardizing the hard-won gains of the peace process. Makuei’s attempt to paint the RJMEC as an illegal obstructionist body was exposed as a hollow legal fiction in the face of this unified front.
The final collapse of Makuei’s gambit occurred on April 28, 2026. The Transitional National Legislative Assembly and the Council of States had planned a joint sitting to ratify the controversial amendments. Instead, the debate was "abruptly dropped" for what officials called "technical reasons".
In a moment of profound administrative absurdity, the legislature instead spent the day discussing the administrative status of Rumbek Senior Secondary School. The shift from amending the nation's supreme law to discussing a regional school's transfer was a public admission of the government's legal retreat. Lawmakers, realizing the illegality of the process and facing reported pressure from the presidency to halt the bill, were forced to scramble for a different agenda. The parliamentary spokesperson, Oliver Mori Benjamin, could not provide details on why the item was removed despite having been cleared for debate by the House Business Committee. This legislative whiplash is the direct result of a Justice Minister who led his cabinet into a legal cul-de-sac.
The legal opinion provided by Michael Makuei Lueth was not merely poor; it was professional malpractice. By advising the government to "bypass" its monitoring bodies and "deprive" them of their functions, he demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the binding nature of international accords and constitutional law.
His actions have stalled the very election preparations he claimed to be accelerating. The peace agreement requires "consultation, consensus, and agreement"; Makuei chose "unilateralism, bypass, and repeal". The resulting deadlock has left South Sudan in a state of terminal uncertainty. For the RTGoNU to regain any semblance of legitimacy, it must discard the "Makuei Doctrine" and return to the inclusive, consensus-based procedures of the R-ARCSS. This failed legal gambit serves as a stark warning: in a nation searching for stability, the most dangerous threat to the rule of law can often be found within the very office tasked with its defense.
More from The Index Post
Kenya’s Judicial Service Commission Pushes for Data-Driven Accountability of Judges
The Kenyan Judiciary is transitioning to a transparent framework that mandates the publication of individual performance data for judges to ensure constitutional accountability. This shift requires court leadership to prioritize metrics like case clearance rates and public perception to maintain the institutional record.
SOUTH SUDAN JUDICIARY MANDATES ENGLISH FOR COURT JUDGMENTS: A DRAMATIC LEGAL PIVOT TOWARD THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY
All judges in the Republic of South Sudan shall write their judgments in English with effect from 1st June, 2026, the Chief Justice declared.
Kenyan Court Deals Blow to Bank of South Sudan as Millions are Seized for State Debt
In a dramatic ruling that underscores the vulnerability of sovereign assets, the Kenyan Court of Appeal has paved the way for a landmark legal battle over central bank independence—even as it admitted the specific funds at the heart of the dispute have already vanished.
The South Sudan Blood Oil Trial in Sweden Nears Its Judgment
After a historic three-year legal battle, corporate executives face a definitive reckoning over their alleged complicity in a brutal resource war. Stockholm prosecutors have concluded their closing arguments, seeking multi-year prison sentences for two former Lundin Oil executives accused of aiding and abetting war crimes in Sudan between 1999 and 2003, before South Sudan’s independence.
South Sudan’s Defiance of the ACHPR Ruling Illegally Profits Terab Radio 87.6 FM
In its latest ruling, the African Commission condemned South Sudan for state-sanctioned land grabs, but Juba had already turned the illegally seized site into government-backed radio 87.6 Terab FM, hosting ministers and laundering the violation into a private asset for Mading Ngor Akec.
AU Peace and Security Council Reiterates Call for the Release of First Vice President Riek Machar
Following its 1343rd meeting held on April 30, 2026, AU Peace and Security Council Calls for the Release of First Vice President Riek Machar from Detention in Juba.
D.C. District Court Rejects South Sudan’s Motion to Strike, Ordering May 8 Response to QNB’s Evidence
Judge Timothy denied the Bank of South Sudan’s motion to strike, permitting Qatar National Bank’s late-filed statement of facts to remain on the record, in a high-stakes $1 billion enforcement battle involving sovereign default and allegations of state control.
South Sudan Embarks on Recruiting More Judges, More than a Hundred Interviewed So Far
South Sudan is filling more than 100 judicial vacancies under a 2008 obsolete legal framework. While the government frames this recruitment as a necessary expansion ahead of the December 2026 elections, the process is unfolding without the institutional reforms mandated by the 2018 peace agreement. This vacuum of oversight suggests the new bench may serve as a political instrument of the executive rather than an independent arbiter of the rule of law.
Sanctioned By the African Union, South Sudan Has Lost Its Floor and Votes. Paralysed For The Upcoming AU Summit
South Sudan enters this month’s high-level summits in Egypt as a diplomatic ghost, stripped of its right to speak or vote following a February decision by the African Union to enforce rigid financial sanctions. Unless Juba clears arrears estimated between $3 million and $6 million, the world’s youngest nation faces a total administrative freeze and the loss of its membership rights by 2027.
South Sudan Government's Policy Stagnation Fuels Another UN Sanctions Extension
Every uninvestigated atrocity, every warlord integrated into the state payroll without accountability, strengthens the hand of those in New York and other capitals who argue that sanctions must not only continue but be tightened. Washington maintains that any influx of weapons into a fractured polity where commanders have repeatedly turned arms on civilians would inevitably escalate internal strife. Juba’s envoys, tasked with making the case for relief, are left with a brief devoid of deliverables, forced to rely on appeals to sovereignty that sound increasingly hollow when the sovereign in question cannot control its own military or protect its own citizens.
Juba Retreats from Unilateral Peace Deal Amendment After Western Pressure
South Sudan's cabinet abandoned a controversial plan to weaken the legal authority of the 2018 peace agreement following severe international backlash. The reversal preserves the deal’s status as the supreme legal framework ahead of the country's planned 2026 general elections.
Selecting the "Correct" Opposition: The Decree that Ate the Legislature
The presidential revocation of 47 SPLM-IO Members of Parliament marks a definitive crisis for the 2018 Revitalised Peace Agreement. By asserting executive authority to reshape the opposition’s legislative wing, President Salva Kiir has not merely engaged in a personnel shuffle; he has challenged the foundational principles of power-sharing and collegial collaboration. In doing so, the Presidency has exposed a dangerous gap between the "Supreme Law" of the land and the political reality of rule by decree, threatening to turn the 2026 transition into an institutional dead end.
The Ghost Ledger: How South Sudan has Entered a State of Total Fiscal Suspension
South Sudan has transitioned from a state of procedural delay to one of total fiscal suspension, attempting to authorize a 2025-2026 budget for a year that has functionally elapsed while ignoring the looming 2026-2027 statutory deadline. The executive branch has replaced formal financial oversight with a series of summary removals, resulting in the rapid displacement of ten Finance Ministers in recent years and the displacement of the head of the legislature. This institutional decay leaves the national treasury operating in a legal vacuum where public expenditure proceeds without the mandate of an active Appropriation Act.
HOW SOUTH SUDAN'S CONSTANT CONTRACT BREACHES GIVE RISE TO $2B PLUS INDEFENSIBLE LEGAL BATTLE
The Republic of South Sudan is drowning in over $2.3 billion of international litigation sparked by a systemic culture of contractual bad faith and administrative paralysis. Despite progressive investment laws on the books, Juba’s habit of ignoring signed settlements and arbitrarily seizing assets has transformed the nation into a primary "no-go" zone for global capital.
The Blue House in Court: South Sudan’s Widely Condemned National Security Law Faces EACJ Reckoning
The East African Court of Justice is weighing a pivotal challenge to South Sudan’s National Security Service Amendment Act, which preserves warrantless arrest powers despite constitutional safeguards—a key test (Reference No. 43 of 2024) of regional judicial supremacy over domestic repression laws.
Toxic Defiance: How South Sudan Is Ignoring the Law and Poisoning its Future
The Republic of South Sudan remains in breach of a landmark mediated settlement to remediate catastrophic oil pollution in its northern wetlands. Despite a 2021 East African Court of Justice decree, the government’s failure to properly audit toxic spills has sparked a new legal crisis over regional treaty compliance.
ACHPR Ruling on South Sudan Nationality Case Sets New Precedent for African Citizenship Rights
The African Commission ruled South Sudan’s arbitrary stripping of a high-level official’s nationality—leaving her stateless—violated the African Charter’s dignity clause, and setting a new precedent for citizenship rights in Africa.