I have watched with dismay a video circulating on social media in which an SPLM-IO general addresses his forces in Nuer, allegedly assuring them that they are not heading to attack the people of Bor or destroy their property, but rather will soon be advancing to Juba to dislodge President Salva Kiir and his regime.
How does an SPLM-IO general start mobilizing for war against the government and occupying Juba at a time when the very leader to whom they are loyal to (Dr. Riek Machar) is under the custody of that same government?
If anything, this is the worst possible timing for military adventurism. When a political leader is in the hands of an adversary, armed escalation does not strengthen one’s cause; it weakens it. It hands the regime justification to harden its position, to tighten repression, and to treat the detained as a hostage to the actions of his followers.
Even more concerning is the risk such actions pose to Machar’s life and political future. History is unkind to leaders held in government custody while their forces continue fighting. They are often used as bargaining chips, held as ransom, or eliminated once they are deemed liabilities rather than assets. This is not speculation it is a recurring pattern across Africa’s conflict history.
Remember Samuel Doe of Liberia was captured and brutally killed while his factions fought for leverage, Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone) arrested and used as a bargaining chip after RUF violence spiraled.
At this moment one must therefore ask: did these generals pause to consider the consequences of their actions? Did they reflect on what has happened elsewhere when detained leaders became pawns in a violent struggle leaders who were ultimately sacrificed when military pressure escalated instead of subsiding?
At moments like this, restraint, strategy, and political clarity matter more than fiery declarations.
An attack by any SPLM-IO on Kiir to topple his regime doesn’t only put Machar’s life in danger but is a total betrayal to him.
Great Insights
Thanks.