Lawyers submitted the petition at the Supreme Court on September 23, 2024. (Photo: Michael Daniel).

A group of lawyers summited a petitioned to the Supreme Court of South Sudan on Monday to contest the government’s decision to postpone elections and extend the transitional period for 24 months.

They claim that the extension violates the Transitional Constitution, which was amended in 2022. The lawyers argue that the extension undermines the legal and democratic framework of the nation.

They urged the Supreme Court to intervene and compel the government to hold elections within the originally agreed-upon timeframe.

The group of five lawyers; Deng John, Kur Lual Kur, Santio Daniel, Warnyang Kiir and Ador Abraham submitted the constitutional petition to Chief Justice Chan Reech Madut early on Monday.

Speaking to the media, Advocate Deng John urged the Supreme Court to declare the extension of the transitional period as unconstitutional, and null and voided.

“Our petition challenges the legality and constitutionality of the government’s decision to extend the transitional period by 24 months.”

“We firmly believe that this extension is unconstitutional and illegal, as it undermines the commitment to conduct national elections within the originally agreed-upon time frame.”

The petitioners said they will follow up the matter with further submissions next Wednesday.

“Through this legal action, we seek a declaration from the Court that the extension of the transitional period is unconstitutional, null, and void.”

“Additionally, we are requesting that the Court order the government to proceed with elections within the stipulated time, honouring the constitutional mandate and the expectations of the people of South Sudan.”

The extension has raised significant concerns about the rule of law and the future of democratic governance in South Sudan, with the petitioners emphasizing the need for adherence to the constitution and timely elections.

On September 22, President Salva Kiir signed Amendment Number 12 to South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution of 2011, officially postponing national elections and extending the transitional period by two years.

The amendment was passed just before a critical deadline when the government was supposed to be dissolved under the 2018 peace agreement.

In an extraordinary parliamentary session, the amendment was unanimously endorsed, after being quickly approved by the cabinet and peace monitoring body R-JMEC, despite concerns from several Western diplomatic missions. According to Speaker Jemma.

However, diplomatic missions from countries including the UK, US, Norway, and EU expressed disappointment, noting that the extension reflects the government’s failure to meet the commitments of the 2018 peace deal, despite assurances made with the 2022 peace roadmap.

In response to the lawyers’ petition, Advocate Suhila Deng argued that there is no conflict between the extension and the articles of the constitution.

According to her, revitalized peace agreement prevails over the transitional constitution.

“Article Eight of the Revitalized Peace Agreement grants sovereignty over the Transitional Constitution of 2011, as amended in 2022. In the case of a conflict between the Revitalized Agreement and any law, the Agreement takes precedence, as stated in Article 199 of the Transitional Constitution,” she argued.

“Based on these provisions, the recent extension of the transitional period was legally approved by these bodies. Article 199 of the Constitution empowers these institutions to amend constitutional texts, and this process aligns with the mandates of Article 8, enabling Parliament to lawfully proceed with the extension without constitutional conflict.”