By: Madit Majak

Was Dr. Riek Machar suspended from his position as chairman of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO), or was he suspended only from his government position as First Vice President of South Sudan?

This distinction is important. If Dr. Machar remains the legitimate chairman of the SPLM-IO, why are Nathaniel Oyet and some of his supporters refusing to recognize or obey directives reportedly issued by him?

Mr. Oyet and his supporters argue that Dr. Machar cannot suspend him from his position as acting chairman because Machar is under house arrest. They also claim that Dr. Machar does not have the constitutional authority to suspend his deputy and that only the SPLM-IO’s National Liberation Council or another authorized party body can remove or suspend Oyet.

However, this argument raises another important question: Who appointed Nathaniel Oyet as acting chairman of the SPLM-IO?

Did an authorized SPLM-IO assembly meet and elect him, or was he appointed to serve in that position because Dr. Machar was unable to perform his duties freely?

Oyet and his supporters reportedly deny that Dr. Machar personally appointed him. Instead, they argue that the SPLM-IO constitution automatically authorized Oyet, as deputy chairman, to serve as acting chairman during Machar’s absence or detention.

The disagreement therefore concerns more than the personalities involved. It is about the interpretation of the SPLM-IO constitution and the limits of an acting chairman’s authority.

Does being under house arrest automatically remove Dr. Machar’s powers as party chairman? Can an acting chairman refuse directives from the substantive chairman? And if Oyet assumed the acting position through the party constitution, does that same constitution give Dr. Machar the power to suspend or remove him?

Both sides claim constitutional legitimacy. Dr. Machar’s supporters maintain that he remains the recognized chairman and retains the authority to direct the party. Oyet’s supporters argue that his detention prevents him from exercising that authority and that Oyet’s position is protected by the SPLM-IO constitution.

The SPLM-IO leadership should publicly release the relevant constitutional provisions and explain the procedures governing the appointment, suspension and removal of its senior officials. Without a transparent constitutional interpretation, the dispute will continue to divide the movement and confuse its members and the public.

Ultimately, the question is not merely whether Machar or Oyet is right. The real question is whether the SPLM-IO will resolve its leadership dispute through its constitution and recognized institutions—or allow competing political claims to deepen the division within the movement.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of South Sudan Eagles Media.