From Machakos to Freedom

The agreement that opened the political road to the birth of South Sudan.

On 20 July 2002, in the Kenyan town of Machakos, history took a turn that would eventually change the political map of Africa.

Representatives of the Government of the Republic of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) placed their signatures on an agreement that, at the time, did not create a new country and did not end the war. Yet it accomplished something that had eluded Sudanese politics for decades: it established an agreed political framework for resolving the conflict and, most significantly, recognized the right of the people of South Sudan to determine their own political future through a referendum.

The agreement became known as the Machakos Protocol.

It was signed after weeks of negotiations conducted in Machakos under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process. The negotiations ran from 18 June to 20 July 2002. The Government of Sudan was represented by Dr. Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani, while Commander Salva Kiir Mayardit signed on behalf of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army. The agreement was witnessed by Lt. Gen. Lazaro K. Sumbeiywo, the IGAD Special Envoy for the Sudan Peace Process.

For the people of South Sudan, the significance of that moment would only become fully apparent years later.

Machakos would become one of the foundations upon which the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 was built. The CPA would establish the transitional arrangements that followed. Those arrangements would lead to the January 2011 referendum. The referendum would overwhelmingly endorse independence. And on 9 July 2011, the Republic of South Sudan would emerge as the world's newest independent country.

The story of independence, therefore, did not begin on 9 July 2011. One of its decisive chapters began at Machakos.

A Country Divided by War

To understand Machakos, it is necessary to understand the Sudan that existed before it.

For much of the post-colonial period, Sudan struggled with deep political, economic, cultural, religious and regional divisions. Power was concentrated largely in the political centre, while many peripheral regions experienced marginalization, underdevelopment and limited political influence.

The relationship between the northern and southern parts of Sudan became particularly troubled.

The first civil war ended with the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972, which provided southern Sudan with a degree of regional autonomy. For a period, the country experienced relative peace. But the settlement eventually broke down.

In 1983, war returned.

The formation of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and Sudan People's Liberation Army under the leadership of Dr. John Garang de Mabior transformed the conflict into a major national political and military struggle.

The SPLM/A presented its struggle not simply as a southern rebellion but as a challenge to the political structure of Sudan itself. Its political vision called for a fundamentally different Sudan in which political power, wealth and opportunities would be more equitably distributed.

The war became extraordinarily destructive. Villages were destroyed. Communities were displaced. Families were separated. Infrastructure was devastated. Millions of people became refugees or internally displaced persons. Generations grew up knowing war as a normal part of life.

The Machakos Protocol itself acknowledged the enormous human cost of the conflict, describing the war as having caused tremendous loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, economic waste and particularly severe suffering among the people of South Sudan.

By the beginning of the twenty-first century, there was growing recognition that the conflict could not be solved militarily alone. A negotiated political settlement was needed.

The Search for Peace

The search for peace brought regional and international actors into increasingly important roles.

The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) became the central regional framework for negotiations between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A. Kenya emerged as a major venue for the peace process.

The Kenyan government provided the territory in which the parties could sit across from one another, sometimes after years of fighting, and attempt to transform military confrontation into political negotiation.

At the centre of the process was Kenyan General Lazaro K. Sumbeiywo, appointed as the IGAD Special Envoy for the Sudan Peace Process.

The negotiations were difficult. The two sides had fundamentally different visions of Sudan's future. The Government of Sudan wanted to preserve the country's unity. The SPLM/A demanded recognition of the political rights and aspirations of the people of South Sudan, including the right to determine their future.

Among the most difficult questions were:

• Could Sudan remain united?
• What form of government should Sudan have?
• What role should religion play in the state?
• How should political power be shared?
• How should wealth and natural resources be distributed?
• What political rights should the people of South Sudan have?

And, above all: who should decide the future of South Sudan?

The Machakos negotiations attempted to find answers to these questions.

The Road to Machakos

The negotiations that produced the Protocol took place in Machakos, Kenya, from 18 June to 20 July 2002.

The parties were not negotiating a simple ceasefire. They were attempting to establish the architecture of a future political settlement.

The agreement was designed as a framework. It did not settle every issue. Instead, it established principles and provided a basis for further negotiations on matters that remained unresolved.

The Protocol specifically stated that the parties had reached agreement on the right to self-determination for the people of South Sudan, state and religion, the principles of the peace process, and the transition process, while agreeing to continue negotiations on other outstanding questions.

That distinction is essential. Machakos was not the final peace agreement. It was the breakthrough that made the final peace agreement possible.

20 July 2002: The Signing

On 20 July 2002, the negotiations reached their first major breakthrough.

• Dr. Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani signed for the Government of Sudan.
• Commander Salva Kiir Mayardit signed for the SPLM/A.
• Lt. Gen. Lazaro K. Sumbeiywo witnessed the agreement on behalf of the IGAD peace process.

The signatures represented an important change in the political history of Sudan. Two sides that had fought a devastating war had formally agreed to pursue a negotiated settlement.

More importantly, they had agreed on a principle that would eventually transform the future of South Sudan: the right of the people of South Sudan to self-determination.

The United Nations describes the Machakos Protocol as the framework agreement that restarted the peace process and established principles for governance, the transitional process and structures of government, while establishing the principle of self-determination for the people of South Sudan.

The document was therefore much more than a diplomatic announcement. It was a political doorway.

The Meaning of Self-Determination

The most consequential part of the Machakos Protocol was its recognition of self-determination.

The agreement stated that the people of South Sudan had the right to control and govern their affairs in their region and to participate equitably in the national government. It then recognized their right to self-determination, including through a referendum to determine their future status.

This was an extraordinary development. For decades, the political future of South Sudan had been fought over on battlefields. Machakos introduced a different possibility: the future could eventually be decided by the people themselves.

That did not mean that independence was guaranteed. It did not mean that Sudan had agreed to the immediate creation of a separate South Sudanese state. Instead, it created a political process through which the people of South Sudan would eventually be able to make that decision.

The Protocol recognized self-determination while also seeking to make a united Sudan attractive through democratic governance, equality, justice and respect for the rights of its citizens.

In other words, the peace process presented two connected possibilities: make unity meaningful and attractive, or allow the people of South Sudan to determine their future through a referendum. This became the central political logic of the peace settlement.

Unity and the Question of Sudan's Future

The Machakos Protocol did not begin with an agreement to divide Sudan.

In fact, one of its principles was that the unity of Sudan should remain a priority if that unity could be based on the free will of its people, democratic governance, accountability, equality, respect and justice.

This was a carefully negotiated position. The Government of Sudan wanted to preserve the territorial unity of the country. The SPLM/A wanted the political aspirations of the people of South Sudan recognized.

The compromise was to establish a system under which South Sudan would exercise significant autonomy during a transitional period while the people retained the right to determine their ultimate political status.

The agreement therefore attempted to answer a difficult question: could Sudan be transformed sufficiently to make unity acceptable to the people of South Sudan? If the answer was no, the referendum would provide the alternative.

Governance and the Rights of the People

Machakos was also concerned with how Sudan would be governed.

The Protocol recognized Sudan as a country characterized by cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic diversity. The parties agreed to work toward a democratic system of governance capable of accommodating that diversity.

The agreement emphasized principles such as:

• democracy;
• accountability;
• equality;
• justice;
• human rights;
• political participation;
• equitable sharing of power;
• and respect for diversity.

The goal was to address not only the symptoms of war but some of the conditions that had contributed to it. The parties recognized that a durable peace required more than silence on the battlefield. It required a political system in which people could participate, govern themselves and enjoy fundamental rights.

The Protocol therefore connected peace with political reform.

Religion and the State

One of the most sensitive questions in the negotiations concerned religion.

Sudan was—and remains—a deeply diverse society. The political and legal role of religion had been one of the major sources of disagreement between the northern government and the SPLM/A.

The Machakos framework recognized Sudan as a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual country. The parties therefore attempted to create constitutional arrangements that could accommodate this diversity.

The agreement sought to ensure that religion would not become a divisive instrument and that freedom of belief, worship and religious practice would be protected.

This issue was fundamental because the war was not simply a struggle over territory. It was also a struggle over the character of the state.

The Transition

The Machakos Protocol created the foundation for a transitional political process.

The transition was intended to end the war, establish new governance arrangements and provide the conditions necessary for a peaceful political future. South Sudan would have its own regional government and institutions while also participating in the national government.

The transition was therefore a period of political experimentation. It was intended to demonstrate whether the new Sudanese political arrangement could address the grievances that had fuelled the conflict. At the same time, it provided the time and institutional framework required for the eventual referendum.

The transition was consequently not an end in itself. It was a bridge.

What Machakos Did Not Solve

The importance of the Machakos Protocol should not obscure the enormous amount of work that remained. The agreement left several major issues unresolved. Among them were:

• Power sharing. Who would control the institutions of the national government?
• Wealth sharing. How would Sudan's natural resources and revenues be distributed?
• Security arrangements. How would the Government of Sudan's forces and the SPLA coexist?
• Ceasefire arrangements. How could the parties transform their political commitment into an actual end to hostilities?
• Abyei. How would the disputed status of Abyei be resolved?
• Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. How would the political grievances of these areas be addressed?

These questions required further negotiations. Machakos had opened the door. The negotiators now had to walk through it.

From Machakos to Naivasha

This is where the historical connection between Machakos and Naivasha becomes important.

The Machakos Protocol was signed in Machakos. The broader peace negotiations subsequently continued in Kenya, including at Naivasha. The later negotiations expanded the framework established by Machakos and produced agreements dealing with the difficult questions that remained unresolved.

Among the major agreements were arrangements concerning security; wealth sharing; power sharing; Abyei; Southern Kordofan; and Blue Nile.

The negotiations gradually transformed the principles of Machakos into a comprehensive political settlement. The process was long and often difficult. There were disagreements. There were delays. There were moments when the negotiations appeared fragile. But the parties continued.

The goal was no longer simply to produce another temporary ceasefire. It was to construct a comprehensive peace agreement capable of ending the war.

The Wealth Question

Natural resources were among the most difficult issues.

Sudan possessed significant oil resources, and the question of how revenues would be managed and shared became central to the negotiations. For the South, control over resources was closely connected to the broader question of political and economic marginalization. For the national government, resource sharing had implications for the economic survival and political structure of the country.

The eventual peace framework therefore had to create mechanisms for sharing wealth during the transitional period. This demonstrated an important lesson of the peace process: a political agreement could not survive if the economic foundations of the conflict remained unresolved.

The Security Question

Perhaps no issue was more sensitive than security.

For nearly two decades, the Government of Sudan and the SPLA had been opposing military forces. They had fought each other across enormous territories. Now they were being asked to coexist within one political framework.

The peace process therefore had to determine how their forces would be managed during the transitional period. The subsequent security arrangements became a critical component of the final peace agreement. Without a workable security arrangement, the political commitments made at Machakos would have remained vulnerable.

The Abyei Question

The issue of Abyei became one of the most difficult and emotionally charged questions of the peace negotiations.

Abyei lies in an area of enormous strategic, economic and cultural significance. The communities connected to the area had experienced years of conflict, displacement and competing claims.

The peace process therefore required a special protocol dealing with the resolution of the Abyei conflict. The Abyei issue would ultimately remain unresolved even after the signing of the CPA, demonstrating how some of the most difficult questions of the Sudanese conflict survived the broader peace settlement.

For many South Sudanese, Abyei became a reminder that the peace process had not resolved every historical dispute.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement

The years of negotiations eventually produced the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, commonly known as the CPA or Naivasha Agreement. It was signed on 9 January 2005 in Naivasha, Kenya by the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A.

The CPA incorporated the Machakos framework and the subsequent agreements negotiated between the parties. It created a comprehensive system covering governance; power sharing; wealth sharing; security; the status of South Sudan; the transitional period; and the referendum on self-determination.

The agreement represented the culmination of years of negotiations. But the roots of the settlement could be traced directly back to Machakos.

Six Years That Changed History

The CPA established a transitional period. During this period, South Sudan was granted substantial autonomy while remaining formally within Sudan.

A Government of Southern Sudan was established. South Sudanese institutions were created. The SPLM became a governing political force. National institutions were restructured. The peace process moved from negotiations into implementation.

This was an extraordinary transformation. The people who had spent years fighting one another now had to learn how to govern together. The soldiers of the SPLA had to transition from a liberation army into institutions within a new political order.

The people of South Sudan, many of whom had known little except war, were asked to prepare for a future in which they would have the opportunity to make a historic political choice.

The Referendum Becomes Reality

The most important promise of Machakos was now approaching reality. The people of South Sudan would decide their future.

The referendum took place in January 2011. The result was overwhelming. The people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence.

The referendum demonstrated that the principle of self-determination established at Machakos had moved from the pages of a peace document into the hands of the people themselves. For generations of South Sudanese, this was the moment toward which the struggle had been moving.

9 July 2011

On 9 July 2011, South Sudan became an independent country.

The flag of the new Republic of South Sudan was raised. A new national government took office. The people who had spent decades fighting for political recognition now had a sovereign state of their own.

The road to that moment had been long and painful. It had passed through battlefields, refugee camps, villages, forests, diplomatic halls and negotiating rooms. But one of its most important political milestones had been a small town in Kenya: Machakos.

The Men and Women Behind the Negotiations

History is often remembered through documents and dates, but peace agreements are made by people. The Machakos process involved diplomats, political leaders, military commanders, mediators, advisers, translators, civil servants and international partners.

Among the most prominent figures was Dr. John Garang de Mabior, the founding leader of the SPLM/A. Garang had spent decades advocating a transformation of Sudan's political system. His political vision was broader than the question of separation alone. He argued for a transformed Sudan in which marginalized peoples could participate in political power and enjoy equal rights.

Another central figure was Salva Kiir Mayardit, who signed the Machakos Protocol on behalf of the SPLM/A. Kiir would later become Vice President of Sudan during the CPA transitional period and, in 2011, the first President of the independent Republic of South Sudan.

On the Government of Sudan side, Dr. Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani played an important role in the Machakos negotiations and signed the Protocol on behalf of the government.

And overseeing the mediation process was Lt. Gen. Lazaro K. Sumbeiywo, whose role as IGAD Special Envoy placed him at the centre of the negotiations.

But the story was never only about famous names. Thousands of people worked behind the scenes to make negotiations possible. And millions of ordinary Sudanese—especially South Sudanese—carried the cost of the war that made the negotiations necessary.

The People Behind the Peace

The history of Machakos must also be understood through the experiences of ordinary people.

• For a mother who had lost children to war, peace was not an abstract diplomatic concept.
• For a displaced family living far from home, peace meant the possibility of return.
• For a child who had grown up in a refugee camp, peace meant the possibility of education.
• For a farmer whose land had been abandoned because of fighting, peace meant the possibility of returning home.
• For a soldier who had spent years carrying a rifle, peace meant the possibility of putting it down.

And for an entire generation of South Sudanese, self-determination meant the possibility that their political future would finally be decided by them.

This is why the Machakos Protocol became so important. Its language was diplomatic. Its consequences were human.

Machakos Was Not Independence

It is important to understand what the Protocol did—and what it did not do.

Machakos did not declare South Sudan independent. It did not immediately dissolve Sudan. It did not end the war by itself. It did not resolve Abyei. It did not settle every question of power and wealth.

Instead, it established a political framework and recognized the right of South Sudanese to determine their future.

The final settlement required years of additional negotiations. The CPA had to be signed. The transitional institutions had to function. The referendum had to be conducted. And the people had to vote. Only then did independence become reality.

Why Machakos Matters Today

More than two decades after the Protocol was signed, its historical significance remains profound.

Machakos represents one of the most important moments in the political history of South Sudan because it demonstrated that the question of the South's political future could be addressed through an internationally mediated political process.

It transformed the debate. Before Machakos, the conflict was dominated by military confrontation. After Machakos, the political principle of self-determination had been formally incorporated into the peace process. That was a fundamental change.

The agreement also demonstrated the importance of regional African diplomacy. The peace process was driven significantly through an African regional framework under IGAD, with Kenya providing the venue and mediation leadership. International partners also became important in supporting the negotiations and later implementation.

The result was a peace process that eventually produced one of the most consequential political transformations in modern African history.

Machakos and the Meaning of Self-Determination

The word "self-determination" can sound like a legal or diplomatic term. For South Sudan, however, it carried generations of political meaning.

It meant that the people of South Sudan would not simply have their future imposed upon them. They would be given a choice. They could decide whether their future lay within a united Sudan under a transformed political system or whether they wanted to establish an independent state.

That choice was ultimately made in January 2011. The vote for independence was therefore not an isolated event. It was the culmination of a political process. The legal and political road to that referendum had been built through the peace negotiations. And the foundation of that road was the Machakos Protocol.

The Historical Chain

The story can therefore be understood as a chain of interconnected events:

1. The Second Sudanese Civil War
2. The IGAD Peace Process
3. Machakos Protocol — 20 July 2002
4. Negotiations on security, wealth and power sharing
5. Naivasha negotiations
6. Comprehensive Peace Agreement — 9 January 2005
7. Six-year transitional period
8. South Sudan Referendum — January 2011
9. Overwhelming vote for independence
10. Republic of South Sudan — 9 July 2011

Each stage depended upon the previous one. Machakos did not create independence by itself. But without the political breakthrough at Machakos, the subsequent road to the CPA and referendum would have looked very different.

Machakos and the Historical Memory of South Sudan

For South Sudanese history, Machakos should therefore be remembered not simply as a place where politicians signed a document. It should be remembered as a moment when the political possibilities of the future changed.

It was a moment when the language of war began to give way to the language of negotiation. It was a moment when the right of self-determination became part of an agreed political framework. It was a moment when the future of South Sudan began moving from the battlefield toward the ballot box.

And it was a moment when the international community, regional governments and the principal Sudanese parties began constructing a framework that would eventually allow South Sudanese to decide their own political destiny.

Machakos, Naivasha and Independence: The Complete Story

It is therefore historically inaccurate to describe the Machakos Protocol as having been signed in Naivasha.

The Machakos Protocol was signed at Machakos, Kenya, on 20 July 2002. Naivasha belongs to the subsequent phase of the peace process. The negotiations that followed Machakos produced additional agreements dealing with the difficult political, economic and security questions that remained unresolved. These negotiations ultimately culminated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed at Naivasha on 9 January 2005.

The two locations are therefore connected, but they are not interchangeable. Machakos provided the foundation. Naivasha helped complete the structure. The CPA provided the transitional framework. The referendum gave the people their decision. And 9 July 2011 brought independence.

The Legacy

The legacy of Machakos is ultimately found in the political journey that followed.

The Protocol represented a commitment to negotiated peace. It recognized the grievances and aspirations of South Sudan. It established principles for governance. It addressed the relationship between state and religion. It provided a framework for a transitional process. And, above all, it recognized the right of the people of South Sudan to determine their future through a referendum.

The United Nations has described the Protocol as the framework that restarted the peace process and established the principle of self-determination, while also setting out issues for further negotiations, including power sharing, wealth sharing, human rights and a ceasefire.

The agreement therefore deserves a place among the most important documents in the history of South Sudan.

Conclusion: The Road Began Before Independence

The history of South Sudan cannot be reduced to a single day.

The Republic of South Sudan was born on 9 July 2011, but the political road toward that independence had been constructed over many years. It was shaped by the sacrifices of generations. It was shaped by armed struggle. It was shaped by political movements. It was shaped by communities displaced by war. It was shaped by diplomats and mediators. It was shaped by negotiations that often seemed close to collapse. And it was shaped by agreements.

Among those agreements, the Machakos Protocol of 20 July 2002 occupies a special place.

It did not end the war. It did not immediately create South Sudan. But it changed what was politically possible.

For the first time within the revived peace process, the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A formally agreed on a framework that recognized the people of South Sudan's right to self-determination through a referendum. That principle would survive the difficult negotiations that followed. It would become part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It would become the foundation for the transitional period. And eventually, it would become a choice placed directly before the people of South Sudan.

They chose independence.

Seven years after Machakos, the people of South Sudan stood at the centre of a historic transformation. The country that had been imagined, fought for, negotiated and voted for became a reality. The flag was raised. The Republic of South Sudan was born.

And behind that moment stood a long history. A history of struggle. A history of sacrifice. A history of diplomacy. A history of negotiation. And, among its most important chapters, a story that began in the Kenyan town of Machakos.

Machakos was not the end of the struggle. It was the moment the road to a political choice became real. And that road ultimately led to independence.