The SPLM-IO is entering a turbulent phase as Interim Chairman Stephen Par Kuol intensifies internal crackdowns amid growing challenges to his leadership.
His recent decision to suspend 11 senior members in Western Bahr el Ghazal has ignited fresh controversy, reinforcing concerns over the party’s deepening divisions and the legitimacy of Par’s interim authority.
The leadership crisis escalated further in May 2025 when 18 senior members of the SPLM-IO Political Bureau in Juba publicly disowned Par’s interim leadership and reaffirmed their loyalty to the detained First Vice President and party leader, Dr. Riek Machar.
In a swift and sweeping response, Par suspended 33 senior members associated with the statement, just days after the rejection marking a turning point in his approach to internal dissent.
Critics argue that these mass suspensions reflect an increasingly authoritarian grip on the movement, as Par appears to be replacing dialogue with discipline. While his allies may view the actions as necessary to maintain party discipline, many observers believe such a confrontational strategy risks deepening existing fractures rather than healing them.
With questions still looming over the manner of his election as interim chairperson, Par’s repeated use of suspensions is widely interpreted as an attempt to silence those challenging his authority, rather than an effort to pursue reconciliation or party reform.
This shift from internal dialogue to political purges comes at a time when the SPLM-IO is already troubled by long-standing leadership wrangles, ideological rifts, and regional oppositions.
In an environment where unity is crucial, especially with peace process benchmarks, approaching such a hardline approach may yield unintended consequences. Repeated disciplinary actions could fuel mistrust, and push disappointed members further away from the party’s core.
The SPLM-IO has struggled with internal power plays, and shifting allegiances. Analysts warn that without inclusive leadership and consultative decision-making, the movement risks weakening itself at a critical political moment.
For Par Kuol to move the party forward, many argue that a reconciliatory approach that embraces criticism, welcomes diverse views, and fosters internal unity, is essential.
But as tensions continue to mount, one reality becomes increasingly clear: party unity cannot be enforced through suspensions, it must be built on trust, dialogue, and a shared vision for the future.
