South Sudan’s third Independence Day this past week was marked not by celebration but by yet more intransigence — and mourning.

Both sides—the Government of South Sudan and the South Sudan Peoples’ Movement/Army in Opposition — still believe they can win the war militarily. Thus the indefinite postponement of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development-backed mediation talks. Neither side will attend, with each blaming the other.

It is nothing short of a tragedy. A tragedy that was completely avoidable and unnecessary. A tragedy that nobody seems able to transcend.

The African Union-mandated Commission of Inquiry released its interim report at the end of June to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government.

The report speaks of the inability of South Sudanese institutions to mediate and manage conflict. Well, yes. Obviously. That Igad is involved at all is a testament to the inability of South Sudanese institutions to rise to the occasion.

The report also points the widespread consensus on the institutional deficits in South Sudan: Concentration of powers in the executive, with few checks and balances. The militarisation of civilian institutions. The lack of democratic, civilian oversight of the security sector.

But institutions do not tick over by themselves. They are populated by people. And the people in leadership on both sides have demonstrated a shocking inability to think beyond their personal interests to the glaring national interests at stake.

Due to the war, the South Sudanese largely missed the planting season. Service provision is entirely halted. Famine looms with funding and delivery of relief still an issue. In another illustration of the selfishness of political leadership, access to deliver relief is still an issue too.

The report calls for a political settlement to address institutional failures. But, in so doing, it evades the question of how to deal with the leadership’s failures. That is, the question of accountability. Accountability for the devastation wrought by the war. Accountability for the continued belligerence.

The report is almost coy in this regard. It notes what the Commission of Inquiry heard and saw firsthand. Personal accounts of crimes committed, including sexual violence. Mass graves.

Yet, it manages to conclude that, to date, all this information is deficient. Insufficient to comment definitively on either crimes committed or who may have been responsible. It instead weakly urges both parties to desist from further violations of human rights and humanitarian law.

This is far from helpful. The route forwards institutionally is clear, as the report points out. Respect the ceasefire. End the violence. Provide relief. Form a transitional government. Create a national dialogue to conclude the constitutional reform process and move towards new elections.

But none of that can happen without leadership. Or without leadership being held to account. It is three years into the new republic. It is over half a year into a new war. And that is already half a year too long.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, covering East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes. This column is written in her personal capacity