The parties in the South Sudan conflict are yet to sort out their internal differences ahead of the political dialogue, set to begin on February 7.

There is also confusion over who will set the rules of engagement for the talks, who will be allowed to participate and who will set the agenda for an exercise that is likely to go beyond the two warring parties.

By the close of the week, opinion was building that for a meaningful political dialogue, it must be preceded by an internal dialogue within the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

But the challenge is whether the internal dialogue should be presided over by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad) or left to SPLM members.

READ: Igad: South Sudan progressing towards political dialogue

Former South Sudan head of mission in Kenya John Andruga Duku, who is also part of the government delegation in Addis Ababa, told The EastAfrican that a dialogue within the SPLM leadership was critical as the first step.

“We need to call a convention of the National Liberation Council to first deal with the issues within the party, but people are currently scattered, which may mean that we need healing period. If SPLM has not put its house in order, how can it participate in a national dialogue?” asked Mr Duku.

Delicate situation

The fact that Dr Riek Machar still remains the vice-chairman of SPLM complicates the situation, but Mr Duku says that it will be easy for the former vice president to be accommodated within the SPLM or told to form another opposition party.

“It is true that the crisis began as an internal party matter, but the situation has progressed to the extent that it is no longer political. You cannot say that you took up arms to deal with issues within the party,” he said.

However, the pro-Machar group remains adamant that unless the four remaining political detainees are released, there can be no political dialogue.

Peter Gai Manyuon, a journalist based in Juba, said the major issue, that needs urgent attention is the release of the four politicians in detention because the SPLM faction in opposition will not agree to continue with peace talks while they are still in custody.

In the meantime, the issues the two parties are likely to put on the table are being identified.

President Salva Kiir’s side is said to be seeking assurance that there will be no military coup in the near future.

READ: Kiir: Conflict will be resolved via talks

This is the reason why President Kiir’s administration on Thursday signed a cessation of hostilities agreement with the Jonglei-based South Sudan Democratic Movement led by David Yau Yau in Addis Ababa.

Secondly, the government side will be demanding that the Dr Machar forces lay down their arms unconditionally and take responsibility for the killings and human suffering that have occurred since December 15 last year.

The government is also considering reorganisation of the SPLM to rid the party of rebels.

On the other hand, the Dr Machar group will be pushing for discussions on the genesis of the fighting on December 15, having denied that the crisis came about as a result of an attempted coup.

Dr Machar’s spokesperson James Gadet Dak confirmed mid-week that the two parties would discuss the causes of the conflict and how to resolve it.

In addition, the rebels are pushing for the restructuring of SPLM with a view of strengthening party structures and organs to reduce the influence of the presidency in the party, which according to them, was the foundation of the crisis. They also want President Kiir to withdraw his coup allegations.

Sharing of oil resources

Finally, the Dr Machar group is pushing for discussion on how the oil resources can trickle down to the masses through better services and infrastructure to reduce instances of militias taking up arms in frustration.

While the two groups are shaping their agenda, Troika comprising ­ the United States, Britain and Norway are pushing for the release of the remaining four detainees.

Within the Troika, sources say, there is one side, that favours power-sharing deal because the crisis was about power, while the other favours an interim government led by a neutral person in which neither President Kiir nor Dr Machar are in the picture to prepare for fresh elections.

Elections were slated for 2015 but now, with the current political crisis, there is no guarantee they will take place.