US Vice President JD Vance gave a famous speech last week in which he railed against globalisation, the principle by which nations should be more connected and interdependent.

Vance, a conservative politician argued that kind of interdependence has ended up hurting the West, according to him, globalisation’s idea was that richer countries would move up the value chains while the poorer countries would make simpler things.

But as things stand, the West has been “squeezed from both ends” because the poor have learnt how to design and make things that the West thought they wouldn’t.

Yet globalisation itself hasn’t just hurt the West. Vance’s populist backlash is a gesture at a larger, uncomfortable reality: the US-led project of global liberalisation did not just “fail” working-class Americans, it destabilised entire nations.

From the abandoned steel mills of Ohio to the wreckage of Mogadishu and Freetown, a web of financial domination and militarised instability has drained life from communities, serving the interests of a global elite.

Infamous SAPs

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, as African nations buckled under crushing debt and economic collapse, the IMF and World Bank arrived with their familiar remedy—Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP).

Marketed as essential reforms, they often resembled foreign dictates. Intended to stabilise economies and cut deficits, SAPs gutted public services, weakened institutions, and left fragile states more exposed, undermining long-term development.

Somalia is a stark example. In the 1980s, SAP-mandated austerity and forced liberalisation—under pressure from the IMF—undermined an already fragile Siad Barre regime.

Cuts to public services and state salaries accelerated political disintegration. By 1991, Somalia’s government was gone, and what followed was a scramble for power as clans and warlords carved up what was left of the state.

Read: EYAKUZE: 2022 in review: We’re globalised at last — for better, for worse

In the midst of the chaos, Al-Itihaad al-Islami emerged, one of several groups that stepped into the vacuum, setting the stage for years of insurgency. It evolved into something far more dangerous—Al-Shabaab.

Liberia and Sierra Leone shared a grim trajectory. Forced by SAPs to privatise, devalue, and cut spending, both states unraveled. By the early ’90s, governments were collapsing, jobs vanished, and chaos crept in. In Liberia, Charles Taylor fueled civil war; in Sierra Leone, blood diamonds ignited brutal conflict. With no state to resist, warlords, militias, and foreign profiteers filled the void.

Simultaneously, the United States was inflicting a domestic variant of this model on itself. Under the guidance of Wall Street and neoliberal policymakers, trade liberalisation, NAFTA, and China’s WTO accession dismantled America’s industrial base.

Factories in Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh closed, while Wall Street profited from capital mobility and outsourcing.

As African states were weakened through SAPs, working-class American communities underwent a slow-motion collapse: jobs vanished, public services deteriorated, and addiction and despair took root. The result, as JD Vance pointed out, was a domestic social disintegration eerily reminiscent of the devastation wrought by IMF programmes abroad.

Financial imperialism

Michael Hudson, a famous American economist, described this as financial imperialism: a system where creditors, led by the IMF, use debt to extract wealth and dictate policies that serve US and allied interests. African countries, stuck in this cycle, turned to the IMF more than most, entering repeated adjustment programs that deepened economic fragility.

Hudson sees this dynamic mirrored in parts of the US, where indebted cities, stripped of industry, were forced to privatise public goods, replicating the austerity and dependency patterns long imposed on the Global South.

Jeffrey Sachs’ ‘shock therapy’ reforms, first deployed in Latin America and post-Soviet economies, accelerated this dynamic in Africa. Though Sachs later distanced himself from these prescriptions, their legacy lingers.

IMF-led SAPs embodied this ‘shock’ approach: sudden cuts, deregulation, and market liberalisation imposed without regard for institutional fragility.

One criticised aspect was that that Western technocrats often treat development as a top-down, one-size-fits-all project. In Liberia and Sierra Leone, SAPs tore apart fragile welfare structures, worsening inequality and discrediting the very governments they were supposed to ‘reform.’ This bred resentment, weakened states, and made violence almost inevitable.

Read: OBBO: Globalisation now comes wearing Ankara, Kitenge; has dreadlocks

The US security establishment and its corporate partners took note. Fragile states like Somalia and Liberia became ‘intervention zones’ for the Pentagon, private contractors, and Western NGOs. For the Pentagon and defence firms, endless instability meant endless business.

Companies like DynCorp, Halliburton, and several other profiteers thrived on security reforms, logistics, and peacekeeping deals across Africa.

As the US heartland declined, militarised policing rose, security budgets surged, and surveillance spread under the banner of crime and counterterrorism. The same firms that armed counterinsurgencies abroad now supplied US police with armored vehicles and tactical gear.

A deepening trap

By 2020, more than 26 African nations were tied to IMF loans enforcing austerity and pro-market reforms. The average loan—just $200 million—was far below the global norm, highlighting Africa’s marginal place in the global financial order.

These programmess slashed health, education, and public investment, hollowing out state capacity and fueling unrest.

A 2022 World Development study confirmed what many feared: IMF interventions increase unemployment and weaken government institutions, deepening the very instability they claim to address.

Africa’s turn today to China, Russia, Turkey, and others is more than geopolitics—it’s a rejection of the old model.

Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger trying to break from decades of IMF and World Bank dependence. After years of austerity and outside control, they are seeking new allies and reclaiming lost sovereignty.

In the United States, a different but related rupture is underway. Disillusionment with globalisation is driving a groundswell of populism, nationalism, and deepening distrust toward traditional power centers. The backlash is no longer a murmur—it’s reshaping the global political map.

It’s a familiar warning. The collapses seen in Somalia, Liberia, and Sierra Leone now echo closer to home. In parts of America, the same fractures appear. Once-thriving factory towns now sit silent, marked by decay and neglect. In that emptiness, resentment grows, leaving communities exposed to isolation, poverty, and extremism.

What Somalia and the American Rust Belt share is not merely parallel decline—it is the outcome of an engineered system.

Mr Abdisaid M Ali is the Chairperson of Lomé Peace and Security Forum (LPSF), a space for open dialogue on the political, security and development challenges of the African continent. X(Twitter): @4rukun

Last month, Uganda’s High Court ordered the arrest of Uganda Law Society (ULS) president, Isaac Ssemakadde, citing his blistering attacks on judicial officers.

Ssemakadde had been elected barely two months earlier on one of the most radical platforms in ULS history, buoyed by a contingent of young lawyers incensed by the old legal order, which they accused of locking them out of the market, and by an increasingly repressive state.

He had vowed to shake things up—and he delivered. His fiery, often unfiltered rhetoric tore through the establishment, with invective aimed at figures such as Director of Public Prosecutions, Jane Frances Abodo, that even the most uninhibited village drunkard might hesitate to utter.

Following his conviction by the High Court, Ssemakadde either went underground in Uganda or fled the country. This week, the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kampala escalated matters by issuing an international warrant for his arrest.

His predicament revives an age-old question that freedom fighters and anti-establishment activists across Africa—and other undemocratic landscapes—have grappled with for decades: When the oppressor comes knocking, do you fight, flee, or freeze?

There is no single answer. History shows that activists and campaigners have taken all three paths, each with varying degrees of success and sacrifice.

Some have chosen to fight, walking headlong into dungeons and enduring unspeakable torment. Nelson Mandela’s imprisonment on Robben Island did just that—each day he spent behind bars further delegitimised the apartheid government.

Others have opted for exile, believing that staying alive and fighting from afar is preferable to being silenced behind bars or buried in an unmarked grave.

Uganda’s own President Yoweri Museveni chose this route in 1981. After the disputed December 1980 election, he and several of his Uganda Patriotic Movement comrades faced the real prospect of imprisonment.

Museveni could have chosen to sit and wait to be arrested by Milton Obote, as several UPM politicians were. Instead, he took to the bush and launched a rebellion that ultimately altered Uganda’s trajectory for the next four decades.

Then some have frozen—gone quiet, stepped back, or even joined the system, convinced they can effect change from within. This approach is fraught with accusations of opportunism, yet it has been executed with remarkable effectiveness, particularly in Kenya, where co-opting opposition figures has become an art form.

Which path is best? It depends. Often, the answer is shaped by the specific battle being fought.

When Museveni’s rebel National Resistance Army took power in 1986, many believed press freedom would improve. They were mistaken. Journalists continued to be harassed, arrested, beaten—and, in some cases, killed.

Back then, state-controlled media dominated, and independent journalists were rare, making those who defied the system invaluable.

Read: An unspoken contest and why, of all his rivals, Museveni seems to fear Besigye most

Western diplomatic missions and human rights organisations frequently smuggled persecuted journalists out of Africa, providing them sanctuary in Europe or North America, where they found work in media houses, academia, or as authors.

South Africa, in particular, produced exiled journalists like Lewis Nkosi, who fled apartheid-era censorship and settled in New York. There, he wrote Home and Exile (1965), a collection of essays reflecting on South African politics and culture, and later, the acclaimed novel Mating Birds (1986).

But this strategy had unintended consequences. Shrewd regimes learned to weaponise exile, portraying fleeing journalists as reckless opportunists seeking a cushy life abroad.

Museveni’s government, for example, argued that these journalists deliberately provoked authorities, then ran to Western embassies, which whisked them away to comfortable lives in London, Paris, or New York.

At the time, Museveni’s government still enjoyed considerable popularity, making this argument persuasive. Public opinion leaned in support of it.

The impact was severe—Ugandan courts stopped granting journalists bail. Prosecutors simply pointed to the long list of reporters who had absconded while on police bond, painting them as flight risks.

One day, amid escalating tensions between the Ugandan press and the state, three of us—Wafula Oguttu, then editor of the radical Weekly Topic; Teddy Ssezi Cheeye, editor of the hard-hitting Uganda Confidential newsletter; and Amos Kajooba, editor of the pro-Uganda People’s Congress, The People—sat down and made a pact: we would never run.

In the years that followed, we paid the price. Arrests, beatings, threats, and court appearances became routine. I personally notched up nearly 120 court appearances, facing charges that could have resulted in life imprisonment or worse. I turned down over 20 opportunities to flee to a safer—and likely more lucrative—life abroad. Instead, we kept showing up.

Eventually, Ugandan courts began granting mainstream journalists bail again. The exodus of reporters and editors seeking refuge in foreign embassies slowed.

Journalism regained credibility, and public trust in the press surged. A renaissance occurred—journalists became celebrities, and some even became modestly wealthy.

Looking back, we never imagined these would be the outcomes. But they happened, not because we had a grand strategy, but because we simply chose to stay and risk everything.

In later life, we drove around with our “prison bags” in the boots of our cars, packed with underwear, toothpaste and toothbrush, comb, anti-malaria medicine, and vitamins.

Ssemakadde now stands at a similar crossroads. His choice—whether to fight, flee, or freeze—will shape not just his fate, but potentially the future of Uganda’s legal and civic landscape. If history is anything to go by, whatever path he chooses will be costly.

Charles Onyango-Obbo is a journalist, writer, and curator of the “Wall of Great Africans”. Twitter: @cobbo3

I was at an event for and by women where a panellist asked the audience whether they would be voting for the incumbent. In all kindness I can see her point: a room full of women should immediately cheer loudly and proclaim that Yes! We Would Vote For Mama!

It didn’t go down that way.

There was a smattering of applause, a few cheers, a few grunts of disapproval. Mostly, there was also a delightfully awkward silence from the rest of us who did what Tanzanians often do when we disagree with a speaker: Nothing. We are an oral culture so our public speech includes call-and-response. Here, silence does NOT mean consent.

So let’s talk about it.

A roomful of women is a microcosm of Tanzania, just smarter. Our gathering contained a credible range of positions on everything from religiosity to party politics to views on marriage and other issues.

During the meeting, there were those of us who did not stand during prayer, some of us who did not respond to the CCM call of “Kazi Iendelee,” who requested that we stop referring to women by the “honorific” of Mama in front of their titles, who had tough questions for the older generation, who generally messed with the idea of a hive mind. Of course there was dissent about being told who to vote for, no matter who was asking.

I am on record on The Chanzo asking women specifically and progressives in general to vote for the incumbent because she is a woman. I won’t take it back either: “Men make better leaders” is the refrain I have heard my whole life even though there is no evidence to support the claim.

It would take a few millenia of women in power to even begin to examine this premise with data, we might as well begin now. If we are disciplined about it, maybe humans from 4000 CE will have the results of the experiment.

By then, the question will hopefully be moot as we will be beyond the nonsense that engendered it anyways.

Tanzania has had women in key positions in its sixty-something years: President, Defence, Finance and Foreign. Once we breach the walls of Home Affairs, I will be able to start another list, one where we move beyond token levels of representation to start enjoying real participation, real citizenship and full rights. One where we vote women into parliament at a minimum of 33 percent and a maximum of 75 percent of our own free will.

Last year, I only had one option for the 2025 ballot that served my feminist ‘guerrilla’ agenda. This year? I have two. That’s right, two. ACT-Wazalendo backed the late Anna Mghirwa’s bid for president in 2015, now they have Dorothy Semu running in 2025. I only had to wait a decade for the only thing better than one woman on top, namely more women on top.

Sasa, if you choose to remain seated and protest my proposed antics through silence, I can respect that. Ultimately the point is to have a range of positions on issues of importance, including the place of women in politics beyond party, ideology or even cult of personality.

By suggesting that one gender be entirely ignored at the ballot in favour of the other I have provoked a few of you to a rage that you might have to examine. I hope you have the tools for it.

Happy Women’s Month, and you are welcome.

Elsie Eyakuze is an independent consultant and blogger for The Mikocheni Report.

Kampala Catholic Archbishop Paul Ssemogerere has a practical mind. At the beginning of March, he advised the authorities to abolish electoral politics if it can’t be practised without endangering people’s lives. In other words, the way the current model of democracy is practised is not worth shattering people’s lives for.

Barely 10 days after the archbishop’s sermon, a by-election to fill one of Kampala’s 10 parliamentary seats was held and both the ruling party and the (victorious) opposition cried foul, expressing disgust at the execution of the exercise. But archbishops are men of humility, so Ssemogerere did not thump his chest in I-told-you-so-last-week mode.

During the by-election, held during Ramadhan in the Kawempe division of Kampala which is predominantly Muslim (meaning the public were operating under maximum restraint), there were two main casualties – the media and the military.

Read: Our elections are nothing but mere carnival of deceit

The national military which is generally well respected on account of its professionalism and discipline, had its image dented as for some reason we civilians cannot figure out, was deployed to police the polls in a singular constituency as if the police had been deemed unable to secure the exercise.

And the media personnel had their priceless bodies and precious equipment battered by the military whose mission remained unclear to the ordinary public.

That is when frustrated opposition members of parliament woke up to re-echo what the prelate has said calmly and hysterically addressed the press calling for abolition of elections so that their children get time to complete their education in peace.

But Archbishop Ssemogerere’s prophetic call shouldn’t be deemed to be directed at Kampala alone. It is also directed at Addis to benefit all African minds.

And here one hopes that the new African Union Commission leadership will not perpetuate the perverted excuse of “internal affairs of sovereign states” to justify looking away as elections ruin African lives and economies. All countries could do well to review the democracy models to ensure it is the best for citizens’ wellbeing.

The East African Community is a case in point. Starting with the original three, who doesn’t know how political contest in Kenya wastes resources that could be put to improve the citizens’ well-being?

Kenya may have many dollar billionaires but many of its people live in subhuman deprivation because its electoral politics is fused with individual private economic fortunes.

As for Uganda, lives are lost during elections though not to the scale of Kenya’s 2007-08 ‘democracy’. Sadly, Tanzania recently seemed to have enrolled as a “mature age entry” student in the political violence class.

As for Rwanda, only lengthening the current dispensation gives hope that the old vindictive mindsets will tire out to let new young citizens attain the critical mass and guarantee sustainable justice.

Burundi had better pray that its Tanzanian guarantors don’t graduate with honours from the East African school of political violence they enrolled in recently.

Read: Nothing like looming polls brings out creative juices in CCM cadres

For South Sudan, please be kind and don’t wonder if their leaders have read their constitution.

Finally, Somalia, for which Uganda, Burundi and Kenya paid the blood of our young peacekeepers/ builders, needs to ask if the elective democracy model they have adopted will hold when the foreign troops leave. If they don’t leave, then Somalis should ask in whose interest they are mainly staying.

In case you are not aware, the United Arab Emirates is probably the biggest printer of ballot papers in the world. Are the powers in Abu Dhabi picked with ballots?

It is like China earning more money from Christmas sales than any country, or Israelis earning big tourist monies from Christian worship which they despise more than Islam whose followers they are eternally locked in combat with. Is UAE less developed than African countries that hold elections with clockwork punctuality?

Elections are good, sometimes even nice. But if they can throw even mighty US in confusion and trigger a nasty trade war with Canada, can’t Africans find better ways to recruit leaders than through polls? Must Africans believe that the only alternative to elections is crude dictatorship? Other than perpetuating corruption, have elections delivered justice and transparency where they are held?

Buwembo is a Kampala-based journalist. E-mail: [email protected]

Many observers were dismayed by President William Ruto’s campaign tour of the godforsaken parts of Nairobi. On that campaign trail, Mr Ruto made outrageous pronouncements from the rooftop of his car.

He promised residents that he would procure a machine capable of making a million chapatis daily. Then he promised that, in a short period of time, skyscrapers, in the fashion of New York City, would define the skyline of their piece of hell on earth. He promised markets and roads and bridges, and everything under the sun.

Does Mr Ruto plan his speeches beforehand, or does he make them up on the fly, egged on by the excitement of the campaign? Even assuming some of these promises are practically doable, their funding would be unprocedural, because they exist nowhere in the budget statement to parliament.

In any case, government is struggling to pay doctors, teachers and civil servants. Unions representing these sectors have either called for or threatened industrial action.

At the moment, doctors and nurses are on strike and the universal healthcare plan under SHA is not working. This is not the time for campaigning for an election that is two and a half years away.

It is time to sit quietly in an office for countless hours with the best brains in the country to find solutions to these huge problems.

The parts of Nairobi covered by Ruto’s campaign tour are proof of government failure since independence. Basic amenities like water, power, sewerage, roads, clinics, playgrounds are woefully inadequate or nonexistent.

In addition, joblessness, especially among the youth, and crime are sky high. The government should address these shortcomings before attempting to turn slums into New York City.

Once you address these conditions, people will be able to feed themselves and not have to wait for miracle machines to make them chapatis. They will be able to build business premises that, in time, could become skyscrapers.

Read: Kenya's Ruto pledges to bring down cost of living ‘in 100 days’

Mr Ruto’s campaign encapsulated the elements that constitute Africa’s crisis of development. First, it demonstrated haphazard planning, not linked to the overall development plan.

China determines where it wants to be in a hundred years, and plans accordingly. Second, it aptly captured the cause and effect of extreme poverty in Africa.

It showcased how obscene opulence wastes scarce resources. African leaders are beloved of the trappings of power. Mr Ruto’s motorcade snaking through impoverished neighbourhoods recalled Bola Tinubu’s 60-car motorcade going through hellhole of neighbourhoods of a Nigerian city.

Mr Ruto was accompanied on the tour by the governor of Nairobi, a county which recently unveiled garbage as a problem-solving tool. While China is defining the future city, top officials of Nairobi County came on TV to defend their ‘garbage’ strategic plan.

Our intellectuals develop complex theories why Africa has been left behind by the rest of the world. The answer is a lot simpler – “garbage” and pie-in- the-sky, or more aptly, chapatti-in-the-sky planning. Evidence of this kind of “strategic” planning is everywhere in Africa.

Tee Ngugi is a Nairobi-based political and social commentator.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have made significant military gains, recapturing strategic locations previously controlled by their arch-rivals, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

This could alter the balance of power in Khartoum. But some argue that the unity of the SAF itself may now be tested, with profound political implications—both for the junta’s leadership and for the regional and international actors involved, particularly those supporting the RSF’s bid to form a parallel government.

Jihad Mashamoun, a researcher and political analyst on Sudanese affairs at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter, argues that recapturing areas such as the presidential palace in Khartoum gives the junta a degree of legitimacy.

“This is because it undermines the RSF alliance. The Umma party, which has influence in Darfur, is already divided over whether to be in the alliance or not,” he told The EastAfrican this week.

“The victory of the SAF in capturing the presidential palace will most likely split the Umma party, with one faction deciding to be close to Samoud (neutral civilian movements) or to the SAF and the de facto government.”

Umma cracks

Fissures within the Umma were already evident soon after one faction signed an alliance with the RSF in Nairobi. Fadallah Burma Nasser, the party’s acting chair, was in Nairobi with the RSF, but his deputies promptly dropped him. The party joined the civilian movement led by former Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok.

By regaining control of vital sites, including the military’s General Command headquarters, the presidential palace and Khartoum airport, the SAF has not only strengthened its battlefield position but also its political standing.

These advances enhance the army’s ability to dictate the terms of any future settlement and undermine the RSF’s ability to maintain a foothold in the capital.

And that, of course, could benefit from any cracks in the RSF, which has been consolidating in western Sudan, dividing the nation into rival zones.

One reason why a faction of the Umma party tried to ally with RSF was that they had similar support bases in Darfur. But a power rivalry between deputies and the acting chair means they can’t take sides and remain stable.

Another movement that backed the RSF was the SPLM-North faction led by Abdelaziz Adam Al-Hilu, which appears to be hedging its bets to see which side proves more advantageous, despite having signed up to the RSF alliance.

Bargaining chip

For the junta, however, its recent gains give it political leverage, especially with its foreign backers, who had hoped to use its territorial control as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

With the SAF’s recent advances, the feasibility of a parallel government backed by the RSF and its allies appears increasingly unlikely.

One of the key political repercussions is the impact on the efforts of pro-RSF regional actors to establish a rival government. These actors had sought to exploit the RSF’s presence in Khartoum to create a political alternative to the army-led government.

However, with the SAF reclaiming key sites, such efforts are facing serious setbacks. The loss of strategic locations reduces the RSF’s ability to project authority. This development may prompt some regional actors to reassess their positions and explore alternative strategies for influencing Sudan’s political landscape.

But SAF is not immune to its own internal divisions and has so far been unable to protect its reputation. Like RSF, the junta is a heavily sanctioned entity, and its leader, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, was sanctioned by the US Treasury in January for war crimes. RSF’s Mohamed Hamdani Dagalo ‘Hemedti’ was also sanctioned for genocide.

For some time, SAF has been using the label to paint its rivals as the bad guys. This week, however, the junta was accused of the very sins.

At least 200 people were killed and dozens seriously injured in an air strike by the SAF in North Darfur, according to Avaaz, a US-based non-profit rights watchdog. The strike hit a market in the village of Tora on Monday.

Darfur bombing

The Emergency Lawyers human rights group termed the air strike as a “systematic war crime”. It said SAF was “fully responsible” and called for an independent investigation to “ensure that those responsible for these crimes are held accountable before international courts.” The RSF labelled the attack on the crowded market as a “brutal crime.”

While this incident may tarnish the SAF’s image, it could also be a calculated war tactic. Security analyst Cameron Hudson suggests that the SAF’s bombing in Darfur indicates the junta has no intention of abandoning the region to the RSF, and is instead determined to reclaim control over the entirety of Sudan.

“This war is far from over,” Hudson observed on Tuesday, “and going into Darfur will be a tactical and strategic blunder for the SAF.”

“SAF can’t take Darfur by using fighter jets and drones. They would need a full-scale ground invasion, which they don’t have and can’t commit to because their priority needs to be cleaning out Khartoum and remaining eastern/central areas of Sudan where there are still pockets of RSF. That means going door to door; city block by city block. That takes time and personnel. That must be the priority to stabilise the country and alleviate human suffering.”

Rebuilding Sudan

Despite recent military triumphs, doubts linger about the SAF’s ability to rebuild from the ground up. One estimate showed Sudan will need $2 billion to rebuild Khartoum alone. Some of the donors, like the United Arab Emirates, have backed the RSF to be part of the transition. It remains uncertain whether General Burhan would agree to form a coalition with his foes, but rumours suggest the rival groups have re-established contact.

Read: Sudan sues UAE for ‘enabling genocide’

For the SAF, its leadership is heavily influenced by Islamist factions that dominated the previous regime of Omar al-Bashir. This is evident in their resistance to any political settlement that excludes Islamist forces and their opposition to civilian groups seeking to limit military influence.

Burhan has tried to balance military priorities with international pressure to reshape Sudan’s political landscape, but his ability to maintain this delicate equilibrium is uncertain. His deputies, like Yasser al-Atta and Shams al-Din Kabbashi, have taken hardline stances against the RSF, with al-Atta even threatening to bomb Chad for supporting RSF supply routes. The Chadian government, however, has rebuked the stance.

Lately, Kabbashi has appeared more open to negotiations than al-Atta. Meanwhile, Ibrahim Jaber, another lieutenant, is widely regarded as the closest to Islamist circles, playing a pivotal role in managing the financial and political networks that link the army to remnants of the former regime.

Although this alignment has fostered short-term unity, it could also become a source of internal friction in the future, particularly if conflicts arise over power-sharing between military leaders and Islamist factions.

Additional reporting by Aggrey Mutambo

The United States on Thursday called on South Sudan President Salva Kiir to release his rival, First Vice President Riek Machar, who was reportedly under house arrest. The US said it was time the country's leaders demonstrated their commitment to peace.

Machar's SPLM-IO party said on Wednesday that the defence minister and chief of national security "forcefully entered" Machar's residence and delivered an arrest warrant.

Machar was being held at his house with his wife and two body guards. He was implicated in the fighting between the military and White Army in Nasir, Upper Nile State this month, Mr Reath Muoch Tang, a senior SPLM-IO official, said in a statement seen by Reuters on Thursday.

"We are concerned by reports that South Sudan's First Vice-President Machar is under house arrest," Washington's Bureau of African Affairs wrote on X.

"We urge President Kiir to reverse this action and prevent further escalation of the situation."

Under a peace deal that ended a 2013-2018 civil war between forces loyal to Machar on one side and Kiir on the other, South Sudan has five vice-presidents. Kiir's long-time rival and opposition leader Machar is currently serving as first vice-president.

The United Nations has warned that recent clashes in Nasir between the army and the White Army—a militia with historical ties to Machar—and a rise in hate-speech could reignite along ethnic lines the civil war which ended in 2018.

Machar's SPLM-IO party denies ongoing links with the White Army.

"It is time for South Sudan's leaders to demonstrate sincerity of stated commitments to peace," Washington's Bureau of African Affairs wrote on X.

South Sudan's army and government spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Political analysts say that the peace deal, under which Kiir and Machar have been serving in a fragile coalition government, is on the brink of collapse.

Read: Why South Sudan’s crisis poses a dilemma for Riek Machar

The UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) called for restraint, saying that the country's leaders stood on the brink of relapsing into widespread conflict.

"This will not only devastate South Sudan but also affect the entire region," UNMISS said in a statement.

Earlier this month Kiir's government detained several officials from Machar's party, including the petroleum minister and the deputy head of the army, in response to the clashes with the White Army in Upper Nile State.

On Wednesday, the UN reported fighting between forces loyal to Kiir and Machar close to the capital Juba.

The 2013-2018 civil war, which was fought largely along ethnic lines, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the world's youngest nation.

The Sudanese army is encircling Khartoum airport and surrounding areas, two military sources told Reuters on Wednesday, marking another gain in its two-year-old war with a rival armed group, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Separately, Sudan’s army said in a statement it had taken control of the Tiba al-Hassanab camp in Jabal Awliya, describing this as the RSF’s main base in central Sudan and its last stronghold in Khartoum.

The army had long been on the back foot in a conflict that threatens to partition the country and has caused a humanitarian disaster. But it has recently made gains and has retaken territory from the RSF in the centre of the country.

The army seized control of the presidential palace in downtown Khartoum on Friday.

Witnesses said on Wednesday that RSF had mainly stationed its forces in southern Khartoum to secure their withdrawal from the capital via bridges to the neighbouring city of Omdurman.

The UN calls the situation in Sudan the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with famine in several locations and disease across the country of 50 million people.

The war erupted two years ago as Sudan was planning a transition to democratic rule.

The army and RSF had joined forces after forcing Omar al-Bashir from power in 2019 and later in ousting the civilian leadership.

But they had long been at odds, as Bashir developed Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, and the RSF, which has its roots in Darfur’s janjaweed militias, as a counterweight to the army, led by career officer Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

The presence of Ugandan troops in South Sudan is provoking controversy, as rifts widened this week between coalition partners in the peace deal government.

First Vice President Riek Machar has accused Uganda of violating a United Nations arms embargo by entering South Sudan with armoured and air force units and carrying out air strikes across the country.

In a letter to the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad), the African Union and the UN, Dr Machar asked for intervention to force the Ugandan troops out.

The Ugandan People’s Defence Forces deployed in Juba and Upper Nile State on March 14.

Dr Machar, who is in government with President Salva Kiir as part of a 2018 peace deal, said the troops were deployed without the approval of South Sudan’s transitional government.

Read: South Sudan Machar’s party pulls out of peace process

The letter, dated March 23, was addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, AU Peace and Security Council Commissioner Bankole Adeoye, and Igad chairman Ismail Omar Guelleh, who is also Djibouti’s president.

“The agreement that invited the Ugandan military to South Sudan known as the Status of Forces Agreement between the Government Republic of Uganda and the Government of the Republic of South Sudan was signed on 10th January 2014. The agreement was not signed by the Revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU), and as such the Revitalised Agreement takes precedence over the Status of Forces Agreement between Uganda and South Sudan,” he wrote, referring to the official name of the Igad-brokered 2018 peace deal.

Uganda says it sent troops to South Sudan at the request of President Kiir following skirmishes in Upper Nile state, between a militia linked to Machar and government forces.

On March 14, Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces, Muhoozi Kainerugaba said they had deployed troops to Juba “to secure it.”

“We the UPDF (Ugandan military), only recognise one President of South Sudan, HE Salva Kiir … any move against him is a declaration of war against Uganda,” he added.

Read: Why Uganda is deploying troops to Juba

Uganda previously deployed troops to Juba and Bor in December 2013, when a fierce civil war erupted between Kiir and the forces loyal to Machar. The troops withdrew in 2015, but were deployed again in 2016 after the two sides returned to war. They left the country later that year.

Last week, Uganda’s parliament retrospectively approved the deployment in South Sudan, with the ruling National Resistance Movement arguing that parliamentary approval was a mere formality.

Arrests in Lake State

In South Sudan, the National Security Service (NSS) arrested the deputy governor of Lakes State, Isaiah Akol Mathiang, and several other state officials on Monday in a move targeting allies of Machar.

Dr Akol, who chairs Machar’s opposition party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO), in Lakes State, was detained a day after condemning airstrikes by South Sudanese and Ugandan troops in Upper Nile State.

Those arrested in the Monday swoop included Lake States’ lawmaker Ater Akolde, the Animal Resources minister Gai Magok, and the region’s SPLM-IO youth league chairperson Mandela Machiek.

Authorities had, two weeks ago, arrested the country’s Petroleum minister Puot Kang and the Deputy Chief of Staff Gen Duom Lap. They remain in detention, accused of fuelling the violence, despite of Igad calls for their release.

The latest wave of violence erupted in early March, pitting the military against the White Army, a militia predominantly composed of Nuer youth loyal to Machar. Tensions flared when the government announced plans to replace long-serving troops with newly deployed forces. Fearing targeted attacks or forced disarmament, local armed youth rejected the deployment and instead demanded a unified force.

Days later, the SPLM-IO raised concerns about heavy military deployment near Machar’s residence, heightening fears about the peace agreement’s stability. The situation deteriorated rapidly when military confrontations broke out, culminating in the White Army seizing control of Nasir, a strategic town near the Ethiopian border.

The White Army, notorious for its history of ethnic violence, clashed fiercely with government forces. The violence took an even more tragic turn when a UN helicopter, on an evacuation mission in Nasir, came under fire. The attack killed a crew member and critically injured two others.

Military commander Gen Majur Dak, who had been captured by the White Army, was executed days later, further inflaming hostilities.

The developments came even as the UN warned that parties to the peace deal in South Sudan were abandoning their obligations, a sign of imminent war.

“These indiscriminate attacks on civilians are causing significant casualties and horrific injuries, especially burns. Given this grim situation, we are left with no other conclusion but to assess that South Sudan is teetering on the edge of a relapse into civil war,” said Nicholas Haysom, UNmiss head of mission, during a press conference in Juba.

“Rampant misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are also ratcheting up tensions and driving ethnic divisions and fear.”

President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah who took over last week on Friday became the country’s first female president. But the land of the ‘brave’ as Namibia is known had two other aces up its sleeve.

Alongside President Nandi-Ndaitwah, 64-year-old Vice President Lucia Witbooi and Speaker of the National Assembly Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila complete the top three seats in Namibia’s political structure.

According to Namibia’s new Cabinet, key ministries including oil and gas oversight will be directly under the President’s office.

Namibia is now the only African country with a female president and vice president. Nandi-Ndaitwah swore in 14 ministers, eight of whom are women, and seven deputies in the capital, Windhoek.

Ms Kuugongelwa-Amadhila made history as the first woman to serve as Speaker, and Witbooi is celebrated as the second female Vice President in Namibia, and only the 18th female Vice President, or deputy president, in the entire African continent.

In her announcement of the new Cabinet at State House in Windhoek, Nandi-Ndaitwah pledged her commitment to inclusivity, with eight out of 14 ministers being women.

The new President has had a lifelong commitment to Namibia’s liberation and progress. Born on October 29, 1952, in Onamutai, Nandi-Ndaitwah’s political journey began at just 14, when she joined the South West Africa People’s Organization (Swapo), a liberation movement now the ruling party. Her career became marked with political expertise, diplomatic finesse, and a passionate dedication to advancing women’s and children’s rights.

Read: Netumbo, freedom fighter who’d be president

During her years of exile, the newly elected Head of State played a vital role in SWAPO’s leadership, advocating for the party’s interests across central and East Africa and engaging in pivotal international negotiations, including implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 435.

After Namibia gained independence in 1990, she held several key ministerial roles, including Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister of Women Affairs and Child Welfare, and Minister of Information and Broadcasting, among others. In 2015, she was appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for International Relations and Cooperation.

Her leadership journey progressed further when she became the Vice President of Namibia on February 4, 2024, and later assumed the role of Vice President of Swapo in 2017. She was elected president of Namibia in December 2024 and took office in March 2025, achieving a remarkable milestone.

“Women should not seek election to positions of responsibility simply because we are women, but because we are fully capable members of our societies,” the 72-year-old leader stated, emphasising her belief in merit over gender.

She also committed to diversifying the economy, enabling citizens to “derive maximum benefits from our country’s natural resources, through value addition”.

Diversification, she added, would “create jobs to take care of the unemployed, of which the majority are the youth.” South African leader Cyril Ramaphosa described President Nandi-Ndaitwah’s election as “something we celebrate”.

“It is historic for Namibians to have their first woman president. It’s something we celebrate. It’s something that has long been in the making and this is about the recognition of the role the women on our continent play,” said President Ramaphosa after attending the inauguration.

His comments highlighted the increasing influence of women in leadership roles across Africa as he stressed the necessity of empowering them to assume senior leadership positions. “The more they are given the opportunity, the more they are recognised for their capability and their leadership. We want women on our continent to rise to the top positions in our different countries,” he said.

The new Vice-President was born in Gibeon in 1961, and spent 27 years as a teacher. Beyond the classroom, she served as a vital support system for students as the Gibeon Schools Cluster Convenor for counselling.

On the other hand, Ms Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila has achieved another historic milestone. This follows a career marked by pioneering roles, including serving as Namibia’s first female Prime Minister (2015-2024) and Minister for Finance (2003-2015). Her journey began after Namibia’s independence in 1990, following her education in Sierra Leone and the United States.

She quickly rose through the ranks, appointed to the National Assembly and as Director-General of the National Planning Commission by President Sam Nujoma.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have made significant military gains, recapturing strategic locations previously controlled by their arch-rivals, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

This could alter the balance of power in Khartoum. But some argue that the unity of the SAF itself may now be tested, with profound political implications—both for the junta’s leadership and for the regional and international actors involved, particularly those supporting the RSF’s bid to form a parallel government.

Jihad Mashamoun, a researcher and political analyst on Sudanese affairs at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter, argues that recapturing areas such as the presidential palace in Khartoum gives the junta a degree of legitimacy.

“This is because it undermines the RSF alliance. The Umma party, which has influence in Darfur, is already divided over whether to be in the alliance or not,” he told The EastAfrican this week.

“The victory of the SAF in capturing the presidential palace will most likely split the Umma party, with one faction deciding to be close to Samoud (neutral civilian movements) or to the SAF and the de facto government.”

Umma cracks

Fissures within the Umma were already evident soon after one faction signed an alliance with the RSF in Nairobi. Fadallah Burma Nasser, the party’s acting chair, was in Nairobi with the RSF, but his deputies promptly dropped him. The party joined the civilian movement led by former Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok.

By regaining control of vital sites, including the military’s General Command headquarters, the presidential palace and Khartoum airport, the SAF has not only strengthened its battlefield position but also its political standing.

These advances enhance the army’s ability to dictate the terms of any future settlement and undermine the RSF’s ability to maintain a foothold in the capital.

And that, of course, could benefit from any cracks in the RSF, which has been consolidating in western Sudan, dividing the nation into rival zones.

One reason why a faction of the Umma party tried to ally with RSF was that they had similar support bases in Darfur. But a power rivalry between deputies and the acting chair means they can’t take sides and remain stable.

Another movement that backed the RSF was the SPLM-North faction led by Abdelaziz Adam Al-Hilu, which appears to be hedging its bets to see which side proves more advantageous, despite having signed up to the RSF alliance.

Bargaining chip

For the junta, however, its recent gains give it political leverage, especially with its foreign backers, who had hoped to use its territorial control as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

With the SAF’s recent advances, the feasibility of a parallel government backed by the RSF and its allies appears increasingly unlikely.

One of the key political repercussions is the impact on the efforts of pro-RSF regional actors to establish a rival government. These actors had sought to exploit the RSF’s presence in Khartoum to create a political alternative to the army-led government.

However, with the SAF reclaiming key sites, such efforts are facing serious setbacks. The loss of strategic locations reduces the RSF’s ability to project authority. This development may prompt some regional actors to reassess their positions and explore alternative strategies for influencing Sudan’s political landscape.

But SAF is not immune to its own internal divisions and has so far been unable to protect its reputation. Like RSF, the junta is a heavily sanctioned entity, and its leader, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, was sanctioned by the US Treasury in January for war crimes. RSF’s Mohamed Hamdani Dagalo ‘Hemedti’ was also sanctioned for genocide.

For some time, SAF has been using the label to paint its rivals as the bad guys. This week, however, the junta was accused of the very sins.

At least 200 people were killed and dozens seriously injured in an air strike by the SAF in North Darfur, according to Avaaz, a US-based non-profit rights watchdog. The strike hit a market in the village of Tora on Monday.

Darfur bombing

The Emergency Lawyers human rights group termed the air strike as a “systematic war crime”. It said SAF was “fully responsible” and called for an independent investigation to “ensure that those responsible for these crimes are held accountable before international courts.” The RSF labelled the attack on the crowded market as a “brutal crime.”

While this incident may tarnish the SAF’s image, it could also be a calculated war tactic. Security analyst Cameron Hudson suggests that the SAF’s bombing in Darfur indicates the junta has no intention of abandoning the region to the RSF, and is instead determined to reclaim control over the entirety of Sudan.

“This war is far from over,” Hudson observed on Tuesday, “and going into Darfur will be a tactical and strategic blunder for the SAF.”

“SAF can’t take Darfur by using fighter jets and drones. They would need a full-scale ground invasion, which they don’t have and can’t commit to because their priority needs to be cleaning out Khartoum and remaining eastern/central areas of Sudan where there are still pockets of RSF. That means going door to door; city block by city block. That takes time and personnel. That must be the priority to stabilise the country and alleviate human suffering.”

Rebuilding Sudan

Despite recent military triumphs, doubts linger about the SAF’s ability to rebuild from the ground up. One estimate showed Sudan will need $2 billion to rebuild Khartoum alone. Some of the donors, like the United Arab Emirates, have backed the RSF to be part of the transition. It remains uncertain whether General Burhan would agree to form a coalition with his foes, but rumours suggest the rival groups have re-established contact.

Read: Sudan sues UAE for ‘enabling genocide’

For the SAF, its leadership is heavily influenced by Islamist factions that dominated the previous regime of Omar al-Bashir. This is evident in their resistance to any political settlement that excludes Islamist forces and their opposition to civilian groups seeking to limit military influence.

Burhan has tried to balance military priorities with international pressure to reshape Sudan’s political landscape, but his ability to maintain this delicate equilibrium is uncertain. His deputies, like Yasser al-Atta and Shams al-Din Kabbashi, have taken hardline stances against the RSF, with al-Atta even threatening to bomb Chad for supporting RSF supply routes. The Chadian government, however, has rebuked the stance.

Lately, Kabbashi has appeared more open to negotiations than al-Atta. Meanwhile, Ibrahim Jaber, another lieutenant, is widely regarded as the closest to Islamist circles, playing a pivotal role in managing the financial and political networks that link the army to remnants of the former regime.

Although this alignment has fostered short-term unity, it could also become a source of internal friction in the future, particularly if conflicts arise over power-sharing between military leaders and Islamist factions.

Additional reporting by Aggrey Mutambo

Serbs were knocking on the door of Nairobi on Thursday in protest at Kenya's decision to recognise the independence of Kosovo, a region in southeastern Europe that has been seeking independence from Belgrade for two decades.

The beef was that Kenya had on Wednesday endorsed that independence, with President William Ruto proceeding to proclaim Kenya’s intent to establish diplomatic ties and recognise Kosovo passports.

However, on Thursday morning, Danijela Čubrilo Martić, the Serbian Ambassador to Kenya, delivered her country’s protests to Nairobi, warning that the move was a risky decision that violates international law and threatens “friendly” relations.

“Such an act constitutes a blatant violation of international law and a direct breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which unequivocally guarantees the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia,” the protest from the Serbian Foreign Ministry said.

“The Republic of Serbia will take all necessary diplomatic and political measures in response to this unacceptable and unfriendly act.”

For Kosovo, Kenya’s decision is both a legal and historical debate. Nairobi justified the move by citing a 2010 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.

“Kosovo's declaration of independence on 17th February, 2008, received the endorsement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2010. Kenya has recognised Kosovo in the interest of international peace and security, territorial integrity and in furtherance of strengthening relations with countries in the Balkans,” a statement from Kenya’s Foreign Affairs ministry said on Wednesday.

Read: Kenya’s dilemma over Kosovo ties

On October 8, 2008, the UN the General Assembly had asked the Court to advise on: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?” It came after Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in February 2008.

The Court ruled that the unilateral declaration of independence did not violate international law because there has been no law prohibiting such declarations. This decision, however, was non-binding. The UN General Assembly adopted it nonetheless. But the question of Kosovo’s actual admission to the UN has often failed in the UN Security Council, after Russia vetoed it.

When the case was heard, Serbia wrote a statement to the ICJ, arguing Kosovo’s independence flagrantly violated Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the international legal regime established by it, “as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia and other principles of international law”.

That Resolution was passed at the height of the Kosovo war where thousands of natives had been displaced. It directed for the support of “substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo… within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”.

It also directed for the start of a political process “towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account…territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region”.

Yugoslavia had disintegrated continually from 1991 although Serbia was still a part of what was known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. It was later renamed Serbia and Montenegro in 2003 but the two split into two in 2006. The original Yugoslavia included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.

Serbia, however, continued to claim Kosovo as its territory.

On Thursday, Belgrade said any reference to the 2010 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is unfounded.

“At the same time, this move sets a regrettable precedent in the traditionally friendly relations between Serbia and Kenya—relations that have been built over decades on the principles of mutual respect and cooperation, including within the Non-Aligned Movement.”

Kenya’s decision excited Albanians with their President Bajram Begaj expressing delight.

"Pleased that Kenya has recognised the state of Kosovo today.

"I extend my gratitude to my friend (President) William Ruto for this decision, warmly welcomed by all Albanians,” he wrote on X.

Read: Serbia support plea over Kosovo

President Ruto had delivered the news to visiting Kosovan presidential special envoy Behgjet Pacolli, who has been campaigning for his region’s recognition.

The move swatted away Serbian lobbying, which had campaigned heavily in Africa against recognising a territory it sees as belonging to Serbia. In October 2023, President Ruto had met with Serbian counterpart Aleksandar Vucic on the sidelines of a conference in Beijing, China. The Serbian leader indicated he had got assurances that Nairobi won't join the recognition bandwagon on Kosovo.

Kosovo has claimed 117 countries around the world recognise its independence but only 10 in Africa have done so. Israel had been the last country to recognise Kosovo in 2020. The US and some key European Union members recognise Kosovo, which is comprised of 1.9 million people, mostly ethnic Albanians but also Serbs.

Serbia, however, says 28 countries have withdrawn or frozen the recognition of Kosovo.

“The clear majority of the international community, along with law and justice, remain on Serbia’s side.”

The United States on Thursday called on South Sudan President Salva Kiir to release his rival, First Vice President Riek Machar, who was reportedly under house arrest. The US said it was time the country's leaders demonstrated their commitment to peace.

Machar's SPLM-IO party said on Wednesday that the defence minister and chief of national security "forcefully entered" Machar's residence and delivered an arrest warrant.

Machar was being held at his house with his wife and two body guards. He was implicated in the fighting between the military and White Army in Nasir, Upper Nile State this month, Mr Reath Muoch Tang, a senior SPLM-IO official, said in a statement seen by Reuters on Thursday.

"We are concerned by reports that South Sudan's First Vice-President Machar is under house arrest," Washington's Bureau of African Affairs wrote on X.

"We urge President Kiir to reverse this action and prevent further escalation of the situation."

Under a peace deal that ended a 2013-2018 civil war between forces loyal to Machar on one side and Kiir on the other, South Sudan has five vice-presidents. Kiir's long-time rival and opposition leader Machar is currently serving as first vice-president.

The United Nations has warned that recent clashes in Nasir between the army and the White Army—a militia with historical ties to Machar—and a rise in hate-speech could reignite along ethnic lines the civil war which ended in 2018.

Machar's SPLM-IO party denies ongoing links with the White Army.

"It is time for South Sudan's leaders to demonstrate sincerity of stated commitments to peace," Washington's Bureau of African Affairs wrote on X.

South Sudan's army and government spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Political analysts say that the peace deal, under which Kiir and Machar have been serving in a fragile coalition government, is on the brink of collapse.

Read: Why South Sudan’s crisis poses a dilemma for Riek Machar

The UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) called for restraint, saying that the country's leaders stood on the brink of relapsing into widespread conflict.

"This will not only devastate South Sudan but also affect the entire region," UNMISS said in a statement.

Earlier this month Kiir's government detained several officials from Machar's party, including the petroleum minister and the deputy head of the army, in response to the clashes with the White Army in Upper Nile State.

On Wednesday, the UN reported fighting between forces loyal to Kiir and Machar close to the capital Juba.

The 2013-2018 civil war, which was fought largely along ethnic lines, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the world's youngest nation.