The paper discusses immunity of Head of States and Governments both under international lawrnand in Africa particularly in the AU system. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate whetherrnimmunity of Head of States and Government,who violate International Human Rights andrnHumanitarian laws,are immune from criminal prosecution.Furthermore, the aim of this study isrnto show the legal framework of AU and the stands of African states mainly South Sudan onrnImmunity of Head of States and Governments and how it will pose a challenge to the proposedrnHybrid Court for South Sudan. The paper illustrates how the proposed Hybrid Court for SouthrnSudan will enforce its mandate on Heads of States and Governments and address accountability.rnThe paper will unveil how individual criminal responsibility could be addressed if the proposedrnHybrid Court remains in a paper. The research questions have been answered by usingrninterviews, literature, conventions, cases, and various articles reviews and triangulations ofrnthose data collected. The result shows that the issue of immunity of Head of States andrnGovernments under international law does not hold a settled ground, and a major debaternsubsists one which contends that there is sufficient state practice that removes immunityof Headrnof States and Governments under international law and one that contends otherwise. The paperrnrecommends the establishment of an institution that conducts thorough study and analysis of thernstate practice and opinio juris to come up with a hard law which is codified that weighs all thernevidence to settle the debate. The paper also addressed the question of accountability in SouthrnSudan and whether the Hybrid Court for South Sudan enforces its mandate on Head of Statesrnand Governments who are allegedly responsible for International Human Right violations givenrnthe principle of immunity of Head of States and Governments from criminal jurisdiction.rnAgreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan has been analyzed to assess thernmandate of the Hybrid Court on addressing accountability which outlawâ€™s immunity as arndefense, however, the existence of immunity in South Sudan and the normative framework of AUrnwill pose possible challenge on the functionality of the Hybrid Court. Finally, the paper alsornunveilsthere is no contingency plan to entertain transitional justice if the Hybrid Court remainsrnon paper. Hence, the paper recommends the UNSC to enact the text of the peace agreement byrnway of Chapter VII resolution to enforce the provisions of the agreement as an alternative plan ifrnthe Hybrid Court remains in vain.