- Machar lawyers reinstated
- Court readmits Machar’s defense
- Nasir Incident trial
- License suspension lawyers South Sudan
- Constitutional right to counsel
- Special Court South Sudan
- Chief Justice reinstates lawyers
- Legal representation in high profile trial
- Presiding Judge James Alala ruling
Juba, October 1, 2025
In a key development in the trial of First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar and seven co-accused over the Nasir incident, the Special Court has reinstated two defense lawyers whose licenses had expired, after they were temporarily barred from continuing in court.
The two advocates, Deng John Deng and Wernyang Kiir Wernyang were removed from the courtroom earlier in the week by order of Presiding Judge James Alala Deng, following a motion from the prosecution arguing that they lacked valid practicing licenses.
The court’s decision came during proceedings relating to the high-profile Nasir Incident trial, in which Machar and others are accused in connection with violence and alleged crimes.
License Suspension and Removal from the Courtroom
On Monday, the prosecution requested the removal of Deng and Wernyang from the defense team, asserting that neither lawyer had renewed their bar licenses a mandatory requirement for representation in court.
Acting on that request, Presiding Judge James Alala ordered the two to vacate the courtroom until the licensing issue was resolved.
The enforcement of bar-license requirements sparked immediate controversy.
Legal observers note that licensing rules are designed to ensure that practicing lawyers maintain up-to-date credentials and abide by professional standards. However, in politically sensitive cases, these rules can also become tools of procedural pressure.
Appeal to the Chief Justice and Reinstatement
During the Wednesday session, Advocate Geri Raimondo Legge, lead counsel for the defense, informed the court that the matter had been escalated to the Chief Justice, seeking an order to permit Deng and Wernyang’s re-admittance.
Legge reported that the Chief Justice had granted permission for the two lawyers to resume representation, citing constitutional guarantees and statutory provisions.
The defense relied on Article 19, Clause 7 of South Sudan’s Constitution, along with Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2008, arguing that the accused have the right to legal representation, and that procedural lapses should not deprive them of counsel.
When the court solicited the prosecution’s response, Advocate Ajo Ohisa declared that the prosecution had no objection to the reinstatement, acknowledging the decision of the Chief Justice.
He did, however, seek clarity about whether the permission covered both lawyers equally.
Following that exchange, Presiding Judge James Alala formally allowed the return of Deng and Wernyang to the defense team, stating:
“Since the approval of the Chief Justice … the two gentlemen are allowed to normally continue with their team.”
The trial is now set to resume on Friday, with the prosecution expected to continue presenting witness statements.
Legal and Political Implications
The reinstatement of Machar’s lawyers carries both legal and political significance. On the legal front, it affirms that even in high-stakes cases, defendants are entitled to representation by qualified counsel and that procedural technicalities should not easily override constitutional protections.
Politically, the case remains highly charged. Dr. Machar is a central figure in South Sudan’s fragile peace architecture, and his prosecution is being closely watched by domestic and international observers.
The licensing dispute added tension to an already sensitive trial. Some analysts saw the removal of the lawyers as a move to disrupt the defense and exert leverage.
The court’s reversal may signal that procedural challenges must still observe bounds of fairness, especially under scrutiny.
But it also underscores how legal technicalities play a strategic role in politically prominent trials in South Sudan.
Constitutional Guarantees and Statutory Backing
Key to the defense’s success was invoking South Sudan’s constitutional and legal framework:
Article 19, Clause 7 of the Constitution provides that every accused person has the right to legal representation and to be informed of that right.
Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2008, governs the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings, including representation and procedural fairness.
By referencing those provisions, the defense argued that barring their lawyers on a licensing technicality would unconstitutionally strip their clients of their right to a full defense.
The Chief Justice’s intervention suggests that, at the highest judicial level, these constitutional principles were deemed paramount.
Possible Challenges Ahead
Though Deng and Wernyang are back on the defense team, their license status may remain contentious.
The court or prosecution could revisit the issue, especially if the license renewals are not properly documented or if other challenges arise.
The defense may face further procedural probes or objections regarding their legal standing.
Moreover, the court will need to maintain consistent application of professional standards for all advocates, ensuring that licensing and oversight rules are enforced without prejudice.
Inconsistent rulings could undermine perceptions of fairness and equal treatment under the law in high-profile trials.
What Comes Next in the Nasir Incident Trial
With the legal representation issue resolved at least for now the trial is slated to proceed on Friday, October 3, 2025 (note: some sources say “third Friday” in the published article).
The prosecution is scheduled to continue presenting its witness statements, which are central to its case against Machar and the other accused.
Observers will be watching closely how the defense responds, whether they will challenge the admissibility of evidence or testimony tied to the licensing interruption, and whether the court imposes stricter oversight on defense counsel’s credentials going forward.
Public and Institutional Reactions
Though media and public commentary remain nascent, several potential angles of reaction can be anticipated:
Legal observers and civil society groups may praise the reinstatement as a necessary corrective to procedural overreach, urging stricter safeguards for the rights of accused persons in politically charged trials.
Prosecution or government-aligned commentators may argue that the licensing rules must be respected and that no lawyer should practice with an expired license.
Supporters of Dr. Machar are likely to frame the reinstatement as a victory for due process and legal fairness, particularly in a case many see as politically motivated.
Skeptics may warn that this could be a symbolic fix unless deeper structural reforms are made to the legal and judicial system in South Sudan to reduce manipulation of procedural rules.
Comments
Post a Comment