Juba, October 3, 2025
The sixth day of suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar’s trial in Juba’s Special Court unfolded with heated legal battles, sharp objections, and mounting political implications.
At stake is not just Machar’s fate in connection with the Nasir incident, but also the future of constitutional law, immunity, and the peace process in South Sudan.
The session at Freedom Hall brought into focus four key documents presented by the prosecution and the defense’s fierce resistance to their admissibility.
What transpired revealed not only a clash of legal arguments but also a test of political will between the SPLM-IO leader and state institutions.
Prosecution Pushes Forward
On Friday, state prosecutors introduced critical documents into evidence:
1. An authorization letter issued by the National Security Service (NSS), signed by Brigadier General Jalfan Obage Nyawela.
2. A ministerial decision by the Ministry of Justice establishing an investigative committee.
3. An executive arrest sanction from the Presidency authorizing Machar’s detention.
4. A parliamentary directive lifting the immunity of MP Gatwech, one of Machar’s co-accused.
These documents, prosecutors argued, proved that due process was followed before Machar’s arrest and trial could proceed.
They also cited Section 44 of the Criminal Procedure Act and precedents from the Constitutional Court, claiming that Machar has no immunity in relation to the charges.
The prosecution further stressed that the gravity of the alleged crimes linked to violence in Nasir justifies the extraordinary legal measures.
Defense Fires Back
Machar’s lawyers strongly objected to every document, raising both constitutional and procedural grounds:
On the NSS letter: The defense argued that Brig. Gen. Nyawela had no legal authority to issue authorization, rendering the document invalid.
On the Justice Ministry’s committee: They insisted that the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring and Verification Mechanism (CTSAMVM) not the judiciary has jurisdiction over incidents arising from the 2018 peace agreement.
On the arrest sanction: They maintained that only Parliament, through impeachment, can authorize proceedings against a First Vice President.
Issuing an arrest sanction through the Presidency, they said, violates the separation of powers under Article 101 of the Transitional Constitution.
On prosecutors doubling as investigators: The defense cited the Evidence Act, saying those who investigated the case should not serve as prosecutors due to conflict of interest.
Despite sustained objections, the court admitted the arrest sanction as Prosecution Document #3, a decision that sparked murmurs among Machar’s supporters inside the hall.
Machar’s Own Stand
Earlier this week, Machar himself rejected the legitimacy of the investigation, declaring that he enjoys constitutional immunity and cannot be tried by the Special Court. He insisted that the proceedings were politically motivated and outside the law.
“I do not acknowledge this committee. I will not cooperate with an unlawful process,” Machar told the court in a bold statement that set the tone for the defense strategy.
He further argued that any incidents in Nasir fall under peace monitoring mechanisms, not judicial prosecution.
Why This Matters
This trial is more than a legal case. It represents a constitutional test for South Sudan at a time of fragile peace and looming elections.
1. Immunity Debate: The outcome will set precedent on whether senior officials, including vice presidents, can be prosecuted without parliamentary approval.
2. Judicial Independence: The case is also a test for the judiciary, which faces public scrutiny over whether it can act independently in a high-stakes political trial.
3. Peace Agreement Implications: With elections approaching, Machar’s trial could deepen rifts between SPLM-IO and SPLM, risking instability if his faction sees the case as an attempt to sideline him.
Political Reactions
The proceedings have already sparked sharp reactions:
SPLM-IO members argue that the trial violates the 2018 peace agreement and accuse the government of trying to “finish Machar politically.”
Government allies insist that no leader is above the law, framing the trial as a step toward accountability.
Civil society groups are divided. Some call for justice to proceed, while others warn that the case risks undermining the peace process if handled without transparency.
International observers are also monitoring closely. Diplomats from IGAD countries and the African Union attended sessions this week, signaling that the trial’s outcome will have regional consequences.
What Happens Next
The trial will resume on Monday, October 6, 2025, when the prosecution is expected to present further witnesses and documents.
Legal experts say the next sessions will be decisive, as the court must weigh constitutional arguments against criminal charges.
For Machar, the stakes could not be higher: a conviction could disqualify him from participating in the upcoming elections, while dismissal of the case could embolden his political standing.
Conclusion
Day 6 of Machar’s trial was not just a courtroom battle it was a collision of law, politics, and peacebuilding.
The defense’s constitutional objections and the prosecution’s insistence on due process highlight the trial’s historic nature.
As the court prepares for its next session, South Sudanese citizens, political actors, and the international community will be watching closely.
The verdict whatever it may be is bound to reshape South Sudan’s political and legal landscape for years to come.
Comments
Post a Comment