Juba, South Sudan
The defense team representing First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar on Friday strongly contested the legality of the arrest warrant issued against him, calling it “profoundly shocking” and unconstitutional.
Lead defense lawyer Dr. Geri Raimondo told the Special Court that the warrant undermines the rule of law by granting presidential powers that, according to the constitution, do not exist.
“My Lord, the document before me is profoundly shocking. The arrest warrant essentially terms the President of this country as both a police officer and a prosecutor a power that is supposed to belong to the Honorable Minister of Justice,” Raimondo argued.
He further stressed that the warrant was issued by an “unauthorized jurisdiction,” insisting that the only body empowered to authorize the arrest of the First Vice President is the National Assembly, as stipulated under Article 103, Clause 2 of South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution.
According to Raimondo, prosecution powers are strictly defined under Article 135, Clauses 1, 2, and 3, making the executive branch’s involvement in issuing the warrant a violation of constitutional order.
Constitutional Dispute at the Heart of Machar’s Trial
The arrest warrant controversy has intensified the already tense trial, with Machar’s defense framing the case as a broader constitutional crisis rather than a straightforward prosecution.
Legal analysts note that the case touches on separation of powers a principle that defines the roles of the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
By bypassing parliamentary approval, Raimondo argued, the warrant not only undermines due process but also sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
Political Implications
The defense challenge comes amid heightened political tensions, with Machar’s supporters viewing the trial as politically motivated and a breach of the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement. Protests have already been reported in parts of the country, with calls for the government to drop the charges.
If the court upholds the defense objection, it could force a significant rethinking of the ongoing proceedings, possibly stalling or even invalidating the trial.
What’s Next?
The Special Court is expected to deliberate on the defense’s objection in the coming sessions.
Observers say the ruling will be a litmus test for South Sudan’s fragile judiciary and its ability to balance justice with constitutional integrity.
Comments
Post a Comment