Author|Ginaba Lino |CRN
The Special Court in Juba, during its sixth session on Thursday, granted Dr. Riek Machar Teny, the fifth accused in the Nasir case (Criminal Case No. 15-33-2025), the right to respond to a statement presented by an investigator.
Dr. Machar, currently suspended from his role as First Vice President, appeared in court alongside seven co-accused individuals. The charges before the court include treason, terrorism, and murder which he denied.
In his response, Dr. Machar stated that he initially declined to cooperate with investigators, citing immunity conferred upon him by the Revitalized Peace Agreement, under which he was appointed First Vice President.
However, he acknowledged the existence of a presidential sanction authorizing his arrest now formally admitted into evidence as Prosecution Document Number Three.
The prosecution argued that the sanction was issued under Section 44 of the Court of Criminal Procedure Act, 2008, which permits the Head of State to authorize arrests in cases involving crimes against the state, as defined under Chapters 5 and 6 of the Penal Code.
To support its admissibility, the prosecution further cited Sections 62 and 63 of the Court of Evidence Act, 2006, regarding judicial notice.
The defense challenged the admissibility of the sanction, arguing that actions against a sitting Vice President require parliamentary approval.
Citing Article 103(2) of the Transitional Constitution and Rules 62 and 63 of the National Legislative Assembly procedures, defense counsel maintained that only the Assembly holds the authority to lift immunity.
Additionally, the defense referred to Article 101 (as amended in 2020), asserting that the President does not have unilateral authority to order the arrest of a Vice President.
In rebuttal, the prosecution clarified that Article 103 refers solely to presidential immunity and reiterated that the issue of Machar’s immunity had already been addressed in earlier sessions.
The court, after hearing both arguments, admitted the presidential sanction into the record as Prosecution Document Number Three.
Also admitted during Thursday’s session was Prosecution Document Number Four, a resolution issued by the Transitional National Legislative Assembly on August 26, 2025, lifting the parliamentary immunity of Hon. Gatwech Lam Puoch.
The resolution, signed by Speaker Rt. Hon. Jemma Nunu Kumba, was submitted in support of the lawmaker’s prior arrest and the continuation of legal proceedings.
The prosecution argued that the resolution was issued in accordance with Article 67(1) and (2) of the Transitional Constitution (as amended), which allows for the lifting of immunity when a member is accused of a serious offense.
They also referenced the National Security Service Act, 2014 (as amended), which permits arrest without a warrant in matters of national security.
The defense raised concerns about procedural integrity, pointing out that Hon. Lam was arrested and investigated on March 12, 2025, several months prior to the resolution. They argued that this sequence violated due process.
In response, the prosecution maintained that Article 67(2) allows for retroactive lifting of immunity in exceptional cases, including those involving national security threats.
The court accepted the resolution into evidence as Prosecution Document Number Four.
Earlier in the trial, the court had admitted two foundational documents investigation Document Number One: An authorization letter dated March 19, 2025, issued by the National Security Service (NSS), assigning Captain Ligon Richard Kashif Apollo to represent the Internal Security Bureau (ISB). Despite defense objections regarding the signatory’s authority, the court admitted the document.
A ministerial order from the Ministry of Justice establishing a Joint Investigation and Prosecution Committee. The defense argued it violated provisions of previous peace agreements, but the court ruled the document procedurally sound and admitted it.
The trial, presided over by Judge James Alala Deng, is scheduled to resume on Monday, when the court is expected to hear further witness testimony and examine additional evidence.
The case continues to attract national attention, as it touches on critical legal questions surrounding criminal accountability, constitutional authority, and the implementation of peace accords in South Sudan.