Ruling Pending on Court’s Power to Try FVP Machar

By Awan Achiek

A special court on Tuesday postponed proceedings until Wednesday to consider legal arguments concerning its authority to try First Vice President Riek Machar and seven co-defendants.

Machar, the leader of the main armed opposition group, SPLM-IO, along with seven key members, is facing alleged charges including murder, treason, conspiracy, financing terrorist activities, actions against state authorities, and crimes against humanity.

The charges stem from a violent incident in March when a militia known as the White Army overran a garrison of government troops in Nasir County, Upper Nile, killing its commanding officer, Gen. Majur Dak, and several soldiers.

The justice ministry asserted that the attack in Nasir was influenced by Machar and others through “coordinated military and political structures.”

On Monday, during the first court session, Machar’s lead defence lawyer, Dr. Geri Raimondo Legge, contested the court’s legitimacy, arguing it lacks both competence and jurisdiction to hear the case against Machar.

Machar’s lawyers also contended that the constitution requires the lifting of FVP Machar’s immunity before he can appear in court to address the charges against him.

During the session in Juba on Tuesday, Machar’s lead lawyers, led by Dr. Geri Raimondo Legge, argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to exercise judicial powers over this case involving Machar and his co-accused.

“In other words, jurisdiction is the authority of courts of law to exercise judicial powers, which is entirely the power of the court to exercise when it assumes jurisdiction,” Raimondo said.

He stated that the incident in Nasir is a matter of ceasefire violations, describing it as clashes between the two parties that can be addressed through CTSAMVM.

“In Nasir, let me repeat again, the incident in Nasir is a case of ceasefire violations and clashes between the two parties,” he said.

“As such, the revitalised agreement has been used for the investigation of this matter through CTSAMVM to investigate, report to RJMEC, and report to the IGAD Council of Ministers to determine the matter correctly.”

The hearing, presided over by Justice James Alala Deng, centred on a defence motion questioning the court’s jurisdiction.

Judge Deng adjourned the session to look into the application of the defence regarding the legality of the court.

“Number two, we are going to adjourn the session so that we are able to consider the application being raised by the defence,” Deng said.