Defense lawyers in the high-profile trial of suspended First Vice President Riek Machar and seven co-accused launched a vigorous challenge on Friday, questioning the legality of their clients’ arrests and the admissibility of key prosecution evidence as South Sudan’s Special Court continued cross-examination of the lead investigator.
The 16th session of the trial, held at Freedom Hall in Juba, revealed that several defendants were allegedly arrested without warrants, that one serving minister and a sitting lawmaker were detained despite parliamentary immunity, and that some prosecution documents were dated after the case had already been referred to the court.
Machar, 73, a pivotal figure in South Sudan’s decade-long political and military upheaval, and his co-defendants face charges of mass murder, treason, terrorism, crimes against humanity, and destruction of public and military property.
The charges stem from a March 2025 attack on a government military base in Nasir, Upper Nile State, in which prosecutors allege that more than 200 soldiers were killed by forces loyal to Machar’s SPLA-IO faction and a local militia known as the White Army.
The co-defendants are Puot Kang Chuol, 40; Mam Pal Dhuor, 37; Gatwech Lam Puoch, 66; Lt. Gen. Gabriel Duop Lam, 53; Camilo Gatmai Kel, 47; Mading Yak Riek, 45; and Dominic Gatgok Riek, 27.
Machar, a signatory to the 2018 peace agreement, was placed under house arrest on March 26, while his associates were detained by security personnel on various dates during the same month.
NO Cabinet Authorization
Under cross-examination, lead investigator Maj. Gen. Basilio Thomas Wani admitted that the arrests of the defendants were not authorized by the Council of Ministers, as required under South Sudanese law. When asked whether the Cabinet had approved the operation, Wani replied, “I was unaware of any authorization.”
The court heard that a lawmaker — identified as the third defendant — was arrested by the National Security Service without a warrant while still protected by parliamentary immunity.
Wani added that the first, second, and third defendants were all detained without warrants, while the arrests of the fourth and sixth accused were carried out under verbal orders from the Chief of Defense Forces, with no written documentation presented to the court.
Evidence Challenged
Defense counsel also raised concerns over procedural irregularities in the handling of prosecution evidence. Lawyers pointed to a key document marked “13 out of 11,” dated September 14, after the case had already been referred to the court.
Wani explained that the application had been sent earlier to the National Communication Authority (NCA) but was only signed after the investigation team had been constituted.
The defense also questioned the chain of custody for the evidence, to which Wani admitted that some case files remained with the investigation committee even after the case had been transferred to the Special Court — a lapse that, defense lawyers argued, undermined the integrity of the prosecution’s submissions.
A major point of contention centered on a Radio Miraya interview allegedly given by the first accused, Puot Kang Chuol, which prosecutors claim contained remarks linked to the Nasir attack. The defense maintained that the program was a political talk show, not a security briefing, as alleged by the prosecution.
Wani testified that he had listened to the recording, which circulated on social media, but could not recall the broadcast date or the other participants, who defense lawyers said included Cabinet Affairs Minister Martin Elia Lomuro, former RJMEC interim chair Charles Tai Gituai, and other officials. He said the National Communication Authority had reviewed the clip and deemed it “misleading regarding the Nasir incident,” but admitted the Media Authority — the official media regulator — had never reviewed its content. The recording was submitted to the court on a USB flash drive.
Investigation Committee Questioned
In a further challenge to the prosecution’s case, the defense questioned whether the investigation committee was properly constituted in accordance with the law. Defense counsel asked whether the committee members, including its head, had taken the required oath before commencing their duties. Wani confirmed that they had not, prompting the defense to argue that this omission undermined the legal validity of the investigation’s findings.
Regarding the arrest of Machar, Wani testified that President Salva Kiir Mayardit had verbally authorized the operation but acknowledged that no written directive existed at the time. He confirmed that a formal letter lifting Machar’s immunity was issued several months after his arrest and interrogation — a timeline the defense argued proved the detention was unlawful.
Addressing the core of the Nasir incident, Wani testified that one of the accused had provided misleading information, claiming that the advancing troops “were not SPLA forces but militias.” However, when asked whether any of the accused had explicitly mentioned or given instructions to the White Army, Wani replied, “There are no direct instructions,” adding, “He didn’t mention anything directed to the White Army.”
Court Adjourns
The defense also renewed several pending applications, including requests for access to evidence, medical leave for certain defendants, and translation assistance for non-English speakers.
Presiding Judge James Alala Deng sustained a prosecution objection, instructing the defense to limit questioning to documents the investigator could directly identify, focusing on their form rather than their content.
After a lengthy session, Judge Deng adjourned proceedings to Monday, November 3, 2025, for continuation of the defense’s cross-examination and consideration of outstanding motions.