South Sudan’s former First Vice President Riek Machar on Wednesday linked his ongoing trial in Juba to a political dispute between the ruling SPLM and the opposition SPLM-IO, alleging that the court proceedings are politically motivated.
Machar, the fifth accused in the case, resumed his defence testimony during the court’s 121st session, questioning why he had been designated accused number five rather than accused number one.
“I do agree that this trial is political trial between SPLM-IG and SPLM-IO,” Machar said, referring to the faction aligned with President Salva Kiir and the opposition faction he leads. He said he intends to present video footage that he believes would support his claim that the proceedings are politically motivated.
Accused designation
Machar argued that his designation as accused number five contradicts official state documents, including a statement by the former minister of justice and constitutional affairs and a warrant establishing the special court issued by the chief justice.
“My defence team has made a number of attempts throughout the proceedings of this court to uncover the reason why I am not designated as accused number one. However, no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why I am designated as accused number five in lieu of number 1,” Machar told the panel of judges.
He said he had expected the list of the eight accused persons to follow the order in which their names appeared in the justice ministry’s statement and the warrant establishing the court.
“Both the minister and the chief justice appropriately listed my name as the first accused,” he said, adding that the court had been established under Article 127(1)(b) of the Constitution of South Sudan, as amended.
Machar maintained that the constitutional provisions governing the establishment of the special court should take precedence over police records in determining the order of the accused.
“In spite of this, the Honorable Court has designated me as accused number five. I view this as a political plan to deny me my right to be tried in accordance with the appropriate constitutional provisions as the First Vice President of the Republic, and instead force me to be tried in the shadow of my junior colleagues in the SPLM-IO,” he said.
2018 Peace agreement
Machar linked the case to the collapse of peace initiatives and subsequent military confrontations between the SSPDF and the SPLM-IO.
He said the failure of the December 2024 Nairobi peace talks over the proposed Tumaini Peace Initiative was followed by attacks on SPLM-IO positions in Western Equatoria and Western Bahr el Ghazal states in January and February 2025, before the Nasir incident on March 3 and 4 that year.
“I will first expose how this political plan was developed following the failed attempt by the SPLM-IG to replace the R-ARCSS with the Tumaini Consensus during the December 2024 Nairobi peace talks,” Machar said.
He alleged that the failure of the Nairobi talks led the transitional government and the ruling SPLM to effectively abandon implementation of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) and launch attacks against SPLM-IO forces.
Machar said he would discuss the alleged military campaigns against the SPLM-IO in greater detail later in his testimony.
Constitutional changes
Machar also said that provisions of the R-ARCSS, the transitional constitution and the electoral law had been amended unilaterally during his arrest, detention and ongoing trial.
He further said that the Revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) had been dissolved on Sept. 22, 2026, and replaced by a caretaker government tasked with preparing for elections scheduled for Dec. 22, 2026.
According to Machar, the elections had been declared on June 22, 2026, without adequate preparation or consultation with key political parties that are signatories to the 2018 peace agreement.
He described the changes and election plans as unconstitutional and said they had plunged the country into political and security crises.
“These unilateral and unconstitutional amendments and declarations of general elections have plunged the country into uncalled-for and unwanted constitutional and security crises,” he said.
Machar said he would address the constitutional provisions and legal procedures he believes should have been followed in his trial later in his testimony.
Video evidence
Machar also asked the court to allow him to display video footage containing public statements by senior government officials made before and after his arrest during the state burial and funeral rites of the late General David Majur Dak.
He said the recordings would support his argument that government officials had publicly prejudged the case against him and other SPLM-IO leaders before the special court was established.
In his statement, Machar described the proceedings as a politically motivated trial and said the footage would help demonstrate how the political plan had developed.
The prosecution objected to the defence request to display the video exhibits. The defence characterised the prosecution’s objections as unfounded, while the prosecution disputed the defence’s position.
Court proceedings
The proceedings also featured a disagreement between the defence and prosecution over the conduct of Machar’s examination.
Lead defence lawyer Geri Raymond Legge argued that Machar should be allowed to present his statement without interruption, citing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act of 2008.
The prosecution, represented by Deny Achuil Adija, disputed aspects of the defence’s interpretation of the proceedings.
Machar said he would use his testimony to address the constitutional and legal issues surrounding the trial, as well as the political and military developments he believes led to his arrest and prosecution.
The court adjourned the proceedings until Monday, Oct. 19, 2026. The panel of judges is expected to rule on Machar’s request to display the video exhibits, while Machar is expected to continue presenting his oral defence testimony.
and then