The ongoing trial of the former First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar has been put on hold pending the conclusion of an investigation into alleged threats against and intimidation of the accused persons. It is not yet clear whether the alleged threats and intimidation took place on the court premises or where the accused persons are confined.
The allegations of threats and intimidation followed Machar’s persistent demand that the court address the public on live television or radio, as he did at the start of the court proceedings in 2025.
In March 2025, Machar was arrested alongside his fellow SPLM-IO officials while he was still first vice president of South Sudan. However, on 22 September 2026, he ceased to be the first vice president after the dissolution of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU).
I think Machar was put under house arrest due to his status as the country’s first vice president, unlike his co-accused, who were hurriedly taken to the National Security Service prison dubbed Blue House.
This trial is controversial in the sense that it has divided the country into two equal halves. In fact, the trial of Machar is one of the reasons why South Sudanese people are fighting on political lines. Since 2025, thousands of our people have been killed in Greater Upper Nile and Equatoria regions, with some armed factions saying they will put down their arms and join the dialogue only if Machar is released unconditionally.
Legal reasons
The demand by Machar to have his presentation covered by the media is both legal and political in the sense that it has backing on both legal and political sides. Legally, Machar’s demand to speak on live video and audio is supported by the court’s precedent. At the beginning of the trial last year, the trial was beamed live on the state-owned television, SSBC.
The fact that the matter was a high-profile case necessitated the decision to broadcast the proceedings live. It was high-profile because the case involved the then incumbent first vice president of the country. By then, the decision to broadcast the case live was welcomed by South Sudanese on both sides of the political divide. However, when the matter reached critical stages of hearing and cross-examination, the media coverage was stopped, apparently at the request of the prosecution to avoid public humiliation because they sensed defeat.
Eventually, when the court delivers its ruling against Machar’s application to speak on live broadcast, its decision is likely to contravene the legal principle known as ‘‘per incuriam,’’ which loosely means a formal decision made without considering the available and relevant court precedent.
The earlier court decision to permit live broadcast during the opening of the case gives Machar’s demand an irresistible weight. I hope the court will not run away from its shadow by departing from its previous decision. Naturally, the court is a public space. This means, therefore, members of the public can attend court sessions or access virtual hearings if there is a chance. So, allowing live broadcasts is not illegal. In fact, it will only attract more audience to tune in.
The rights of accused and arrested persons
Legally, an accused person has about six rights granted by law. These rights are given in law pursuant to the principle that “justice must be seen to be done.” Up to this moment, Machar and his co-accused have not yet been convicted, and hence, they are still accused persons who are under detention pending the final determination of the case.
First, the accused persons have a right to know why they were arrested. Luckily, this right has been fulfilled when they were informed of the charges brought against them by Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Dr. Joseph Geng Akech. Second, an accused person has a right to remain silent. The law grants the right of silence to prevent an accused from making a statement that could harm his case in court. Nonetheless, the accused person’s right to remain silent immediately ends when the accused person is presented before the court of law.
In any case, when the accused person keeps quiet during the court proceedings for no justifiable reason, the court may render judgment against him, believing that he accepted having committed the alleged offence. Third, the accused person has a right to representation by a lawyer of his choice. Fourth, the accused person has a right to be treated with dignity and respect, and that legally means he should not be insulted, beaten, starved, or coerced to confess, to say the least.
During the 80th session, one of the first accused persons, former minister of petroleum, Puot Kang Chol, however, reported to court, saying they were being humiliated and called names in violation of their legal rights. For example, in the Radio Tamazuj news article titled: Puot Kang alleges humiliation in detention says NSS called them dogs, Puot was quoted as saying, “I would like to inform this honorable special court that we have undergone enough humiliation the system could think of, including but not limited to being referred to as dogs.”
The accused person has the right to bail, which has been denied regardless of the fact that nearly all the charges are bailable in the eyes of the law. My reasons for highlighting these rights, namely the right to counsel, right to dignity, right to know charges, and right to seek bail, had little to do with Machar’s demand for live broadcast; rather, I highlighted for readers to know which among the accused persons’ rights had been respected and/or disrespected since the court proceedings commenced in 2025. It is unthinkable to deny them their right to bail as if they are foreigners who can flee.
Political reasons
The political prisoners should continue showcasing courage while we strive to have them released unconditionally as soon as possible. Courage is defined as a victory over fear to do something that many are afraid to do. When one does something that other people are willing and ready to do, it is not courage.
During the 108th court session, Dr. Riek Machar demonstrated courage when he insisted on being granted his constitutional right to speak and defend himself through live audio or video. Machar made this demand regardless of the circumstances facing him and his fellow inmates. Verbally, courage can be expressed by way of speaking out and expressing the opinions that would not be easy to express. Through courage, we can speak truth to power with an aim to bring the desired social and political changes in South Sudan and around the world.
In the book titled Kenya: Prison Notebook, Professor Maina wa Kinyatti stated that “prison life is supported by courage, dreams, memories and ideals. Otherwise, captives would wither and die.” The political reason why Machar wanted to speak on live camera is crystal clear. I believe the historians and students of history will concur with the narrative.
Dr. Machar, being a doyen and a veteran opposition leader who holds a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) from Bradford University, was trying to outsmart the prosecution and, by extension, the government by demanding to speak on live radio or television. I think Machar was trying to use the court as a campaign platform to woo his supporters and sympathizers through his woes, with the aim of preparing them for any eventuality.
In an opinion piece titled: Ruto and the enemies he manufactured, Kenyan lawyer Dr. Irungu Kang’ata opined that “if you want to destroy your enemy, you do not give him a microphone, a martyr’s crown and a stage to weep for the nation.” On the one hand, the prosecution will try to resist Machar’s demand for obvious reasons. On the other hand, the court will grapple so much with its own made precedent. Perhaps, in making the demand, Machar was inspired by the political and historical events in which past political prisoners overcame and ascended to power after they were granted the chance to address the courts in a live broadcast in their respective countries.
Jerry John Rawlings
In May 1979, the then Ghana military government headed by General Fred Akuffo, who came to power in a palace coup, replacing General Ignatius Acheampong, arrested Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings after the latter’s unsuccessful coup. Following Rawlings’ arrest, the government organized a public court-martial to try him on live radio. At the back of his mind, General Akuffo wanted to subject Rawlings to what was then called a public funeral and humiliation.
Unbeknownst to General Akuffo, Rawlings stood in the dock to address the nation bravely. Surprisingly, he did not apologize or ask for mercy. Instead, he told the Ghanaian public that the ruling generals who arrested and prosecuted him were the thieves and looters who had stolen their future and their children’s future. Keenly, the Ghanaians were listening with excitement.
About three weeks later, young Ghanaian soldiers broke the prison gates and took Rawlings out on their shoulders while singing war songs. On that day, he was taken from prison to the palace. The court trial, which was designed to bury him politically, suddenly became his coronation as Ghana’s head of state.
Hugo Chavez
In the Venezuelan city of Caracas, the communist oriented and revolutionary politician and paratrooper, Hugo Chavez, attempted to dethrone then-President Carlos Andres Perez, but failed. He was surrounded and captured in the operation. Thereafter, President Carlos told Chavez to speak on national radio, purposely to tell his loyalists and comrades who were still at large to surrender. The aim was to humiliate him by portraying him as less courageous and cowardly.
Chavez sat upright on camera and rearranged his red beret before he could start speaking. When he began, he said “por ahora,” which loosely means that “for now” our objectives were not achieved. The scheme to make Chavez surrender turned into a promise. Eventually, they sent Chavez to prison. While in prison, he became ideologically reinvigorated and rejuvenated. At long last, he came out and became president of his country, where he died in office in March 2013.
Donald trump
The same scenario took place in the United States of America when the Democratic Party plotted to oust incumbent President Donald Trump using the court. He was dragged in and out of courts numerous times.
In the aforementioned article, Irungu Kangata stated that “they impeached Republican Donald Trump twice, banned him from Twitter, took his mugshot in Fulton County, Georgia, and filed 91 charges, hoping to make him unelectable. They gave Trump what an American populist needs: a mugshot that looks like Che Guevara and a story of persecution by the deep state. The court became his campaign rally. He sold T-shirts of his arrest and won back the white house.”
Dr. William Ruto
Finally, in neighboring Kenya, then Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta planned to publicly purge his then deputy and now incumbent president, Dr. William Samoei Ruto, by taking away his powers ahead of the 2022 general election. The Uhuru government used to humiliate him in cabinet meetings, while his allies, such as Prof. Kithure Kindiki, who is now Vice President, got stripped and de-whipped from parliamentary committees in both houses.
The plan was to humiliate and rubbish him as an uninfluential politician in the country. From all these political schemes, Ruto designed a Presidential campaign narrative dubbed “dynasty versus hustlers,” which made him win the presidential election in 2022. At times, the public sides with an underdog. As you are aware, both Uhuru and Ruto were tried in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Most African Union member states protested against their trial, as they believed the court was not fair at the time.
Likewise, in February 2026, the African Union demanded Machar’s unconditional release for reasons similar to those for Ruto and Uhuru. Partly, it was the ICC trial that earned the duo more sympathy and votes than the charismatic and Pan-Africanist late Raila Amolo Odinga in the 2013 and 2022 general elections in Kenya.
First anniversary of detention
On 22 September 2026, Machar and his fellow political prisoners marked the first anniversary of detention. This anniversary coincided with the unilateral dissolution of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) that gave birth to RTGoNU.
I regard Machar’s arrest and subsequent detention as an affront to the 2018 agreement. They say time is a good teacher. Apart from this particular legal and political analysis, history will tell us that the unilateral dissolution of government ahead of the highly publicized 22 December election is not without a political interest.
As a matter of fact, the abrogated Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan had expired when Machar was not yet accused of any crimes or crimes against humanity. Why didn’t President Kiir dissolve the government and subsequently call for an election that includes all stakeholders? Whether we like it or not, the controversial dissolution of government, followed by the abrupt announcement of an election at a critical time when the main opposition leaders are in prison, is linked to the ongoing trial.
The ruling SPLM-IG party of President Kiir has seen a positive political vacuum created by the temporary absence of their political rivals who are facing charges in court. In politics, they say what you see is not the thing, but what you see behind the thing is the thing. From the onset, the ruling SPLM regime appeared to be determined to fulfil its political promise not to leave Machar behind to continue playing politics while President Kiir approaches retirement to pave the way for other SPLM stalwarts.
Finally, there is an adage that says “if you want to kill a dog, give it a bad name.” The government jointly accused Machar of murder and treason soon after the deadly Nasir County incident, where 250 government soldiers were reportedly butchered by a Nuer white army affiliated with Machar’s SPLA-IO forces. So, the theory of giving a dog a bad name is now at work in South Sudan.
The writer is a lawyer and criminologist by profession. He is a former delegate to the High-Level Mediation for South Sudan, commonly known as the Tumaini Peace Initiative, representing the South Sudan People’s Movement. He can be reached for comments via eligodakb@yahoo.com.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.
and then