21/02/2026
Dear Dr. Julia Aker Duany ,
With the greatest respect for your extensive academic background and your previous service in the government as Undersecretary, I must express my deep concern regarding your recent post. Your call for the President to "stop that shady court" is not only procedurally problematic but, frankly, demeaning to the very legal and constitutional principles you, as an academic, have dedicated your life to studying.
You, more than most, understand that a nation is built on the rule of law, not on the whims of individuals. The Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan (2011), which you have sworn to uphold in your various capacities, is unequivocal on this point. Article 125(1) states clearly: "The Judiciary shall be independent of the executive and the legislature." Furthermore, Article 125(4) mandates that the Judiciary "shall be subject to this Constitution and the law which the Judges shall apply impartially and without political interference, fear or favour."
By labeling a constitutional process a "shady court" and demanding its cessation by executive fiat, you are inadvertently arguing for the very executive overreach that has historically undermined our institutions. You are asking the President to violate the foundational legal document of our nation. It is precisely this type of interference—where the executive dictates judicial outcomes—that has been a primary obstacle to the rule of law in South Sudan.
We must also ground this discussion in the facts that have led to the current legal proceedings. Dr. Riek Machar and his co-accused are facing criminal charges directly related to the Nasir incident, a violent attack that resulted in the tragic loss of close to 300 innocent lives and the destruction of properties worth millions of dollars. The forces responsible for this attack were under the command of Dr. Machar and his co-accused. These are not trivial political disagreements; they are grave criminal allegations that demand due process under the law. To dismiss these proceedings as merely "shady" is to disregard the memory of those who lost their lives and the suffering of the communities whose homes and livelihoods were destroyed.
You invoke the statement from the African Union's C5 committee. Let us examine what that statement, issued on February 15, 2026, actually says. The AU declaration explicitly calls for "a release of political detainees, and this should also include people like the Vice President Riek Machar who is going through various processes of a legal nature." The phrasing is critical: "who is going through various processes of a legal nature." The African Union itself acknowledges that Dr. Machar is subject to a legal process. It is calling for a political solution—his release—to resolve a political crisis, but it does not declare the court itself to be illegitimate or "shady" under South Sudanese law. You are conflating a political disagreement with a judicial process concerning serious criminal acts.
If the proceedings against Dr. Machar are flawed, the remedy is not for the President to unilaterally shut them down. That would be a return to authoritarianism, not a step toward democracy. The remedy is an appeal, a judicial review, or a political solution negotiated in good faith within the framework of the law. To suggest that one man should simply "stop" a constitutional process is to admit that we have no constitution at all—only a ruler.
You ask, "Why not allow democratic processes for political competition?" I agree wholeheartedly. But democratic processes include not just elections, but also an independent judiciary that functions without executive interference. You cannot call for democracy while simultaneously calling for the executive to shutter a court. Justice for the victims of Nasir, as well as the stability of our nation, demands that the legal process be allowed to run its course, free from political manipulation from any quarter.
We all want peace and an end to the suffering of our people. But the path to that peace cannot be paved with the destruction of the very institutions we need to sustain it. We must respect the independence of the judiciary, even when we disagree with its existence in a particular case, or we will find ourselves with no country left to save.
God bless the people of South Sudan.
By Marial-Thith
A citizen of
