21/08/2026
๐๐๐๐๐๐: ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐.๐. ๐๐. ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐/๐โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Juba, August 21, 2026 โ The SPLM-IG-established sham court, known as the Special Court on the Incident of Nasir, held its 110th session this morning at its usual venue, Freedom Hall. The tribunal specifically targets leaders and members of the SPLM/A-IO, notably the Movementโs Chairman, Commander-in-Chief, and First Vice President of the Republic of South Sudan, H.E. Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon.
During todayโs court proceedings, H.E. Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon appeared before the Court prepared to take the stand for the second time as the fifth accused, in order to present his defense against the unfounded and politically motivated charges in Case No. 1533/2025โa trial targeting him and other leaders of the SPLM/SPLA-IO following the March 2025 Nasir clashes. However, the testimony was halted by a formal submission from the Defense Team seeking explicit judicial clarification and protection of the accused persons' constitutional right to legal counsel of their own choice under South Sudan's Transitional Constitution and the preservation of the Defense's independence.
"The Accused Persons, through their Advocates, respectfully make this Application seeking clarification and protection of their constitutional right to legal representation by Advocates of their own choice."
This pivotal procedural filing came in response to repeated overt remarks made by the Panel of Judges during court proceedings, who persistently urged the accusedโparticularly H.E. Dr. Riek Macharโto seek new counsel under the pretense of a loss of confidence, with the clear intent to undermine and portray the Defense Team as incompetent.
"The Application arises from repeated observations made during the proceedings suggesting that, should the Accused Persons lack confidence in their present Advocates, they may change them and seek alternative legal representation."
The defense explicitly acknowledges the court's constitutional mandate to maintain fair legal proceedings.
"The Accused Persons respectfully acknowledge the constitutional duty of this Honorable Court to ensure that the proceedings are fair, impartial and conducted in accordance with law."
However, the defense stated that judicial management must not infringe upon the accused's rights to retain their chosen counsel.
"However, the Accused Persons respectfully submit that the duty of the Court to ensure a fair trial must be exercised consistently with their express constitutional right to choose their own Advocates."
The filing details the primary constitutional framework protecting fair hearings in South Sudan.
"Article 19(3) of the Transitional Constitution guarantees every accused person a fair and public hearing by a competent court of law."
The motion emphasizes the explicit constitutional protection for self-chosen legal representation.
"More specifically, Article 19(7) provides that an accused person has the right to defend himself or herself: 'Through a lawyer of his or her own choice.'"
Counsel argues that constitutional intent extends beyond the presence of any legal representation to the specific choice made by the defendant.
"The wording of Article 19(7) is clear. The Constitution protects not merely the presence of a lawyer, but the choice of the lawyer by the accused person."
The defense submits that freely chosen legal representation must remain undisturbed absent established legal grounds.
"The Applicants therefore respectfully submit that, where an accused person has freely chosen Advocates and continues to accept that representation, the choice should be respected unless a legally recognized reason exists for judicial intervention."
The submission notes that current defense counsel was retained before official court filings in September 2025.
"The present Advocates were engaged and instructed by the Accused Persons before their names were submitted to this Court on 22 September 2025."
Defense attorneys have continuously managed representation throughout court hearings.
"Ever since, Advocates have continued to represent the Accused Persons before this Honorable Court."
The document highlights that no defendant has requested a change of lawyers.
"None of the Accused Persons has applied to this Honorable Court for the replacement of his Advocates on the ground of loss of confidence."
The filing confirms no instructions have been issued by the accused persons to dismiss their legal counsel.
"None has informed the Court that he wishes to terminate the instructions of his Advocates."
The defense argues that the bench should not infer client dissatisfaction without explicit statements from the defendants.
"Accordingly, the Applicants respectfully submit that the Court should not presume that an Accused Person has lost confidence in Advocates when the Accused Person himself has not expressed such a position."
The defense outlines the boundary between court supervision and defense autonomy.
"The Applicants fully recognize that the Court has an independent duty to protect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings."
The defense distinguishes between ensuring competent representation and overriding a client's choice of attorney.
"However, there is a distinction between: (a) The Court's duty to ensure effective and fair representation; and (b) The Accused Person's right to select his Advocates."
The defense requests that these legal principles be reconciled harmoniously.
"The Applicants respectfully submit that the two principles must be interpreted harmoniously."
The motion details valid conditions under which judicial intervention in legal representation would be appropriate.
"If there is an actual conflict of interest, abandonment of the accused, serious professional misconduct, or another objectively established circumstance which threatens the fairness of the proceedings, the Court may properly intervene."
The defense contends that legal or tactical differences between lawyers and the court do not indicate a loss of client confidence.
"However, disagreement concerning defense strategy, legal submissions, preliminary objections, cross-examination or interpretation of the law does not, by itself, establish that the Accused Person has lost confidence in Advocates."
The filing anchors its arguments in regional human rights frameworks.
"The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003 provides important regional guidance."
The document emphasizes regional standards ensuring representation of choice across all proceeding stages.
"The Principles recognize the right of a party to consult and be represented by a legal representative chosen by the party at all stages of proceedings."
The defense highlights regional guidelines linking fair trial protections directly to chosen representation.
"More specifically, under the section concerning legal assistance, the African Principles provide that an accused person has the right to an effective defense and the right to choose his or her own legal representative at all stages of the case."
The filing shows alignment between African regional law and South Sudanโs Constitution.
"This regional standard is consistent with Article 19(7) of the Transitional Constitution and supports an interpretation that gives practical effect to the accused person's choice of Advocates."
The defense cites UN principles to support the right to choice of counsel.
"The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 1990, adopted following the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, similarly recognize the right of persons to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice throughout criminal proceedings."
The motion stresses international protections regarding legal advocate independence.
"The Principles further emphasize the independence of lawyers and their duty to act freely and diligently in accordance with law and professional standards."
The submission summarizes dual core tenets established under international norms.
"These international standards therefore support two complementary principles: First, an accused should be able to choose his or her lawyer; and Second, Advocates must be permitted to exercise independent professional judgment in conducting the defense."
The submission relies on binding and persuasive international conventions.
"The Applicants further rely upon the fair-trial guarantees contained in: (a) African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 1981 Article 7 (1) (c) protects the right to have one's cause heard and includes the right to defense, including the right to be defended by Advocates of one's choice."
The filing incorporates civil and political rights standards.
"(b) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3) (d) recognizes the right of an accused person to defend himself or herself through legal assistance of his or her own choosing, subject to the conditions recognized by international law."
Counsel highlights how international human rights instruments reinforce domestic constitutional guarantees.
"These international and regional guarantees reinforce the principle already protected by Article 19(7) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 as amended."
The defense acknowledges that constitutional rights are not without limitations.
"The Applicants do not contend that the constitutional right to Advocates of one's choice is unlimited."
The court's authority to protect process integrity is recognized.
"The Court retains its inherent authority to protect the integrity of the proceedings and prevent abuse of process."
The filing urges that judicial intervention must require specific factual and legal bases.
"However, any intervention affecting an accused person's choice of Advocates should be based upon specific facts, a legitimate legal basis and the requirements of a fair trial."
Where no justification exists, client choices must remain legally protected.
"In the absence of such circumstances, the continuing choice of Advocates by the Accused Persons should be respected."
The application stresses the operational scale and complexity of Criminal Case No. 1533 of 2025.
"The present case is a serious and complex criminal proceeding.โ
The defense references their deep familiarity with case details, evidence, and proceedings.
"The present Advocates have been involved from the commencement of the proceedings and have acquired substantial knowledge of the case, evidence, witnesses, procedural history and instructions of their respective clients."
Counsel warns against potential disruptions and trial delays from replacing existing lawyers.
"Unnecessary replacement of Advocates may cause delay and disruption and may adversely affect the continuity of the defense."
The submission maintains that continuity serves the interest of justice.
"The Applicants therefore respectfully submit that the interests of justice favor continuity of representation unless an Accused Person himself requests a change or circumstances otherwise recognized by law require intervention."
The defense formalizes its requests to the Special Court.
The first prayer requests constitutional clarification of Article 19(7).
"1. DECLARE/CLARIFY that Article 19(7) of the Transitional Constitution protects the right of every accused person to defend himself or herself through a lawyer of his or her own choice."
The second prayer requests formal recognition of counsel engagement timing.
"2. RECOGNISE that the Accused Persons selected and instructed their present Advocates on 22 September 2025."
The third prayer asks the court to record the absence of client complaints.
"3. RECORD that none of the Accused Persons has requested the replacement of his Advocates on the ground of loss of confidence."
The fourth prayer requests an affirmation of client choice protections.
"4. AFFIRM that, unless an Accused Person expresses a wish to change Advocates, or a legally recognized circumstance objectively requires intervention, the Accused Person's choice of Advocates should be respected."
The fifth prayer asks the court to separate trial disagreements from loss of client confidence.
"5. AFFIRM that disagreement between the Court and Defense Advocates concerning legal submissions, defense strategy or procedural applications does not, without more, establish that an Accused Person has lost confidence in Advocates."
The sixth prayer outlines procedural protocols for handling judicial concerns.
"6. DIRECT, where the Court has a specific concern concerning the effectiveness or propriety of representation, that the concern be identified and addressed in accordance with the Constitution and applicable law."
The seventh prayer seeks interpretation aligned with international human rights standards.
"7. AFFIRM that the right to Advocates of one's choice shall be interpreted consistently with Article 19 (7) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 as amended, Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights 1981, Article 14 of the ICCPR 1966, the African Commission's 2003 Principles and Guidelines, and the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers."
The eighth prayer asks for discretionary orders deemed appropriate by the court.
"8. GRANT such further or other orders as this Honorable Court considers just and appropriate."
The defense reiterates that the motion is aimed solely at preserving client constitutional rights rather than opposing court authority.
"The Applicants respectfully reiterate that this Application is not an application against the Court and does not seek to restrict the Court's lawful authority to control its proceedings."
The filing clarifies the target objective of the application.
"Rather it is an application to preserve a constitutional guarantee."
The timeline of retained counsel is re-stated.
"The Accused Persons exercised their constitutional right by selecting their Advocates and were submitted to this Court on 22 September 2025."
Continuity of legal counsel is reaffirmed.
"They have continued to be represented by those Advocates."
The document highlights the lack of any replacement requests by defendants.
"They have not requested their replacement."
Counsel urges the court not to assume loss of confidence without client declaration.
"The Applicants therefore respectfully submit that the Court should not presume a loss of confidence which has not been expressed by the persons whose constitutional right is at stake."
The filing concludes with a summary of roles within the judicial system.
"The proper balance is therefore: The Court protects the fairness of the trial; the Accused chooses his Advocates; and Advocates independently conduct the defense in"
The defense's final plea requests formal approval of the motion; however, the sham court did not immediately rule on the matter. Instead, it referred the application to the prosecution for a responseโeven though the submission was directly addressed to the bench following the judges' own ill-fated remarks during the proceedings.
For their part, the prosecution acknowledged receipt of the defenseโs application and requested additional time from the court to submit a response in writing.
The sham trial was subsequently adjourned until Monday, August 24, when the prosecution is expected to respond to the defense motion.
The SPLM/A (IO) continues to vigorously reject the so-called "Special Court", considering it a tool to abrogate the Revitalized Agreement and target H.E. Dr. Riek Machar and the SPLM/A (IO) through a perceived political witch-hunt. The movement reiterated its demands for the immediate and unconditional release of H.E. Dr. Riek Machar and all SPLM/A (IO) detainees.
๐ช๐
๐. ๐ท๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐๐๐
