23/09/2025
: Why the Trial of Dr Riek and Others Must Proceed
By Isaac M. Reng
The case of Dr Riek Machar and his co-accused started yesterday, with the defence making several assertions aimed at challenging the authority of the special court. The defence has attempted to distract the court with misapplied provisions and misleading interpretations. But the law is clear:
1. Misuse of Article 103
The defence has sought to mislead the court by citing Article 103 of the Transitional Constitution, arguing that it grants immunity to the Vice President. This is a grave misrepresentation. Article 103 expressly pertains to the President, and to the process of impeachment and trial for treason or gross violation of the Constitution. Nowhere, either expressly or implicitly, does it extend immunity to the Vice President. By relying on this provision, the defence has not only misconstrued the law but attempted to shield the accused with protections the Constitution does not afford.
2. Hybrid Court Argument is Misleading
The defence wrongly contended that Dr Riek Machar can only be tried before the Hybrid Court envisaged under the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS), 2018, on the claim that it alone has jurisdiction over matters arising from the Agreement. This is a fundamental misreading. Nowhere in the R-ARCSS is it stated, either expressly or implicitly, that the Hybrid Court shall have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction to the exclusion of South Sudanese courts. The Agreement merely provides for the establishment of such a court but does not bar national courts from exercising their constitutional and statutory mandates.
Unless jurisdiction is explicitly ousted by law, ordinary courts remain fully competent to hear criminal matters arising within South Sudan. Therefore, the current trial is firmly grounded within the lawful jurisdiction of the special court. The invocation of the Hybrid Court is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to d