By James Atem

Copyright eyeradio

Dr Riek Machar appears in court for the first time since his March house arrest |Courtesy

The judge presiding over the high-profile trial of suspended First Vice President Dr Riek Machar has adjourned proceedings until tomorrow, directing the defence to submit a written response after nearly an hour of arguments over the court’s competency to try the leader of the SPLM-IO, citing immunity in the 2018 peace deal.

The trial, being closely watched across the country and beyond, prompted heavy security lockdowns on roads to and from Freedom Hall and led to the cancellation of exams at the University of Juba this morning.

Dr Riek Machar appeared in court on Monday morning alongside seven other SPLM-IO leaders, marking their first public appearance since March.

The group faces multiple charges, including murder, treason, conspiracy, financing terrorism, acts against state authorities, and crimes against humanity.

“The session will be adjourned for tomorrow at the same time, please, and the prosecutor must submit a full reply tomorrow,” said Justice James Alala, the judge presiding over the special court.

This came after the defence team representing Dr Riek Machar objected to the establishment of the Special Court overseeing the trial.

Lead defence lawyer, Dr Geri Raimondu Legge, argued that the court lacks both jurisdiction and competence to try the First Vice President under the Transitional Constitution and the Revitalized Peace Agreement.

Dr Legge says Dr Riek Machar, as First Vice President under Article 103 of the Transitional Constitution, should not be tried by this court, which lacks jurisdiction.

He stated that the position of first vice president is governed by the Revitalized Peace Agreement, which stipulates that removal from office can only occur through impeachment by a two-thirds majority vote of the National Legislature.

The defense team called for the immediate release and discharge of Dr. Riek Machar and the other accused officials.

In response, the government prosecution team described the defence team’s argument as weak and unsubstantiated, citing the structure and hierarchy of the judiciary, which empowers the Judiciary to constitute other courts and tribunals in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and other laws.

Adocate Ajo Ohisa, a member of the prosecution team, said: “The structure and hierarchy of a judiciary empowers that there shall be established other courts and tribunals as deemed necessary to be established in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and other laws.

“This provision of the Constitution is reiterated, my Lord Justices, in Section 7F of the Judiciary Act 2008. As to the rules that shall apply to such other courts as shall be established, my Lord Justices, Section 9 of the Judiciary Act, provides for the same.

“In terms of panelling of these special courts, my Lord Justice of the Transitional Constitution 2011, as amended, provides for panelling of special courts. But in case of criminal or civil matters, there shall be in panels of three, and when they sit as a constitutional panel, there shall be at least nine justices, where the chief justices shall preside.”