Justice symbols

JUBA, South Sudan (Eye Radio) – An advocate has explained that the Judiciary of South Sudan stands as one of the three foundational arms of the government, established under the Transitional Constitution of 2011. It’s the ultimate guarantor of the rule of law in the nation.

According to Advocate Santo Daniel the ordinary judicial structure is tiered, ensuring a comprehensive system of review and appeal:

• The Supreme Court: The highest court in the land.
• The Court of Appeal.
• High Courts, County Courts, and Payam Courts (also known as third-class courts).
• Judicial Assistants who support the courts’ functions.

The Extraordinary Role of Special Courts

Beyond the ordinary court system, South Sudan’s law provides for Special Courts, as authorized under Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2008. These courts are established to handle specific categories of cases that require specialized focus or procedures.

Advocate Daniel details the four main types of Special Courts:

1. Juvenile Courts: Created by the Chief Justice to exclusively handle cases involving minors. They are guided by a range of legal instruments, including the Transitional Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Child Act, and international conventions on child rights.
2. Courts for Tribal or Customary Disputes: These courts are tasked with resolving community and customary conflicts. They are chaired by a High Court judge but uniquely may include two non-judges, such as chiefs or community elders, who assist in fact-finding and interpreting local customs.
3. Special Courts for Major Crimes: These courts address serious offenses defined in Chapters Five and Six of the Penal Code, such as murder, looting, treason, crimes against the State, and subverting the constitutional order. If granted the authority of a High Court, their rulings can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
4. Special Courts for Senior Officials: These can be established to try high-ranking officials, including the President, Vice Presidents, the Speaker of Parliament, members of the Council of States, and even Supreme Court justices themselves. These powerful courts are composed of justices from the Supreme Court.

Distinction: Ordinary vs. Special Courts

Advocate Daniel highlights the crucial differences between the two court systems:

Constitutional Matters and the Principle of Timely Justice

Advocate Daniel emphasizes that Special Courts do not handle constitutional cases. Those matters are strictly reserved for the Constitutional Panel of the Supreme Court, which consists of nine justices and is led by the Chief Justice.

Regarding appeals from Ordinary Courts, High Court rulings are referred to the Court of Appeal, and Court of Appeal rulings are then referred to the Supreme Court.

For Special Courts, both the court’s jurisdiction and its specific appeal process are set out in its founding order.

Finally, the law upholds the principle of timely justice. This requires that accused persons be informed of charges immediately, files be referred to prosecutors without delay, and investigations conclude within six months.

When the Chief Justice establishes a Special Court, he sets a clear mandate for its operation, typically ranging from one to four months, underscoring the commitment to swift resolution.