Photo|Courtesy of King Media

The Emergency Joint Court for Organized Forces on Monday adjourned the first hearing of a case involving a police captain accused of assaulting a young man in Juba after both the accused officer and the investigating officer failed to appear before the court.

The court rescheduled the hearing to Thursday, June 11, at 10:00 a.m., to allow for proper summons and ensure the attendance of all parties required for the proceedings.

The case arose from a viral video circulated on social media in early May that allegedly showed a police officer attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) repeatedly beating a young man in Juba’s Hai Malakal area. The footage triggered widespread public outrage and renewed concerns over the conduct of law enforcement officers.

Speaking to Eye Radio after the adjournment, Police Spokesperson Maj. Gen. Daniel Justin said the court was forced to postpone the hearing after waiting for the absent parties to appear.

“We waited for about 30 minutes before the court decided to adjourn the hearing to Thursday, June 11, at 10 a.m.,” Justin said. “The adjournment was necessary because two key individuals were absent, the accused officer and the investigating officer. As a result, the proceedings could not continue.”

Justin attributed their absence to ongoing legal proceedings related to the Nasir incident, which he said may have affected their movement and availability before the court.

The police spokesperson also sought to correct reports circulating on social media that described the victim as a rickshaw rider.

“I also want to clarify that the victim was not a rickshaw rider, as some reports suggested,” he said. “He was one of the young men who earn a living by washing cars along the roadside in Hai Malakal.”

Following the circulation of the video, police authorities publicly condemned the alleged assault and pledged to hold those responsible accountable.

At the time, the police emphasized that no member of the organized forces is above the law and stated that any officer found to have violated the law would face legal action in accordance with national laws and regulations.

The adjournment means the court is yet to hear evidence or determine whether the accused officer has a case to answer. The matter remains under judicial consideration pending the next hearing later this week.