Dr. Riek Machar, SPLM-IO leader, is currently undergoing trial over Nasir incident. (Courtesy photo)

JUBA, South Sudan (Eye Radio) —  Suspended First Vice President Dr Riek Machar informed the Special Court on Friday why he refused to cooperate with the Ministry of Justice’s investigating committee. Machar told the court that he deliberately withheld his participation, citing serious constitutional issues, including his claim to immunity.

The sixth session of the Special Court on Friday saw investigators continue to present statements from four of the accused; however, Dr Riek Machar immediately rejected the entire inquiry, asserting his constitutional immunity.

He informed the court that he refused to recognize the Ministry of Justice’s investigating committee, citing a fundamental challenge to its legal mandate.

The session began with Machar’s file, where prosecutors submitted four key documents as evidence, including an executive sanction for his arrest, an authorization letter for National Security, a ministerial order, and a document lifting the immunity of an MP, Gatwech Lam.

Despite objections from the defense team, the presiding judge admitted all four documents as prosecution documents into the court record. The judge then adjourned the hearing until Monday, October 6, for the prosecution to present further evidence.

Dr Machar took a stand to state that he refused to cooperate with the initial investigation, arguing that he did not recognize the committee formed by the Ministry of Justice.

Machar maintained that due to his constitutional immunity as First Vice President, he could not be investigated.

He further argued that the incident in Nasir—which forms the basis of the charges—should be handled by the CTSAMVM monitoring body, as the complainant is the National Security Service.

His comments followed the investigator’s presentation of a statement allegedly recorded from Machar on April 14, 2025, after his arrest on March 26 via executive order.

When questioned by the judge, Machar admitted the statement was his but immediately challenged its content, asserting it contained a mixture and restating that he only provided the committee with a statement, not an official testimony, as he had questioned the legality of his arrest and the committee’s mandate.