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

The prosecution in the trial of suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar and his co-accused has asked the court to require the remaining accused persons to submit their defence statements in writing in a bid to speed up proceedings.

Speaking during the 92nd session of the trial, lead prosecutor Ajo Ohisa said oral defence statements have taken considerable time, noting that the first and second accused had already presented lengthy testimonies.

Citing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution requested that the remaining accused be allowed to read and sign prepared written statements instead of having their testimony recorded word for word by the court.

The prosecution argued that the move would reduce the burden on the court, save time and help expedite the trial.

However, defence lawyer Kur Lual Kur opposed the application, saying criminal trials require judges to hear directly from the accused in order to establish the truth.

He argued that oral testimony promotes transparency and allows defendants to fully explain the circumstances surrounding the charges against them.

The defence further maintained that the law gives accused persons the option, not the obligation, to submit written statements and that forcing them to do so would undermine their right to present a full defence.

The defence also noted that the accused have spent more than one year and three months in detention and argued that concerns about shortening the trial should not outweigh their right to defend themselves.

During the same session, the third accused and Member of Parliament for Nasir County, Gatwech Lam Puoch, rejected social media messages presented by the prosecution, describing them as fabricated.

Lam dismissed Facebook and WhatsApp messages prosecutors allege are linked to him, insisting they are not authentic.

The court did not immediately rule on the application.

Instead, it adjourned the hearing until June 29 and allowed the prosecution to respond to the defence objections before a decision is made.