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

Prosecutors and the defence have differed over how the fifth defendant, Dr. Riek Machar, should present his defence in the ongoing Special Court for the Nasir Incident in Juba.

The prosecution told the court on Friday that its counterapplication is not intended to single out Dr. Machar, but to seek clarification on the legal procedure that should apply to all remaining defendants.

The matter came up during the 113th session of the trial, as prosecutor Ajo Onyi Ohisa presented the prosecution’s rejoinder to the defence response.

The dispute centres on Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, which deals with the examination of an accused person.

Machar’s defence team, led by Dr. Geri Riamondo, wants him to present his defence statement orally.

The prosecution, however, wants the court to first question him on the charges and circumstances arising from the evidence presented against him.

The prosecution argues that Section 197 requires the court to lead the examination by putting questions to the accused.

It says the provision is intended to give an accused person an opportunity to explain circumstances arising from the evidence against them.

But prosecutors maintain that the law does not allow an accused person to begin the examination by reading a prepared statement.

They argue that the court should first identify and put relevant circumstances from the prosecution evidence to the accused, who can then explain, deny, or decline to answer.

The prosecution also says allowing a prepared statement to be read first could give an accused person the opportunity to choose which issues to address and the order in which to present them.

According to the prosecution, this could result in some material circumstances being left out or introduce matters that should instead be addressed during the defence stage.

The defence objected to the prosecution’s use of the rejoinder during Friday’s proceedings.

However, the President Judge overruled the objection and allowed the prosecution to continue with its response.

According to the prosecution’s filing, the defence argues that Section 197 does not expressly prohibit an accused person from reading a prepared statement.

The defence also maintains that a prepared statement would allow an accused person to give the court a clear and coherent explanation, while still allowing the judges to ask additional questions.

The two sides also disagree over the procedure used for the first four accused persons.

The prosecution acknowledges that the first, second, third and fourth accused were allowed to read prepared statements.

But it says it is not seeking to reopen or invalidate those examinations.

Instead, the prosecution wants the court to clarify the procedure required by law and apply it to all remaining accused persons.

It has asked the three-judge panel to reject the defence interpretation of Section 197 and direct that the remaining accused be examined according to the procedure it says is prescribed by law.

The court has adjourned the proceedings to 7 September 2026, when the three judges are expected to rule on the applications before them.