Hon. Gatwech Lam Puoch, a former SPLM-IO lawmaker who represented Nasir County in the National Legislative Assembly, during one of his appearances in the Special Court in Juba. (Photo: Courtesy)

The third accused in the ongoing Special Court trial over the Nasir Garrison attack, Hon. Gatwech Lam Pouch, has defended his public remarks and challenged electronic evidence presented by the prosecution.

Continuing his defense testimony during the 91st court session on Wednesday, Gatwech told the court that he previously enjoyed parliamentary immunity, arguing that his statements were made in the course of public duty.

He said the remarks cited by prosecutors fall within the scope of opinions expressed in the public interest and were meant to address national issues affecting citizens.

Gatwech, who has since been removed from parliament, further rejected allegations that he described the Agwelek and Abu Shok forces as militias.

He maintained that he instead referred to them as forces that had not yet been integrated into the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF), in line with provisions of the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement.

“The Agwelek and Abu Shok forces are forces that have not been integrated into the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces, in line with provisions of the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement,” he told the court.

According to him, video and testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution actually supported his position.

He argued that the term “militia” had been used by other individuals, including Lt. James Koang Chol and Gen. Johnson Olony Thabo, during separate addresses to their forces in Malakal.

He also cited prosecution witness Maj. Peter Malual Deng, saying the witness acknowledged during cross-examination that the Agwelek forces had not been integrated into the SSPDF.

Gatwech further referred to a Republican Decree issued in April 2024 and directives by Chief of Defence Forces Gen. Santino Deng Wol in May 2026, which he said confirmed that members of the forces were still undergoing integration and training.

Turning to electronic evidence, he dismissed WhatsApp messages relied upon by the prosecution as fabricated and said they did not exist on his phone.

He questioned the findings of the prosecution’s digital forensic expert, arguing that key identifiers such as his phone number, group details, administrators, and membership lists were not presented.

Gatwech also raised concerns over authenticity, noting that the prosecution relied on data stored on a flash drive rather than presenting original devices for verification in court.

He argued that digital records contain metadata capable of proving authenticity and questioned why the actual devices were not examined in open proceedings.

The Special Court adjourned the case until Friday, 26 June 2026, when Gatwech is expected to continue his defense.