Dr. Gari Raymond, lead lawyer for Dr. Riek Machar.

JUBA, South Sudan (Eye Radio) — In a dramatic opening to the trial of First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar, his defense lawyer, Dr. Geri Raimondu Legge, brought the proceedings to an immediate halt.

In a preliminary legal objection that lasted for nearly an hour, the defense team argued that the special court convened to try Machar and his co-accused has no legal jurisdiction to hear the case.

The objection, which puts the entire trial on hold, is based on a series of legal claims that challenge the very foundation of the court’s authority.

The Primacy of the Peace Agreement

At the heart of the defense’s argument is the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS).

Dr. Legge passionately argued that the agreement, which was incorporated into South Sudan’s constitution through Amendment No. 6 of 2020, is the supreme law of the land.

He stated that the agreement explicitly takes precedence over any national legislation that might conflict with it, in accordance with the provision of Article 8, Clause 3 of the Revitalized Agreement.

“The revitalized agreement shall take precedence over any national legislation, any existing agreement to the contrary, and if the provision of a national legislation or previous agreement conflicts with the term of disagreement, the provision of disagreement shall prevail,” Legge quoted from the agreement.

According to Dr Legge, because the R-ARCSS is the foundational document of the current transitional government, all legal processes, including those involving top government officials, must adhere to its provisions.

The Hybrid Court Mandate

The defense’s central claim revolves around the establishment of a Hybrid Court for South Sudan. Dr. Legge reminded the court that the peace agreement calls for an independent judicial body, established by the African Union, to investigate and prosecute serious crimes committed during the conflict.

He cited Article 5, Clause 3, Paragraph 1, Sub-paragraph 1, which provides for the establishment of this court.

He argued that incidents like the Nasir violence, which led to the charges against Machar, fall squarely and exclusively under the jurisdiction of this planned Hybrid Court.

The defense lawyer stated that since this court has not yet been established, the current Special Court has no authority to try the case.

He emphasized that the Hybrid Court “constitute the sole judicial forum vested with jurisdiction under the revitalized agreement to entertain allegations of violation of international law and other grave breaches of the laws of South Sudan.”

The Case for Constitutional Immunity

The defense also raised a powerful argument about constitutional immunity. Dr. Legge asserted that, as the First Vice President, Machar cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings while in office.

The only legal path to strip him of this immunity, according to the defense, is through a formal impeachment process.

Dr. Legge cited Article 103, Clause 2, read together with Article 104, Clause 2 of the Transitional Constitution and legislative regulations 62 and 63, which require a two-thirds majority vote by the National Legislature to impeach a vice president. Since this process has not taken place, the defense maintains that the court cannot proceed with a criminal trial.

Challenging the Court’s Establishment

In a final, forceful move, the defense challenged the court’s very existence. Dr. Legge argued that the order to establish the Special Court was “ultraviolence beyond its mandate, it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, it is unlawful and therefore it is null and void ab initio without any legal effect.”

He claimed that the President of the Supreme Court exceeded his authority by constituting a court for this specific case, noting that under the criminal court of procedure, the president’s power is limited to establishing special courts for juvenile offenders.

The Accused and the Charges

The defense team is acting on behalf of Dr. Machar as the first accused, along with seven others: Puot Kang Chol, General Gabriel Duop Lam, Mam Pal Dor, Gatwech Lam Puoch, Brigadier General Camilo Gatmai Kel, Mading Reg Yac, and Dominic Gadrog Riek.

The legal team noted that the criminal case, number 1533 of 2025, is brought under Sections 48, 50, 52, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, and 2006 of the Penal Code Act 2008, as well as Section 239 of the same act. It also includes Sections 15A, B, and 16 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counterterrorism Act of 2012, as amended in 2024.

The presiding judges are now expected to deliberate on these complex legal arguments. Their decision will not only determine the fate of the trial but also set a precedent for how future high-profile cases are handled within South Sudan’s legal framework.