Nasir Trial: Defence opposes prosecution attempt to alter questioning procedure for Machar

Defence lawyers representing suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar and seven co-accused have opposed a prosecution application seeking to alter the procedure for examining the accused before they present their defence statements.

The argument was heard during the 112th session of the Nasir Incident trial at the Special Court in Juba on Wednesday, August 26, 2026.

The defence formally responded to an August 21 prosecution filing that asked the court for guidance on how the accused—particularly Dr. Machar—should be questioned on state evidence before submitting their prepared defence statements.

Rejecting the prosecution’s position, lead defence counsel Dr. Geri Raymond Legge urged the court to dismiss the application. He argued that no legal provision prevents an accused person from presenting a prepared written statement before answering questions from the court.

Citing Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 2008, the defence argued that while the provision gives the court discretion over the sequence of questioning, it does not prohibit an accused from first reading a prepared statement.

Dr. Legge pointed out that the first four accused were permitted to present their defence statements before responding to questions. Applying a different procedure to Dr. Machar, the fifth accused, would violate procedural fairness and equal treatment, the defence argued.

The defence also addressed an earlier dispute regarding the right of the accused to choose their legal representatives. Dr. Legge denied that the application challenged the court’s authority, explaining that the team merely sought clarification on earlier comments made during proceedings about changing lawyers.

Citing constitutional fair-trial guarantees, the defence asked the court to confirm that the accused remain free to retain lawyers of their choice without adverse consequences. Counsel also rejected prosecution claims of deliberate delays or “public theatrics,” maintaining that raising constitutional and procedural issues is not an abuse of the court process.

Regarding Dr. Machar’s direct participation, lawyers argued that legal representation does not prevent an accused person from raising personal concerns before the court, including matters of safety, treatment, or representation.

Lead prosecutor Ajo Onyi Ohisa requested additional time to respond to the defence arguments in writing. The presiding judge granted the request and adjourned proceedings to Friday, August 28.

The court has yet to rule on the competing applications.