Trial of former Kiir executive director adjourned to May 7 – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has adjourned the trial of the former Executive Director in the Office of President Ajing Deng Ajing to May 7, due to an incomplete panel after the Chief Justice was engaged in another official programme.

Defence lawyer George Angier Ring told reporters on Thursday that the adjournment was procedural, explaining that Supreme Court rules require a fully constituted panel led by the Chief Justice for proceedings to continue.

“The adjournment of today is very technical because the panel of the Supreme Court was not complete and it is a mandatory according to the rule of procedures of the Supreme Court that all members of Supreme Court shared by Honorable Chief Justice, they must leave the city,” Ring said.

“Today we have learned from Honourable Chief Justice that Chief Justice is engaged in another program and also the other very senior member of the panel also is engaged somewhere. That is why he did not attend the city meeting. Therefore, the case is adjourned for the 7th of May,” he added.

He said the next sitting will allow the defence to respond to preliminary objections raised by the court.

The adjournment follows an earlier decision on April 24, when the court granted Ajing’s legal team five days to review the government’s response to a constitutional petition challenging his detention.

The matter was further deferred on April 30 after the defence requested additional time to study submissions filed by the state.

The court had previously given the government 21 days, starting April 2, to respond to the petition, which questions the legality of Ajing’s prolonged detention.

Ajing, a former Executive Director in the Office of President Salva Kiir, has been held for months without formal charges or a court appearance, according to his lawyers, who argue the detention violates constitutional due process.

The case is filed against the National Security Service and the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

Both institutions were granted time to respond to an amended petition after requesting an extension, which the court approved despite objections from the defence.