Africa-Press – South-Sudan. There is no peace because there is no justice.” — Desmond Tutu
The trial of Riek Machar, which began in September 2025, is still ongoing. At the outset, proceedings were open to live media coverage, largely because it is a high profile case with immense public interest.
However, when the defence counsel began presenting their arguments, the government grew uneasy and halted live broadcasts across all media outlets. During the 71st court session today, defence lawyers renewed their appeal for the resumption of live coverage. It remains to be seen whether the court will grant this request.
The trial is unfolding against the backdrop of renewed armed clashes between the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition. Since the proceedings began, South Sudan has experienced persistent insecurity, particularly in Equatoria and Greater Upper Nile, Machar’s home region.
These areas have witnessed widespread killings and mass displacement of civilians. Opposition forces have demanded Machar’s release as a condition for laying down arms, a call echoed by regional and international actors but largely ignored.
Abuse of Truce
In 2019, Machar returned to Juba in good faith, leaving peace talks in Khartoum to implement the agreement alongside President Salva Kiir.
It is therefore deeply troubling that the government appears to have used this fragile truce to settle political scores by detaining and prosecuting its peace partner. A ceasefire should be a moment for reconciliation, not retaliation.
Machar’s arrest and trial set a dangerous precedent not only for South Sudan but for the region and beyond. Peace agreements risk becoming traps if parties fear prosecution once they commit to implementation. Such practices could discourage future negotiations and undermine political dialogue across Africa.
Steps of Trial
Machar and seven co accused have now appeared in court 71 times. Ordinarily, such frequency would suggest a case nearing conclusion. However, the trial remains at the hearing stage, with judgment still pending.
A typical legal process includes initiation of the suit, filing and service of pleadings, interim applications, pre trial proceedings, hearing, judgment, review, and execution. At present, the court appears stalled at the hearing phase.
Predicting the conclusion of this case is difficult, given widespread concerns about judicial independence. Many observers view the judiciary as aligned with the ruling SPLM, raising doubts about its impartiality.
Trial Is Controversial
The trial has become increasingly controversial. Various stakeholders, including civil society groups, the South Sudan Council of Churches, opposition alliances, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, and the African Union Peace and Security Council, have called for the termination of the case and Machar’s release.
Their argument is that the trial violates the revitalised peace agreement and addresses a political problem through judicial means. Political crises, by their nature, require political solutions.
Courts derive their legitimacy from the people, not political elites. If both domestic and international voices have raised concerns, it is reasonable to question whose interests the court is serving.
Chronology of the Nasir Incident
The origins of the Nasir incident are widely known. In 2025, tensions escalated after an order by the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces to replace troops stationed in Nasir County.
The directive proposed replacing forces under General David Majur Dak with new units, including militia aligned with General Johnson Olony. This decision sparked resistance from SPLA IO forces and local militias, who argued that redeployment should follow force integration as stipulated in the peace agreement.
The dispute escalated into armed confrontation, resulting in the deaths of senior commanders on both sides. During this period, Machar remained in Juba, attempting to mediate and de escalate the crisis.
Ironically, despite his efforts to broker understanding between the opposing forces, Machar now faces charges including murder, treason, and crimes against humanity.
Legal principles require both intent and action to establish criminal liability. The presence of provocation in the Nasir incident raises serious questions about whether the necessary intent can be proven.
The Challenge of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction, the authority of a court to hear a case, is fundamental in law. Without it, any proceedings are invalid. Courts derive their powers from the constitution, statutes, or legal charters.
In this case, critics argue that the Special Court lacks jurisdiction, as the peace agreement provides for a Hybrid Court to try such cases. Proceeding without proper authority risks rendering any verdict legally void.
The continuation of the trial despite these objections reinforces perceptions that the process is politically driven rather than legally grounded.
Withdrawal from Tumaini Peace Initiative
If any criticism can be fairly directed at Machar, it concerns his decision to withdraw from the Tumaini peace talks.
In July 2024, he exited negotiations, insisting that the outcome should be a standalone agreement. Later, in December 2025, his party disengaged again shortly after talks resumed in Nairobi.
While multiple factors contributed to the collapse of the initiative, Machar’s withdrawal was a critical moment. Dialogue, even when imperfect, remains preferable to conflict.
As someone who participated in the mediation, I believe that an imperfect peace is better than no peace at all. The Tumaini Initiative represented hope for a country weary of war. Its collapse has coincided with renewed violence in several regions.
Machar, as an opposition leader, bears responsibility to pursue peace through all available means. His decision to abandon negotiations at a critical moment may have contributed to the current crisis, including his own detention.
Conclusion
Ultimately, while the legal case against Machar raises serious concerns about fairness, jurisdiction, and political interference, his withdrawal from the Tumaini Initiative remains a pivotal decision with far reaching consequences.
If there were mechanisms to hold leaders accountable for abandoning peace efforts, Machar might not escape public judgment. For many South Sudanese, the failure of Tumaini represents a lost opportunity for peace.
The writer, Dak Buoth Riek Gaak, is a lawyer and criminologist. He previously served as a delegate to the Tumaini Peace Initiative, representing SSPM as National Chairperson for Constitutional and Legal Affairs. He can be reached at [email protected].
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.
Source: Radio Tamazuj
For More News And Analysis About South-Sudan Follow Africa-Press
