South Sudan Special Court was not a Kangaroo Court as Portrayed by Critics
By John Adoor Deng, Australia
In recent weeks, South Sudanese media outlets were bombarded with a collision of statements criticizing what was perceived to be a kangaroo court. In the right meaning of the word, kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted.” In some cases, kangaroo court is often held by a group or community to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. Such courts typically take place in rural areas where legitimate law enforcement may be limited. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations.
Many skeptics prior to the proceeding of the Special Court for the suspected Coup plotters, pre- emptied that the court was heading to the above descriptions. They crudely believe that the government appointed Judges were brainwashed by the government to dance to it tune and pass the favoring position on the side of the government. This assertion was reinforced by the fact that South Sudan as a young nation, has challenges in the legal system especially with regards to judicial independence. Manipulation of cases continue to be the norm of the day at judicial courts of law in Juba, for example, the case of Pagan Amun with SPLM chairman was thrown away by the Judge with the perceived understanding that the chairman in some way was above the law, the case of Arthur Akuein was left unfinished, the Madi chief’s case, and the case of Ayual and Dachueek communities of Twic East was left hanging in the air till today etc.
From these examples, the skeptics or “Thomas (es)” have no glimpse of hope in judicial systems and more importantly after Dec 15th, 2013. It was highly anticipated that the court was going to favor government’s position. Even the leader of the rebellion also known as SPLM-O, Dr Riek Machar was not in re-cognizant of the court, he stated “Juba court was no different with President Kiir (Machar Feb 2014), he lamented that a fair trial for the suspected coup plotters was not to be found in Juba.” In the same way, many foreign and local analysts played down the notion of a fair trial for the detainees with many of them calling for the Court to be taken to the neighboring country.
Contrary to this perception, emerged a court distanced from the notion of being a kangaroo court. The men (judges) of integrity, tasked to preside over what was then a magnificent public hearing, did their work professionally, legally and independently. Attested by court witnesses, the presiding judges were completely independence, fair and authoritative within the context of their legal mandate. The judges were precise in hearing statements, verifying statements, giving humble chances to both the persecution team and the defendants to present their cases plainly uninterrupted. The witnesses were thoroughly cross examined, whoever appeared in the witness box was thoroughly engaged in facts finding questions scenarios. This thoroughness explained the reasons as to why some key witnesses withdrew at the last minutes. These type of witnesses predicted the shame and embarrassment they could incur upon producing false statements as most the mount case was the fabrication aimed at eliminating certain elements in the country.
Although, the court was stopped 6 days to pass it ruling, it was nevertheless known that their ruling was fair and truthful. The case was visibly bad on the side of the government. The men (judges) of integrity and high caliber did their job independently and professionally. I, therefore, would remind than Thomas (es) and skeptics that South Sudan Special Court was not a Kangaroo Court, but the court of law. As our nation grow, people of such calibers should be encouraged to continue passing judgment just fully.
The Author is John Adoor Deng, director of South Sudan Support Foundation (SSSF), he is reachable at johnadoordeng@yahoo.com.au
About Post Author
