The Trial of Dr Riek Machar: Jurisdiction Affirmed Pending the Establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS)
Riek Machar on trial
By PaanLuel Wel, Juba, South Sudan
Monday, 29 September 2025 (PW) — The Special Court for the Nasir Incident has dismissed the defense’s preliminary objection, ruling that it possesses proper jurisdiction and competency to prosecute SPLM-IO leader Dr. Riek Machar and his co-accused. In its decision, the presiding judge anchored jurisdiction on the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan, stressing that constitutional authority empowers domestic courts to adjudicate criminal matters of this nature. The court further emphasized that immunity is conferred solely on the President under the Constitution, thereby excluding other officeholders, including the Five Vice Presidents and political leaders, from any such protection.
On the defense’s invocation of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS), a mechanism provided under the 2018 revitalized peace agreements, the court held that the HCSS remains legally non-operational, since it has not yet been established by law. As such, it cannot oust or suspend the jurisdiction of existing national courts.
This ruling raises an important jurisprudential question: Is the failure to establish the Hybrid Court a mere procedural issue or a deliberate political design to influence the legal process? If the latter, then the government cannot invoke its own non-implementation of the peace agreement as a shield to exclude or defer to a mechanism it has intentionally stalled. In effect, the absence of the Hybrid Court should not automatically validate national jurisdiction, particularly if such absence is the product of deliberate non-compliance with binding peace accords.
With jurisdiction now affirmed, the substantive trial on charges of murder, treason and crimes against humanity is cleared to proceed. However, the lingering question remains subject to appeal: does reliance on national courts in place of the Hybrid Court reflect a constitutional necessity or a calculated political strategy to control transitional justice mechanisms in South Sudan?
The Court’s affirmation of jurisdiction is legally defensible under the Transitional Constitution. However, on appeal, the defense may argue that while the Special Court for the Nasir Incident has affirmed its domestic jurisdiction, it erred in law by failing to account for the binding and prospective jurisdiction of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS), as mandated under the ARCSS (2015) and the R-ARCSS (2018).
If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary, or news analysis, please email it to the editor: [email protected] or [email protected]. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website does reserve the right to edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a short biography, email address, city, and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
