In a strongly worded response dated March 2026, Kiirdit & Co. Advocates faulted the minister’s position, saying it lacks legal basis and undermines due process.
“We are surprised that you have not cited any legal authority or made any reference to enabling legal provision in the statute or constitution,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the omission raises “a serious legal issue whether or not your decision was based on law.” They warned that the decision could be viewed as “not only irrational but also illegal.”
The dispute stems from a criminal motion filed on March 6, 2026, seeking the release of Dr Bol Mel, who has reportedly been detained since November 2025 amid concerns about his deteriorating health.
Makuei had earlier described the language used in the petition as disrespectful and demanded a written apology and explanation before the ministry could consider the matter.
However, the legal team dismissed the claim, insisting that their wording was appropriate. “Addressing you as ‘this Honourable Minister advises’ has never been an impolite or disrespectful expression in law and fact,” they said, citing constitutional provisions that require authorities to prioritise substantive justice over technicalities.
On the issue of media coverage, the lawyers denied leaking the document, stating that publishers “confessed to have obtained the motion through ‘leak’.”
They maintained that informing the public is lawful, noting that “it was still permissible to us as a right to immediately call a press conference… under article 24… that guarantees freedom of expression.”
The lawyers also challenged the legality of Bol Mel’s continued detention, arguing that “any detention that exceeds 24 hours, without judicial process, becomes ‘unconstitutional or unlawful detention’ and does not deserve any legal protection.”
Rejecting the demand for an apology, the legal team argued that they are only answerable to the South Sudan Bar Association on matters of professional conduct. They described the minister’s directive as “barred by the doctrine of ULTRA VIRES (beyond the powers),” stressing that any allegations of misconduct should be handled through the Bar Council.
Crucially, the lawyers warned that conditioning consideration of their petition on an apology is unconstitutional and could expose the government to legal action.
“Your demand for written explanation and apology as a condition to consider the applicant’s motion… is unconstitutional and unlawful,” they wrote, adding that their intervention was also aimed at “prevent[ing] the government from losing colossal sums of money in damages” if the detention is successfully challenged in court, citing the case of unlawful closure of telecom company Vivacell, which sued the government for over $80,000,000 in losses.
The legal team further criticised the minister’s decision to copy the Chief Justice in his response, saying it risks interfering with judicial independence and could prejudice their client’s right to a fair trial.
They concluded that they have “never done anything wrong that warrants our apology,” emphasising that their actions are grounded in law and intended to secure due process for their client.
