![Dr. Riek Machar, First Vice President and the Chairman of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in Opposition. [Photo: Courtesy]](https://i0.wp.com/www.sudanspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/machar_0.webp?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1)
During 113 sessions on Friday, Ajo Onyi Ohis, lead prosecutor, said their counter application is instead seeking clarification from the court on the correct statutory procedure to be followed during the examination of the remaining accused persons.
Ohisa also rejected suggestions that the counter-application was designed to single out the fifth accused, Machar, for different treatment.
According to Ohisa, the procedure it is asking the court to clarify should be applied prospectively and equally to all remaining accused persons.
“The Prosecution does not seek to invalidate or reopen the examinations already completed. Neither does it seek to single out the Fifth Accused for different treatment,” he said.
“It asks the Court to clarify and apply the correct statutory procedure prospectively and equally to all the remaining Accused Persons.”
He said the provision’s opening words, “for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain,” clearly set out the objective of the examination.
He added that the law requires the court to question the accused persons in accordance with the prescribed procedure to achieve that objective.
He further argued that the statutory purpose cannot be used to disregard or override the procedure expressly established by the legislature.
He said Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 2008, does not merely provide the accused with a general opportunity to speak.
Instead, he argued that the provision requires the court to identify and present to the accused the material circumstances arising from the prosecution’s evidence, giving the accused a personal opportunity to explain, deny, or decline to respond to those circumstances.
Ohisa said the defense argues that Section 197 does not expressly prohibit an accused from reading a prepared statement.
However, he said the defense is approaching the provision from the wrong perspective, arguing that the relevant question is not whether a prepared statement is expressly prohibited, but whether such a practice is authorized by and consistent with the procedure prescribed by the Act.
He further argued that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 2008, empowers the court to question the accused “without a previous warning.”
For his part, lead defense lawyer Dr. Geri Raymond Legge acknowledged receipt of the prosecution’s counter-application but objected to the prosecution’s use of a rejoinder, describing it as misleading.
The court adjourned the proceedings until September 7, 2026, when the court is expected to deliver its ruling on the defense submission and the prosecution’s counter-application.
Machar and several co-accused face allegations related to the March 2025 violence in Nasir, Upper Nile State. Machar and his co-accused have denied the allegations against them.
The trial, which has drawn significant national attention due to the high-profile nature of the accused, is being presided over by Judge James Alala Deng, alongside Justices Stephen Simon and Isaac Pur Majok.
The prosecution team comprises 13 lawyers drawn from the Ministry of Justice and other legal institutions, including Counsel General Deng Achuil Adija, Dr. Sabri Wani Lado, Serafino Simon Mizan, and Filberto Mayuot Mareng.
On the defense side, six lawyers are representing the accused, including Dr. Geri Raymond Legge, Kur Lual Kur, and Anis Tombe Augustino.
Investigations into the case are being led by Major General Basile Thomas Wani, assisted by Brigadier General John Dak, while Captain Richard Gachi Apollo of the Internal Security Service is listed as the complainant.
Those standing trial alongside Machar include Puot Kang Chuol, Mam Pal Dhuor, Gatwech Lam Puoch, Lt Gen Gabriel Duop Lam, Camilo Gatmai Kel, Mading Yak Riek, and Dominic Gatgok Riek.
As proceedings continue, the court is expected to further examine the credibility and implications of digital forensic evidence in establishing alleged links between political figures and armed groups
