The decision follows an application submitted by the prosecution on November 10, 2025, seeking protective measures for witnesses who are expected to testify in the high-profile case. Prosecutors told the court that some witnesses had allegedly been threatened and intimidated by relatives and associates of the accused, raising serious concerns about their security.
Announcing the ruling during the court’s 37th session in Juba on Monday, Stephen Simon, a member of the panel of judges, said the court had resolved to conduct certain hearings behind closed doors. The order takes effect immediately and will remain in force until all protected witnesses have completed their testimony.
“Therefore, the court rules that some sessions shall be held in camera for the testimony of protected witnesses, and this shall be in exclusion of the public, including the media,” Simon said while delivering the ruling.
The panel further directed that the names and identities of witnesses will not be disclosed or published in any form, in order to safeguard not only the witnesses themselves but also their families. The judges emphasized that the measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that witnesses can testify freely without fear of reprisals.
Dr. Machar and his co-accused are facing a range of serious charges, including treason, murder, crimes against humanity, terrorism, and destruction of property. The case is being heard by a special court composed of three judges.
The charges stem from a March 2025 attack allegedly carried out by a militia linked to Machar. The attack reportedly resulted in the killing of Maj. Gen. David Majur Dak, more than 250 soldiers, and a crew member aboard a United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) helicopter.
Those named in the case alongside Dr. Machar include Puot Kang Chol, Mam Pal Dhuor, Gatwech Lam Puoch, Lt. Gen. Gabriel Duop Lam, Kamilo Gatmai Kel, Mading Yak Riek, and Dominic Gatgok Riek.
While the decision to close parts of the trial has drawn attention due to the case’s political sensitivity, the court maintained that the restrictions are temporary and solely aimed at ensuring witness protection and the fair administration of justice.
