By Yiep Joseph
The Nasir incident trial resolved two applications on Friday, clearing the way for Dr. Riek Machar’s examination to continue.
All parties attended the 119th session except Accused No. 4 and Accused No. 6, who were absent for health reasons.
The session was scheduled for the court to deliver its decisions on the defense application and the prosecution’s counter-application.
Judge Simon Stephen read out the first ruling, which concerned the accused persons’ right to lawyers of their choice.
The defence had asked the court to affirm that right, arguing that none of the accused had requested a change of legal representation.
The court said it continued to uphold the accused persons’ right to choose their lawyers and had not interfered with that right.
However, the ruling noted concerns over repeated applications submitted directly by the fifth accused, Dr. Riek Machar, which the court said were similar to applications already filed by his legal counsel.
The court said the repeated applications had resulted in warnings being issued to both the defense and the accused.
It said an accused person who is represented by counsel should normally address the court through their lawyer.
The court explained that this was necessary to avoid confusion and prevent parallel channels of procedural advocacy.
The ruling also clarified that the court had never ordered the removal of any defense lawyer.
The accused persons, the court said, continued to have their legal counsel.
The court further emphasised its authority to maintain order and manage proceedings, with the lead advocate expected to address the court unless absent.
The defence application was therefore dismissed because it had not demonstrated that the court had issued an order removing any defense lawyer.
The court then turned to the prosecution’s counter-application concerning the timing of defense statements.
Dr. James Alala Deng read out the second ruling, which addressed the prosecution’s request that the remaining four accused be questioned before their defense statements were read.
The prosecution had argued that reading the defense statements before examination would not be appropriate.
The court rejected the argument, holding that it has the discretion to manage proceedings and allow accused persons to clarify matters where necessary.
The court said oral statements are provided for under the law, while written statements may also be submitted and recorded for reference.
It noted that prosecution witnesses and four other accused persons had previously been allowed to submit written statements.
The court said accused persons may speak orally if they wish, while those who choose to submit written statements may do so.
At the same time, the court reminded the accused to remain focused on their defense and avoid irrelevant matters.
The judge said the court could ask questions whenever clarification was required.
The prosecution’s counter-application was subsequently overruled and dismissed.
With both applications settled, the court ordered proceedings to return to the examination of the fifth accused, Dr. Riek Machar.
The trial was adjourned until 7 October 2026, when Machar is expected to continue his examination.