Riek Machar Disputes Nasir Attack Claims In Ongoing Trial

In South Sudan, former First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar, the fifth accused in an ongoing trial, on Wednesday denied allegations that he ordered White Army leader Tor Gille Thoan to attack a military garrison in Nasir, Upper Nile State, in March 2025. Testifying during the 125th session of his trial, Machar explicitly disputed claims attributed to former Vice President Benjamin Bol Mel, who had alleged Machar's direct involvement in ordering the violence. Machar clarified that his actions concerned the logistical movement of SSPDF soldiers via barges to relieve troops in the Nasir garrison at Wec-Yar-Adiu, not an offensive order. He detailed his communications with local commissioners, chiefs, and youth leaders to ensure the safety of the area and his subsequent telephone conference with Upper Nile State Governor James Odhok and then Chief of Defence Forces Gen. Paul Nang Majok to address the issue of stalled gunboats and propose hiring alternative transport for the forces and their logistics.

This testimony holds significant legal weight as it directly addresses accusations of command responsibility in a high-profile criminal trial involving a prominent political figure in South Sudan. The legal significance for practitioners lies in understanding the evidentiary challenges in proving or disproving direct orders for military actions, especially in a context marked by complex political and ethnic dynamics. The outcome of this matter, which is not yet reported, will undoubtedly influence the narrative of accountability for past conflicts and could set precedents for how senior political and military leaders are held responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Key parties involved include Dr. Riek Machar as the accused, Tor Gille Thoan as the alleged recipient of the order, Benjamin Bol Mel as the accuser, and various military and local government officials such as Governor James Odhok and Gen. Paul Nang Majok, all operating within the South Sudanese judicial system.

The legal context for this trial would primarily involve South Sudan's criminal law framework, likely encompassing charges related to rebellion, incitement to violence, or other offenses against the state, as defined by the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan, 2011 (as amended), and relevant penal codes. The principle of command responsibility, a cornerstone of international criminal law often applied in domestic contexts, would be central to the prosecution's case, requiring proof of Machar's effective control over Tor Gille Thoan and a direct order or knowledge of the alleged attack. Attorneys practicing in South Sudan, particularly those in criminal defense, human rights, or public law, should closely monitor the court's interpretation of evidence and its application of legal principles concerning command responsibility and the burden of proof. For businesses and investors, the progression and resolution of such high-profile trials are indicators of the rule of law and political stability, influencing risk assessments and operational strategies in the region. The ongoing nature of the trial means that the final verdict and its implications are yet to be determined.