Riek Machar Demands Live Broadcast for South Sudan Trial

• The trial of former First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar is currently ongoing, with sessions adjourned to October 14, 2026.
• Dr. Machar is demanding live television or radio coverage for his presentation, citing a previous court precedent from 2025 when the trial was initially broadcast live.
• He was arrested in March 2025 with other SPLM-IO officials and ceased being First Vice President in September 2026.
• A court decision against live broadcasting could contravene the 'per incuriam' principle, which concerns disregarding relevant prior judicial precedent.
• The controversial trial has contributed to political division and conflict in South Sudan, with some armed factions demanding Dr. Machar's unconditional release.

Should the court ultimately reject Dr. Machar's application for a live broadcast, its ruling could potentially conflict with the legal principle of 'per incuriam.'

The judicial proceedings against former First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar are ongoing, with the 120th session adjourned to October 14, 2026, for Dr. Machar to continue his testimony. The specific location where these alleged threats occurred, whether within the court premises or at the accused persons' confinement site, remains unconfirmed. This follows Dr. Machar's consistent requests for the court to allow public access to the proceedings via live television or radio, a demand he previously made at the commencement of the trial in 2025.

Dr. Machar, along with other officials from the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (SPLM-IO), was apprehended in March 2025 while still holding the position of First Vice President of South Sudan. His tenure in this role concluded on September 22, 2026, with the dissolution of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU). Unlike his co-accused, who were reportedly transferred to the National Security Service prison known as "Blue House," Dr. Machar was believed to be under house arrest, a confinement arrangement attributed to his high-ranking status. The initial phase of the trial in 2025 saw the proceedings broadcast live on the state-owned SSBC, a decision justified by the high-profile nature of the case, which involved the then-incumbent First Vice President. This initial live coverage was widely accepted across the South Sudanese political spectrum. However, as the trial progressed to critical stages, including hearings and cross-examinations, media coverage was halted. This cessation was reportedly at the prosecution's behest, ostensibly to prevent public embarrassment as they anticipated an unfavorable outcome.

Dr. Riek Machar's current insistence on live media coverage for his presentation is underpinned by a significant legal precedent established at the outset of his trial. The court's initial decision to permit a live broadcast of the proceedings in 2025 lends considerable weight to his present demand, particularly given that the case involved the nation's then-First Vice President, making it a matter of substantial public interest. Should the court ultimately reject Dr. Machar's application for a live broadcast, its ruling could potentially conflict with the legal principle of "per incuriam." This principle refers to a judicial decision made without due consideration of existing and relevant legal precedents. Therefore, a departure from the earlier decision to broadcast live would raise questions about judicial consistency and adherence to established rulings within the South Sudan court system.

Furthermore, the legal framework governing accused persons' rights supports the broader principle that "justice must be seen to be done." Individuals facing charges, such as Dr. Machar and his co-accused, are presumed innocent until proven guilty and are afforded several fundamental rights while under detention. These include the right to be informed of the charges against them, which was fulfilled when Dr. Joseph Geng Akech, who was the Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister at the time, communicated the accusations. The current Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs is Dr. Wek Mamer Kuol, appointed on September 22, 2026. Another crucial right is the right to remain silent, designed to protect an accused from making statements that could prejudice their defense. The public nature of court proceedings generally allows for attendance or virtual access, suggesting that live broadcasts are not inherently unlawful and could enhance public engagement with the judicial process.

Beyond the immediate legal arguments, the trial of Dr. Riek Machar carries profound societal and political implications for South Sudan. The proceedings have proven deeply divisive, contributing to significant political polarization within the country. Since 2025, the conflict has tragically resulted in thousands of deaths in the Greater Upper Nile and Equatoria regions. Certain armed factions have explicitly linked their willingness to disarm and engage in dialogue to Dr. Machar's unconditional release, underscoring the trial's central role in the nation's ongoing instability.

The court's eventual decision regarding Dr. Machar's demand for live media coverage will establish a critical precedent for future South Sudan court media coverage, particularly for high-profile cases. It will test the judiciary's commitment to transparency and public access, especially when faced with politically sensitive matters. The initial live broadcast was widely welcomed, indicating a public appetite for transparency in such significant legal proceedings. Therefore, the court's stance on this issue will not only impact Dr. Machar's legal rights but also shape the future landscape of media access to judicial processes in South Sudan, influencing how the public perceives the fairness and openness of its legal system.

Lawyers in South Sudan should monitor the court's decision on Dr. Machar's live broadcast demand, as it will establish a precedent for media access in high-profile trials and test the application of the 'per incuriam' principle regarding judicial consistency and respect for prior rulings.

Source: Original reporting via an opinion piece.