Presiding Judge James Alala (center) and his colleagues oversee the trial for Dr. Riek Machar and seven co-accused in the Nasir Incident case, Wednesday, October 1, 2025. (Photo: Eye Radio/Moses Awan)
JUBA, South Sudan (Eye Radio) – The defense team in the high-profile Nasir Case, where the suspended FVP Dr Riek Machar and seven co-accused began their cross-examination of the first prosecution witness on Friday, focusing on the integrity and independence of the military investigation.
Proceedings opened with all parties present, except for the sixth defendant, who was absent due to health reasons.
During the special court’s 26th session, the SSPDF officer serving as the witness admitted under questioning that the key security committee responsible for the findings consisted solely of army members and, crucially, never visited the town of Nasir as part of its evidence gathering, relying instead on survivor testimonies.
Defense lawyer Lual Kur Lual commenced questioning after the prosecution witness took the legal oath. Kur’s initial focus was the security committee responsible for submitting the key investigation report related to the Nasir incident.
Kur asked whether the committee was formed by a presidential decree or an order from the Chief of Defense Forces (CDF).
The witness responded that the committee was established by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration and Finance, following an order issued by the CDF.
The defense attorney pressed further, asking if members of the opposition forces or peace guarantors were included in the military investigative committee, and whether the committee operated independently.
The witness confirmed that the committee consisted solely of SSPDF members and insisted that it functioned independently and impartially.
Kur then questioned the scope of the investigation. The prosecution witness stated that the commission did not visit Nasir as part of its investigations, but relied solely on testimonies from survivors of the incident.
When the defense asked if troop movements mentioned in the report were related to the peace agreement, the witness confirmed that the logistical and administrative movements were indeed linked to the agreement.
The defense attorney later focused on the sources used to prepare the military committee’s report to Army Commander General David Majur on March 7th regarding the evacuation operation. The witness testified that the report was based on survivor accounts, military reports, and intelligence reports.
A key area of cross-examination involved a video recorded on the aircraft during the evacuation. Kur questioned why the government personnel who appeared in the evacuation video were not investigated.
The witness acknowledged that these individuals were not questioned, despite their clear involvement in filming the operation. The witness also confirmed that the source of the evacuation video was the Joint Monitoring and Verification Committee.
Regarding casualties, the witness replied that no opposition forces or civilians were killed during the evacuation.
The defense also raised a report alleging that Kang Makana was responsible for the killing of General David Majur. The witness affirmed that Makana was the field commander responsible for the attack on the garrison.
However, when asked if any audio or documents from the clash indicated that Dr. Machar or any of the other seven defendants had instructed Makana to kill Majur, the witness replied that the committee had no audio or video evidence from the battle, but maintained that Makana, as the field commander, issued the final instructions.
The session saw a successful objection from the prosecution when Kur attempted to ask for a list of the five soldiers who accompanied the late General Majur. The prosecution argued that the names belonged to witnesses scheduled to appear later. The court upheld the objection and directed the defense to rephrase the question.
The defense also questioned the witness about two videos presented as evidence. On the allegations of bombing, the late White Army commander, Tor Gile, was shown accusing the government of bombing civilians. The witness denied Tor’s claim and government responsibility.
On the militia involvement, another video showed Tor stating that the government fuelled tensions by involving the Abu Shok and Agwelek militias in troop rotation. The witness insisted this was incorrect, stating both groups had been fully integrated into the SSPDF.
The defense team for the fourth defendant, Gabriel Duop Lam, questioned the witness on statements related to troop changes under the peace agreement and the formation of unified forces.
The witness acknowledged that the unified force was mentioned in the agreement, but stated that certain arrangements were incomplete.
The judge adjourned proceedings until Monday, December 1st, when the defense is expected to continue cross-examining the prosecution witness.
