Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
The Spark It Podcast EP 21: Riek Machar Trial Explained │Emmanuel Taban
10 Plays1 month ago
In this episode of the Spark It Podcast, we break down the high-profile trial of South Sudan’s First Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar Teny Dhurgon. Political analyst Emmanuel Taban explains the 2025 Nasir clashes, alleged links to the White Army, charges against Machar (treason, murder, crimes against humanity), and why a special court and media access matter. We unpack the constitutional confusion between the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan (2011) and the 2018 Revitalized Agreement for Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS). We also debate immunity claims, ask whether this is about justice or politics, and explore what this trial means for peace, elections, and judicial independence, as well as how citizens can engage responsibly.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to the Spark It podcast and focus on South Sudan
00:00:00
Speaker
Music
00:00:05
Speaker
Welcome to the Spark It podcast, where we explore stories, experiences, and insights that spark a fire within so that you can make your next big move. In this episode, we turn our focus to South Sudan, where the trial of Dr. Riek Machar, the country's first vice president, has captured global attention.
Who is Dr. Riek Machar and what are the charges against him?
00:00:22
Speaker
Accused of treason, murder, and crimes against humanity, Machar's trial is not just a legal battle. It's a defining moment for South Sudan's fragile peace, justice, and political future.
00:00:35
Speaker
As questions arise about the court's legitimacy, political motivation and the country's stability, we sit down with Emmanuel Taban, our in-house political analyst.
Implications of Machar's trial on peace and judiciary independence
00:00:45
Speaker
Welcome, Emmanuel.
00:00:47
Speaker
Thank you, Kimayo. Yeah, who he has been following the trial closely and we hope to unpack what's really at stake for South Sudanese ah nationals and also the country at large.
00:00:59
Speaker
And together we explore whether is this about justice or power, Can South Sudan's judiciary stand independent? And what does this trial mean for peace and accountability in one of Africa's youngest nations?
00:01:13
Speaker
So ah again, ah thank you, Emmanuel, and welcome back to the episode. Thank you for making the time. We really appreciate you ah doing this with us again.
00:01:24
Speaker
So welcome to the pod. Thank you, Kimaru. It's it's ah so good meeting of again. who And how is your day so far? Not bad, just started my morning this idea and yeah started doing some recordings and yeah, exciting.
00:01:41
Speaker
Nice, nice, nice. ah I have been following this from your podcast, The Concern
Background on the March incident and its key figures
00:01:46
Speaker
Podcast. You have been yeah dropping video after video about the trial and I feel like most of the episodes you have been doing are very, very insightful and they offer a little bit more context to the situation happening in South Sudan.
00:02:00
Speaker
And i would highly recommend for our viewers and listeners to also check out his but It's called the Concerned Podcast. ah So today I want us to unpack exactly what is happening ah in South Sudan.
00:02:12
Speaker
And maybe you can give us a little bit ah of background to this very very particular trial. And like in your own words, how would you describe the significance of Riek Machar's trial and what does it reveal about the current political and justice landscape in South Sudan?
00:02:31
Speaker
Okay. um Yeah, the current legal ah case that is going on in South Sudan can be dated back to early this year in March when um an incident happened in the northern part of the country in one of the counties called Nasser County.
00:02:48
Speaker
which is ah part of the 79 counties in South Sudan. So in March, there was an incident that happened where an armed militia group called ah the White Army engaged some of the government forces, the South Sudan People's Defense Forces, in ah and a kind of a battle And um because of the conflict that emerged, it led to the killing of so many other um as South Sudan Defense Forces, officers, and also ah major general by the names of Majur Dakh.
00:03:25
Speaker
And when the incident happened, ah there were investigations that were done by the government side. And then because of the investigation that they had, they actually discovered that some of the
Is the trial politically motivated or a step towards accountability?
00:03:40
Speaker
people who were involved in the Nasser incident in coordinating ah between ah the armed militia group were actually part of the SPLM I.O., which is part of the current unity government in South Sudan. So they discovered that
00:03:56
Speaker
very prominent people like Dr. Machar, the minister of petroleum called Po Kang, and then another guy. i mean, like a general and a member of parliament, another great business person also, who were all allied to the SPLMIO.
00:04:12
Speaker
And because the government established their findings, they had to put the vice the first vice president under house detention and they also arrested the other ah main individuals who were linked to this incident. They were all put under arrest and the government established a team of investigation, which was actually to carry out and find if at all these people were involved in the incident. and ah Just ah late last month, the government, through the Ministry of ah ah Justice, so came out with their findings and they charged these people with all the charges that were made. Prison, financing terrorism, conspiracy, murder, and committing human atrocities. So these were some of the charges that were made against the
00:04:58
Speaker
ah first vice president and his colleagues. And that actually made the judiciary of the country ah to establish a special code to try these individuals.
00:05:10
Speaker
And for now, ah the case is ongoing. It's on its own.
Constitutional challenges affecting the trial
00:05:15
Speaker
eight teson that is starting on Wednesday this week. So that is what is mainly happening. And to so many people, people have like a different kind of ah ah feelings about this case.
00:05:28
Speaker
To people who are so much allied to the but to to the first vice president, Dr. Machar, They look at this case not as a way of ah the government wanting to maybe hold these individuals accountable, but also seeking for justice, but they look at it as a way, ah like a politically motivated case that is initiated by the government side to just witch hunt the likes of Machar, who is his closest opponent.
00:05:55
Speaker
so So many people look at it that way, but also to other people, they look at this issue as a way of ah accountability and a way of ah actually justifying that there's no one above the law. Even if you are the first vice president, if you're charged with crimes such as this, then you stand the high chances of facing the law and be tried.
00:06:17
Speaker
So it's made with mixed reaction. Some people look at it as a major stance towards ah accountability and justice. And then to other people, they look at it like as a political witch hunt, which is mainly meant to yeah get much better and maybe eliminate him from the politics of the country.
00:06:37
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah, I think it's good that you've actually talked about the whole incident of witch hunting, ah because as I was reading more about his trial and also listening to ah your episodes, I saw ah there's this idea of the trial is being widely seen through sort of a political lens, which is what you've talked about, like it's a witch hunt, because I mean, he was a first vice president and then there's this thing that happens.
00:07:04
Speaker
And yeah, I saw that a lot of actually people died during that attack, around 250 people, which is really concerning in a space where you're trying to come up, ah you know, like have peace so that the country can be moved forward.
00:07:21
Speaker
So ah in 2018, there was the ah the revitalized ah peace agreement. How do you think, ah knowing what this contains, how do you think that this particular trial influences or complicates the trial against now Dr. Ryuk Machar?
00:07:40
Speaker
um I think i'm I'm one of the people
Impact of judiciary independence on governance and peace
00:07:43
Speaker
who really don't believe so much in ah the revitalized peace agreement. Yes, I respect the fact that the agreement has actually ah created for us some kind of peace through ah the the establishment of the unity government where the warring parties a little bit feel that ah they are restrained, like they're not so much getting back into war. But when we look at the long, ah the I mean, the long-term impact of the peace agreement, I feel
00:08:15
Speaker
it's it's It's not that really a very good thing, according to my observation. That is my personal opinion because ah in line with the current trial, um the The country right now has no permanent constitution. We are borrowing so many laws from ah different documents. We are borrowing it from the transitional constitution of the country that was ah ah established. And then we're also borrowing from the revitalized peace agreement.
00:08:42
Speaker
river The revitalized peace agreement itself established the unity government with all the structures. the The presidency, which constituted the president of the Republic of South Sudan, the first vice president of the Republic of South Sudan, who is Riyadh Machar, and all the other four um ah vice presidents.
00:08:58
Speaker
And in that oh ah agreement, I think the constitution, I mean, the revitalized peace agreement did not specifically establish where Yves Machar will have an immunity or even the president or the other president.
00:09:16
Speaker
ah ah precedent The transitional con constitution, however, established that the vice president ah legit i mean does not have immunity. He can be tried even when he holds that position as the first vice president.
00:09:32
Speaker
But the difference here is that in the transitional constitution, the transitional constitution was established without ah the vision of seeing South Sudan in i mean in a state where we have a first vice president than and then four vice presidents.
00:09:47
Speaker
president, a presidency that constituted like ah six individuals or five, ah six individuals. It was established in a manner that sees South Sudan having only a president and then the first vice president.
00:09:58
Speaker
So I think the court is applying um ah the transitional constitution, which is the place that the divide ah vice president,
How is media covering the trial and its political ramifications?
00:10:08
Speaker
not the first vice president does not have immunity.
00:10:11
Speaker
So, I mean, these are two kind oh contrasting documents that I feel It's really, really so hard right now. But at the end of the day, the the the judiciary of the country, which is tasked with the responsibility of ah interpreting the law, decided that it has the the the jurisdiction and that Machar does not actually have the immunity. So it is the constitution of the country. I mean, it is the judiciary of the country. And in the first place, it is the people of South Sudan who decided that they should have such an institution that the
00:10:43
Speaker
ah the people misunderstand the law, then they interpret it. And the decision that they came up with is that my child doesn't have the immunity and that the courts as well has the jurisdictional mandate to try my child in the special court. So that's what it it decided to go with. But there's a lot of, I mean, confusion in the law right now, according to my observation, because we are relying on two different documents established at two different times that is meant to serve two different purposes.
00:11:12
Speaker
The transitional constitution did not look at South Sudan ah getting into the the current situation where it had to go to civil war in 2013 and go into peace agreement and having a unity government.
00:11:24
Speaker
And then the revitalized peace agreement ah is established with not actually and bringing in some of the things in the transitional constitution. So these are two conflicting documents to my observation.
00:11:38
Speaker
Yeah. Wow, that's really interesting. So in in short, we could conclude that what South Sudan also needs, apa even as this trial is ongoing, could be like a very solid constitution that could govern it into the future.
00:11:53
Speaker
That is right. Right now, well I think the country is in constitutional crisis, i would say. Because one, um it is during this revitalized peace agreement that they established that before the transitional government ends its mandate, it has to establish a permanent constitution for the country.
00:12:10
Speaker
But... I mean, the whole process is now being it'ss it's being made hard because of the current issues happening back home. I mean, it's hard to establish a permanent constitution and the country is supposed to get into election next year in December. And one of the conditions is that before the country gets into the election, they need to have a permanent constitution.
00:12:30
Speaker
and But it seems like it's it's hard to get it right now because we have a very only like a one-year period of time remaining. And you know making a constitution that can be impactful, it needs a longer time. It needs consultation from the people. It needs a lot of minds to be brought in. And I feel...
00:12:50
Speaker
ah Having a constitution, it's one way that can determine the future of the country. But at the moment, I feel that the country is in constitutional crisis because we don't have the specific rules that is to follow. I mean, we are borrowing from so much, from so much.
00:13:06
Speaker
Do you think, ah I think sometimes, in my own opinion, sometimes politicians and people in power, they sort
Future political landscape and election prospects in South Sudan
00:13:12
Speaker
of do some sort of man-made chaos. Instead of, like, for example, you've talked about the constitution being very important for South Sudan, but everyone is taking their sweet time and not necessarily prioritizing it.
00:13:23
Speaker
Yet you need that for the elections to happen. Do you think that is what is playing out in South Sudan? Because there's people maybe who want to stick around longer than they should, and they don't want South Sudan to go into an election?
00:13:36
Speaker
Again, according to my opinion, I would say yes. Because, i mean, it's very clear. One is that, and and in most cases, I really i really blame ah the people who drafted the the peace argument agreement. I mean, like it's it doesn't really make any sense because one,
00:13:54
Speaker
um the The peace argument agreement established ah the unity government where it established the presidents, as I said, having like six presidents, the president, the first vice president, and then the six other um ah vice president.
00:14:10
Speaker
The agreement also established like about 45 ministers. That is including head ministers and then the deputy ministers. And then the peace agreement again established like 650 members of legislative assembly,
00:14:24
Speaker
That's a lot. And these people are all unelected. They are not elected by South Sudanese. These are people who are just established because of the peace agreement. We need to have a unity government.
00:14:35
Speaker
And also the worst thing is that the peace agreement gave these same people who are not elected the mandate to actually extend the lifespan of the transitional government.
00:14:49
Speaker
Now you can imagine that these are people who are unelected by the people. And the peace agreement says, on an occasion where we have an election held, then the whole government will be dissolved. We no longer have the five presidents.
00:15:03
Speaker
And do you think these people, people, vice presidents who knows very well that when we have an election held, they are not going to be there anymore. You think these people will be willing to actually have lead the country into having a transitional, I mean, period where we can we can have an election and then have the government. i mean They will always never do that.
00:15:23
Speaker
It's like a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest because they know once we have an election, the election is going to only create a president and vice president. We're not going to have the other four presidents. They're not going to be there.
00:15:37
Speaker
And the constitution gives this vice president the mandate to extend the lifespan of this. So they will obviously go on expanding it over and over again. So that is my only worry and I feel that, I think the people who actually drafted the peace argument agreement, they they they didn't do well to to the South Sudanese people. I mean, this is going to go down so badly. It's going to impact.
00:16:03
Speaker
We may even end up being just ruled by the unity government. It might be hard for us to have an election in the next year because Over 650 people know that once we have an election, they're going to be in their positions and they're going to have the position.
00:16:19
Speaker
Over 45 ministers knows that when we have a well-established government, probably they're not competent. They're not going to get back into their ministerial position. Over six presidents or four vice presidents know that by the time we have an election, they're not going to get back into their vice president position. And therefore, they are willing to continue expanding the lifespan of the transitional government so they can keep
Judiciary's role in shaping governance and legal standards
00:16:42
Speaker
in power. yeah So that that is a basic i mean kind of thing you can see. It doesn't need one even to look deep into it.
00:16:50
Speaker
it's It's just laid out straight. I think that's actually really sad. And maybe for change to happen or maybe for an election to happen, it would require like a lot of goodwill, and especially from the current leadership.
00:17:03
Speaker
They would have to get to a point where they become ah more more selfless and they consider who they are actually representing and stuff like that. Because, yeah, it's definitely whatever you've said is really true to get to an election. or It's a very big task and I hope one day you actually get there.
00:17:20
Speaker
um So, Rekh Mashar, now that ah he's going through this trial, i hear there is a lot of security at this point. At some point there was broadcasting. Now there is no broadcasting allowed.
00:17:35
Speaker
ah Could you probably take us through that ah sort of thing and how it impacts his trial? um On the first day of the trial, and that was ah telling on on the 11th of September, um the courts convened at Freedom Hall with only one media house allowed to cover the whole trial. And that is the state-owned media house called SSBC, the South Sudan Broadcasting Corporation.
00:18:06
Speaker
So they were the only media house allowed to enter the premises of the courts to cover live the trial of Machar. And then on that day, the panel of judges were constituted to carry on the trial. They actually made a ruling.
00:18:25
Speaker
that the following seating, all media houses should be allowed to go in and cover the the trial, but there were also restrictions. They were given ah to adhere to their ethics as a media houses this this this media houses. They were given the the rules and and at any point should they violate those, then they will be thrown out of the premises.
00:18:48
Speaker
They were given this. and So for that reason, on the second session, all media houses were allowed to go into the premises and the courts said it is for the, I mean, for sake of transparency, they want it to be broadcasted when everyone is seen.
00:19:02
Speaker
And also members of the public were allowed to go to the premises of the courts to attend it. And most of those who access the premises were the closest family members to the accused and other, mean, relatives and and and guys who are politically allied to them.
00:19:18
Speaker
They
Public opinion and political engagement concerning the trial
00:19:19
Speaker
had access to the premises. and the attack and that on their ti and footday On the third day, i think they were allowed, but on the fifth on on the fourth and fifth, sixth day, um because ah the court had reached a phase where they were now collecting money,
00:19:38
Speaker
statements from witnesses, ah the court had to to listen to i mean a request from the prosecution side who actually are defending the state saying they need the the media houses not to be covering that that face because they're dealing with private people who are going to be witnesses and they want to protect the identity of these people.
00:20:01
Speaker
So the court grants that request and therefore they did not allow the public to access the premises and also the media houses. And then it continued until i think today there was no full access, but we're expecting that in the next session, on the eighth session, the media will fully get back to the premises and then they they can ah they can access access their the premise of the courts.
00:20:22
Speaker
Yeah. interesting But I mean, it was ruled that it was constitutional because also those people who are going to give their statements and witnesses, they need to be protected. They need to be protected. So there was nothing wrong about it.
00:20:36
Speaker
It wasn't some kind of a unconstitutional way. It was, and so many people agreed with it. Even the defense team agreed with it, the prosecution and are members of the public. So, but we're expecting the media houses to get back maybe in the next session.
00:20:50
Speaker
yeah It actually makes sense because that's a very high level case. ah So you want to protect the identities of the people involved. In one of your episodes, you talked about this being a very good move ah towards constitution constitutionalism.
00:21:06
Speaker
um And you also talked to a lot about, ah what is it called? The judiciary. So for example, this particular case, they set up a special court to handle this case.
00:21:18
Speaker
Do you believe in the legitimacy and independence required to deliver ah a fair trial for the people involved or the people who have been accused? i mean, I have always believed in an independency of every government institution, ah every government organ, including the judiciary.
00:21:37
Speaker
And this is this is a historical moment in in in in in South Sudan right now. It's a first of its kind. Our judiciary has never, ever got involved in such a high profile case, a case that involved most of the high ranking officials of the country.
00:21:53
Speaker
I mean, this is a moment that would either mean so much for the the the the judiciary of the country or could even get the country back into into zero.
00:22:05
Speaker
This is a very decisive moment. And from the look of things, I've been following the the prosecution and and i I just like how it's going on at the moment.
00:22:16
Speaker
I mean, I don't see any members of the executive getting, i don't, maybe if there is some kind of like,
Balancing legal outcomes with public sentiment for peace
00:22:24
Speaker
uh, it's done maybe in in privacy or in secret, but I don't see any kind of threats coming from ah um both sides. I don't see threats coming from the government towards the defense. I don't see, I mean, to the accused, I don't see threats coming from the side of the accused towards the government.
00:22:40
Speaker
And also the fact that, um, the courts were able to make their rulings saying that, ah I mean, accepting media houses to get into for the case of transparency.
00:22:53
Speaker
And also like adhering to some of the claims. I mean, you could see that it's a kind of a fair kind of trial, but until the end of of the case, it might be hard for us to to tell exactly what is yeah the intention of the court is. But at the moment I'm seeing like there's no kind of biasness being presented by the judiciary.
00:23:15
Speaker
I mean, a the the the judiciary has been, the the court, the Constitutional Court has been following the all the legal procedures. And I feel at the moment I don't see any kind of of of of the courts being biased at the side of the accused.
00:23:30
Speaker
and And as I say, that this is a very, very ah decisive moment for the country. And it all lies on the judiciary. The ball is at their hands. So they have the power to give a verdict that can either take the country. I mean, people wouldn't be so much, I mean, ah ah worried if the court is able to give a verdict that says Machar has committed or Machar and his colleagues are actually convicted of the crimes that were charged against him.
00:24:04
Speaker
And there are proofs, there are proofs beyond doubt that he has really committed
Role of international actors in ensuring fair trials
00:24:10
Speaker
them. I mean, if all the members of the public are able to be convinced that these are the things that my child, that can actually tell that my child has committed this, that he has, he's involved in the murder, the conspiracy, financing terrorism and all the other acts.
00:24:25
Speaker
And that these are the evidences. If the court is able to come out with that, very boldly. I mean, there's no one who is going to get worried about it because we know that at the end of the day, we need law to prevail and that no matter what position you hold, you must always be subjected to face the law.
00:24:42
Speaker
But if the courts maybe does it doesn't in a way that the members of the public are able to see clearly that they are being biased, I think that is the way, that's when the country will go the wrong direction.
00:24:55
Speaker
But all the court needs to do is make it in a very transparent manner that can convince the entire South Sudan society that the trial has been fair and the verdict that is passed is worth it. And there's no one who's going to complain about it.
00:25:12
Speaker
But also there's no problem when they, the they I mean, it will also be a very good one if the courts pass a verdict that all the claims that were given by the state actually were, I mean, a baseless and therefore my child is not guilty. I mean, and then the government goes on and upholds that verdict and then bring back Machar to his position, I mean, it will mean so much for the country.
00:25:36
Speaker
That would mean that, I mean, there is rule of law already existing. People will look at the president that he is upholding the decision of the judiciary and there's independency. People can easily see that, that Machar was charged and then the court comes out with a verdict that the claims were baseless and the president comes back and brings him, reinstate him to his position. So that would mean that there's already, i mean, people will see political goodwill. People will see the president and willing to uphold the rule of law.
00:26:04
Speaker
And that that's all what, I mean, everything right now lies in the judiciary. row In short, we could clearly see that this, we can say this is a make or break case.
00:26:14
Speaker
It kind of determines what the future of South Sudan looks like, whether the rule of law is upheld or not, and it will determine a lot. So I believe if the, as you've said, if the court like does its due diligence in the best way possible and delivers something like a free and fair ah trial,
00:26:34
Speaker
then it means that they'll give people the the confidence in the institutions that they um the country is trying to build around so that you as a country can actually ah move forward.
00:26:48
Speaker
ah And in the context of ah Salva Kir, the president, and now Riek Machar, who was his vice president, to what extent do you think this trial is just about justice or maybe versus power and political struggles?
00:27:04
Speaker
does that play a role or you think it's free and fair what is happening? um I think i I wouldn't really buy the belief that... ah this is a political, ah it's um it's a politically motivated kind of case.
00:27:20
Speaker
ah Because you could, I mean, you could easily see, it's it's very clear. I mean, we all know that Machar and Keira, they have been opponents. I mean, very, very close. I mean, very, very, ah they have been like political opponents for a quite a long time since 2013 when it happened.
00:27:37
Speaker
But over and over again, they came back to work together. And they believe, I don't buy the belief that this is a political, it's politically motivated because, I mean, everyone saw that there was an incident that happened in Nasser. There were there yeah was an exchange, I mean, between government forces and the armed militia.
00:27:55
Speaker
everyone's and Everyone knows that, I mean, over 200 people were killed in that in that incident. Everyone knows that there was a major general who was killed in Nasser. And therefore, that thing does not happen in a vacuum. There is always someone who who who might be behind it.
00:28:11
Speaker
But I'm not saying it is Machar. The government has come out with their claims that it is Machar who has done it. And of course, we know someone died, people died. i mean, there was a lot of destruction of property, UN helicopter crashed and all this sort of stuff.
00:28:26
Speaker
But then the government needs to now provide more proofs that it is really Machar beyond doubt who has done that, Machar and his colleagues. I wouldn't buy the belief that it's politically motivated because this this case is informed by the incident that happened back in March.
00:28:43
Speaker
So it is clearly evident by many South Sudanese that there was an exchange of ah firearms between the government and the armed militia. But then all we're waiting for is for proofs to be presented beyond beyond doubt that actually these people um committed the so-said crimes.
00:29:01
Speaker
So, yeah. Interesting. so Okay, okay. So maybe going back to what we were talking about, as far as the outcomes of this particular trial, let's say, for example, it comes out he's guilty or maybe he's not guilty. As you said, the court would need to give um reasonable, like, you know, they say what, beyond reasonable doubt that these people were involved in what happened.
00:29:26
Speaker
so in the context of peace and stability in South Sudan, Definitely, whatever the trial the outcome of the trial is, it could actually maybe ah help or maybe destabilize, depending on how people end up taking it.
00:29:41
Speaker
What do you think the court in particular needs to do, especially while delivering their verdict, to convince the people? for example, or even as South Sudanese nationals, what do you think the people need to be like? In what kind of state would should people be at?
00:29:58
Speaker
Should they stay open-minded for both outcomes so that we can continue with the little peace and stability that is there or maybe the peace and stability that is there? So in both ends, for the people and for the court, what needs to be done so that people can be prepared for both outcomes?
00:30:15
Speaker
I think, ah you know, as I said that, There's so many people who look at Machar in a different angle. There's so many people who are so much allied to the first vice president and that they are willing to stand with him no matter what, you know. okay And as I said, Machar comes from ah one of the the the communities that constitute the biggest population in the country, the second ah most populous communities in in in South Sudan, the Nuer ethnic group.
00:30:49
Speaker
And there are people, regardless of the outcome, I mean, regardless of the evidence that the court might present, and if the court pass a verdict that Machari is guilty, there are people who will never take that as it is, right?
00:31:02
Speaker
They will look at it just like it's something that is mainly made against him, a plan orchestrated by the government against him. That is clear. They will never be convinced that indeed he did that, even if the court presented beyond doubt that he committed that.
00:31:19
Speaker
Now this brings me back to um and to the people. I think people should have like an open mind to receive whatever verdict that the court is going to pass. But also another major responsibility lies on the on the executive of the country and mainly the government.
00:31:35
Speaker
Because if I was the president, And if I was killed and should the courts maybe pass a verdict that my child is not guilty, that he is a free man at the end of this trial, I will uphold him, okay? I will uphold it and then reinstate him back to his position. I will tell the public that we tried to give our evidence that he was judged, but now the judiciary or the courts gave a verdict that he was actually free man, he did not participate in it. And for that reason,
00:32:07
Speaker
I'm right stating him back to his position. But also as the president of the country, if Machar is charged and then, I mean, if Machar is found guilty, if I was president here, if the court decide and say Machar is guilty, he was involved in all this.
00:32:23
Speaker
I mean, sometimes we don't have to just rely on the law. We should have some other consideration. Look at the country in a broader way. As a president, I will analyze what is going to be the impact of this. Should we go with this and we go with the yeah with with with with with this decision that the court is coming?
00:32:40
Speaker
Perhaps I would say, like as a leader, you be you should have sometimes a sympathy. I would say, yes. I will address the public ghost as well and tell them that we have convicted we have charged him and the courts have convicted him. They have proved beyond doubt that he was charged with it.
00:32:55
Speaker
But we know the impact of this, what it's going to create, right? If we continue with this verdict, we know. Maybe at this time, I would say oh we're not going to to to to maybe imprison him or we can look for other alternatives. Perhaps just get him out of the vice president position, but not jail him and just look for other means to, I mean, appease the people because you I mean, we all believe that there must be a law in the country, but even when we believe that there must be law, we should also consider the impact of maybe so applying the law in the country. How is it going to impact on the the greater population of the country?
00:33:34
Speaker
So, I mean, at that point also, there's so much that the government side or the president needs to do in in terms of portraying a sympathy and then trying to safeguard the future of the country.
00:33:46
Speaker
Because as I say that there are people who look at Machar as more than just like as a politician. To them, to some people, it means like a demigod. There are people who are ready to die for him regardless.
00:33:59
Speaker
So, and and these people, when we see a verdict passed against them, then obviously there's something bad that's going to happen. So, and that's where the the president also has to act some restraint and apply some some sympathy and on on the verdict that is going to be passed in case it comes against my child.
00:34:20
Speaker
So it's more of like a collective responsibility. The judiciary needs to play its part. And if some if whatever verdict they offer, they need to make sure that the public is well informed.
00:34:31
Speaker
Like, why did we arrive at this decision? And if it's for the people, for you, according to what you're saying, the call to action would be, let's be open open-minded. whatever the outcome is, whether it's positive or it's negative, depending on what somebody was expecting, they should be ready to embrace whatever the outcomes are.
00:34:49
Speaker
And also the the context of maybe the, as you said, the political goodwill, maybe the government should consider leniency in case of the accused maybe, uh,
00:35:00
Speaker
yeah You know, if if it's true, that's what they actually did. And maybe even consider political exile. It could be even a better thing instead of jailing somebody exactly as an outcome.
00:35:12
Speaker
as a note outcome Instead of jailing somebody, maybe you give them like some political exile for a few years until the country gets back to you know its feet. And something like that.
00:35:23
Speaker
Yeah. So, yeah, the way I see it, as you've explained, it's more of collective responsibility on the people, the judiciary and the executive. oh yeah. And what what do you think? ah What could be the what should what role should regional and international actors play to ensure fairness and prevent this trial from escalating tensions in South Sudan?
00:35:45
Speaker
I mean, like just like a a country, every country has their own rules, right? We have all our institutions of government and and then the regional bodies ah help the South Sudan people to come up with the peace agreement in the mediation and all crafting the revitalized peace agreement.
00:36:02
Speaker
And they hope that the South Sudanese people can do things themselves. So right now we do have our courts that is in charge of the whole case. And we wouldn't at this moment like an influence from any other person outside, right?
00:36:13
Speaker
At the moment, because that is the judiciary of the country that is handling the issue, perhaps the regional body will now come at the and the aftermath of this case. If they see that ah whatever verdict is passed and then it's going to em impact, then they can call on the leaders of the country to maybe take on alternatives.
00:36:32
Speaker
But at the moment, I feel there's not so much influence that that is needed from... Because we South Sudan is also an independent state that has its own institutions and organs of government.
00:36:44
Speaker
And that's what exactly the country is doing. ah trying to I know it's it's a kind of it's struggling at some point, but yeah, at some point we will get there. So this is a big step for the country. And at this point, I wouldn't expect any influence from the regional bodies or the neighboring countries.
00:37:00
Speaker
They will come in probably after the verdict is passed. And if they see that a certain verdict is going to maybe impact so much on the future of your country, that is when they have to urge the government to maybe yeah take a restraint. Yeah.
00:37:14
Speaker
Makes a lot of sense. And now this particular trial and maybe like a lesson for rule of law for South Sudan in the context of the people and as the outsiders, what does this trial reveal about the state of rule of law and the judicial independence in so africa South Sudan?
00:37:33
Speaker
um As I said that, um, As I say that the the country is an independent state and we all do have organs of government, just like in india and i and any other country, South Sudan has the three organs. We have the executive, we have the legislature and we have the judiciary.
00:37:53
Speaker
So, and the, ah the it's supposed to be that all these bodies act independently without the influence of the other. So in in in in a case where we see the the judiciary taking up the case and then trying to preside over rate without any influence maybe from the executive, wouldn't expect any influence from the executive.
00:38:15
Speaker
And then if if the judiciary continue to do it that way without any interference from any other person, then that would really mean so much. I mean, credit will go so much to them.
00:38:26
Speaker
And just like ah an incident happened in Kenya that gave the chief justice, the former chief justice during Uhuru Kenyatta's time, David Maraga. Remember, this is a guy who was appointed by Kenyatta.
00:38:40
Speaker
so yeah to be to be the the chief justice of the of the Supreme Court. And then in Uhuru's second term, he had to pass. I mean, when when when ah there was an appeal made that the elections were not conducted in a free and and fair manner, yeah And then ruled on that, that actually he proved that the election was not conducted in a fair way. Even when he was appointed by Uhuru Kenyatta, I think that gave Maraga one of the, he is considered one of the best chief justices in the country. He is a retired one. And there's so much respect for him.
00:39:15
Speaker
It is because he took the mantle to act independently. The judiciary was not influenced by the by the executive, even when he was appointed by the executive. So I feel that's the same thing that,
00:39:27
Speaker
ah probably the judiciary of South Sudan needs to do. Even when they are appointed by the president, then they have to act independently and credit will go back to them ah from the South Sudanese people. I think that's what they really have to to do at the moment.
00:39:42
Speaker
That's interesting. I totally agree. And how do you think like ah ah people from South Sudan should engage with this trial to promote justice and peace?
00:39:53
Speaker
Like what can a normal person, on a common person on do? um I have been following ah this on social media and I'm already seeing that people have like very, very diverging opinions about it. People really are already aligning themselves. I mean, the different sides of others are aligning themselves with this data that's with the accused and And yeah, I feel it's it's their it's their political, ah i mean, they have the right to associate with whatever they want, right?
00:40:22
Speaker
They have the right to give their opinion. It's not a crime to think about something. So they they can give whatsoever ah thing. But we should also understand the nature of our country, you know.
00:40:34
Speaker
ah I feel that we shouldn't really get engaged so much in the in the physical manner because some political things are very sensitive and they are so emotive that if we start discussing it with the fellow guy who we're seeing having diverging views, we might, we might, ah end up doing so much harm to ourselves.
00:40:58
Speaker
So I would expect people to engage ah ah themselves in this case with restraint, try to present your your opinion, but not in the most harmful manner to to each one, yeah.
00:41:12
Speaker
but also respect the independency of the judiciary as a citizen. You have to respect because in the first place, we are the one who established it. We say we want to have a judiciary. So we need to let it act independently.
00:41:25
Speaker
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. And i also would add what you had talked about, staying very open-minded for any outcome because at the end of the day, that if we we want to move forward, then country needs the rule of law to be upheld.
00:41:41
Speaker
So people need to be very ready for any outcome, whether it's positive or negative. Okay, that's ah that's interesting. And what has stood out for you when you are analyzing this particular situation? Because you've been following up with this trial from the very beginning, what has stood out for you the most? And what question would you want to ask the people directly involved?
00:42:05
Speaker
I think one of the most interesting things about this trial is that It has actually awakened so many South Sudanese. That is one thing that I've seen. People who are politically dominant, I mean, the citizens of South Sudan who are politically dominant, most of them are awake. yeah And I always feel happy when I see so many South Sudanese engaging with the political affairs of their country online and in whatsoever form.
00:42:29
Speaker
That is what exactly that I'm seeing right now for the last few two weeks or so. I mean, South Sudanese have really been ah presenting their opinions. I mean, there seems to be a waken because of this case.
00:42:42
Speaker
And and i'm I'm really excited about that. And also we have so many people who went and studied law in the country and they seems to be so much excited about about this case.
00:42:55
Speaker
and And I feel that is that is really one of the most ah exciting things that I've seen. Seeing South Sudanese engaging with, I mean, the political affairs of their country, giving their opinions and and and just getting excited over this case. I mean, it's very, very, very good one.
00:43:10
Speaker
And that's what I feel stood out of this entire case. Because the citizens are so much awake at the moment. They are following it closely. They want to see what is going to be the impact of this, I mean, out outcome of this. And this has actually put the judiciary on the spotlight.
00:43:25
Speaker
because everyone needs is following the case, which is exciting. i think I think that's amazing, especially when something like this generating conversation, whether it's online or offline, I think it's, as you've talked about that sort of awakening, it awakens the people to realize that also they play a role in some of these things or how they would want the conversation to be driven forward or how they want to be ruled.
00:43:51
Speaker
And what would be your final thoughts on this matter as we conclude the episode? um My final, I would say, um I wish ah everyone good luck and let's keep following this closely. I mean, it's it's very it's very important case and this will go down in the history of our country as one of the most high profile court cases in the country.
00:44:16
Speaker
Probably this will be referred to in so many years to come. We will refer to this case in so many years to come. And to so to those South Sudanese who are engaging on on on this case on social media or in whatever form, do it with respect. I mean, of each other, like respect each other's opinion. At the end of the day, you can argue, but you don't have the power to pass a verdict. It's the courts at the end of the day.
00:44:41
Speaker
So whereas you can give your opinion on what you think about this case, Also, you need to respect the fact that it's going to be the judiciary of the country to pass a verdict about this case. So respect the judiciary and let's be open-minded. Let's welcome come whatever verdict that is going to be passed by the courts, as long as it is proven to be right. So we should always, always adhere to the court's ruling.
00:45:08
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah. And also for me, I would add that there's always life beyond and the the current politicians that we have. These politicians might not be there forever, but you you need a country. You need a country for the ah for the generation now, for the next generation and the next and the next after that.
00:45:29
Speaker
So people need to also start considering that because I feel like sometimes... we romanticize the idea or maybe or a particular politician politician in our heads and we are like, oh, this is like, ah as you talked about, somebody being like a demigod in your head and something like that until to the next extent we are It breeds violence and stuff like that.
00:45:50
Speaker
So we need to to think beyond them and see them as just part of the transition for South Sudan into a better future. That's what I would say. Yeah.
00:46:01
Speaker
so So, Emmanuel, you should tell people to subscribe to your channel. Okay. Yeah. So if you are watching this, you can subscribe to Concerned Podcasts. And you can find more stories regarding the ongoing case and other cases about South Sudan and about East Africa, particularly Kenya and Uganda that I have so much knowledge late about it. So yeah, feel free if you're someone passionate about politics, just don't hesitate to hit the subscription button and also the notification button so you can get notified of so many other videos that I'm going to upload.
00:46:36
Speaker
Thanks. Great. Thank you, Emmanuel, for gracing our podcast once again. We really appreciate you making the time and offering us insights into South Sudan and the current ah case against Rick Machar.
00:46:49
Speaker
And for our listeners and viewers, thank you for always tuning in to the Spark It podcast. We appreciate your support. We see you on our social media platforms engaging with our content and we appreciate it. Until the next video, you can listen to our podcast on our podcasting platform from wherever you listen.
00:47:06
Speaker
from and also follow us on our social media and YouTube channel. Until the next time, I'm your host, Helen Kimaru. Bye-bye. Bye. bye