A special court session scheduled to hear the examination of the first accused was adjourned on Friday after the defense team presented an application seeking clarification and protection of the accused persons’ constitutional right to legal representation by advocates of their own choice.
The proceedings, recorded as Session 110, began with the judge calling for attendance.
The prosecution was represented by Deng Achuil Adija, while the defense was represented by Anis Tombe Augustino.
The court also noted that accused No. 4, Gabriel Guop Lam, was absent due to health reasons.
The defense told the court that its application arose from repeated observations during the proceedings suggesting that accused persons who lacked confidence in their current advocates could replace them and seek alternative legal representation.
According to the defense, the accused persons were seeking clarification to ensure that their constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings.
The defense relied particularly on Article 19(3) and Article 19(7) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011, as amended. Article 19(3) provides for an accused person’s right to a fair and public hearing before a competent court, while Article 19(7), as cited by the defense, protects the right of an accused person to defend himself or herself through a lawyer of his or her own choice.
The defense argued that the eight accused persons had selected and instructed their current advocates before the advocates’ names were submitted to the special court on September 22, 2025. It maintained that none of the accused persons had applied to replace their advocates on the grounds of loss of confidence or informed the court that they wished to terminate their instructions.
The defense distinguished between the court’s responsibility to ensure an effective and fair trial and an accused person’s right to select an advocate.
It submitted that, unless an accused person expressly wished to change an advocate or circumstances recognized by law objectively required court intervention, the accused person’s choice of legal representative should be respected.
The defense further asked the court that, where it had specific concerns about the effectiveness or propriety of legal representation, those concerns should be identified and addressed in accordance with the Constitution and applicable law.
In support of its position, the defense referred to provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, principles of the African Commission, and the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
Among its prayers, the defense asked the court to declare and clarify that Article 19(7) protects an accused person’s right to defend himself or herself through a lawyer of his or her own choice. It also asked the court to recognize that the accused persons had selected their present advocates and to record that none of the eight accused persons had requested their advocate’s replacement because of loss of confidence.
The defense maintained that the court’s obligation to ensure a fair and impartial trial must be exercised consistently with the accused persons’ constitutional right to choose their own advocates.
Following the defense application, a member of the prosecution team indicated that the prosecution was ready to respond orally.
The court then allowed a 20-minute break. After the break, the judge directed the prosecution to respond to the defense application in writing.
During the proceedings, Kur Lual also told the court that the defense team had not met accused No. 5 alone and indicated that they would make their submission as previously intended.
With the prosecution’s written response still to be submitted, the court adjourned the session until Monday, August 24, 2026.
