Machar Calls His Nasir Trial Political. What Can the Record Establish?

JUBA, 8 October 2026 — Former first vice president Riek Machar told a special court on Wednesday that his prosecution over the March 2025 Nasir violence is political. He cited rulings on access to his lawyers, recording and public coverage of proceedings, the court's jurisdiction and the role of private advocates on the prosecution team. The court has previously rejected some defence applications and has defended its authority to manage proceedings.

Machar and seven co-accused face grave charges, including treason, murder, conspiracy, terrorism, destruction of public property and crimes against humanity. Prosecutors allege that SPLM/A-IO-aligned forces and the White Army attacked a government garrison and killed 257 SSPDF soldiers. That figure and the alleged link to each defendant are part of the prosecution's case, not findings of guilt. All eight deny the charges.

The underlying violence cannot be dismissed as a mere courtroom invention. UNMISS reported that its evacuation helicopter came under fire in Nasir on 7 March 2025, killing a crew member; several SSPDF personnel, including a general, were killed during the attempted extraction. UNMISS called for an investigation to identify those responsible. That independently documented incident does not establish who planned the earlier attack or whether Machar ordered any crime.

Why Machar and supporters distrust the process: His detention began months before charges were announced; the case involves the country's principal opposition leader during an unsettled peace transition; and the defence disputes the court's jurisdiction, access rules and the authenticity of some digital evidence. Human Rights Watch has raised due-process concerns and urged an independent, fair and public trial. Machar also alleges threats to defendants and lawyers; the court has taken steps during an investigation into those allegations, which have not been proven.

The court and prosecution have responses that must be included. At its 119th session, the court said it had not removed the defendants' chosen lawyers and rejected a defence application on that issue. It also dismissed a prosecution counter-application, showing that an adverse ruling for one side does not by itself prove bias. The state maintains that serious crimes in Nasir require accountability.

Analysis: A trial can concern real crimes and still be vulnerable to political interference or procedural unfairness. Conversely, the fact that Machar is a political rival and disputes rulings does not establish that the charges are fabricated. A credible verdict depends on testing each defendant's alleged conduct against admissible evidence, with equal access for defence counsel, transparent reasons for rulings and independent observation.

Some supporters allege that the Juba government deliberately engineered the Nasir confrontation. No independently verified evidence reviewed for this article establishes that allegation. It should be reported as an allegation, with the person and evidence behind it identified, rather than as the newsroom's conclusion. The origin of the fighting, command decisions on all sides, the helicopter attack and any subsequent government bombardment each require investigation; responsibility for one event cannot simply be inferred from another.

The next hearing is scheduled for 14 October. Before then, the public deserves the court's written reasons for disputed rulings, a clear explanation of the private advocates' roles, an independently testable account of digital evidence, and access for impartial trial observers. Justice for victims and due process for defendants are both necessary to protect the peace process.

Sources: Radio Tamazuj's report of Machar's 7 October testimony; Radio Tamazuj on the court's 2 October rulings; UNMISS statement on the Nasir helicopter attack; Human Rights Watch on due-process concerns; Eye Radio on contested digital evidence.