Author: Obaj Okuj | Published: 2 hours ago | Analysis & Context by Expert Editor
The late Gen. David Majur is seen here being carried to a UN helicopter for evacuation during the intense March 2025 fighting. These are his last known images; he later succumbed to his injuries. FILE PHOTO
JUBA, South Sudan (Eye Radio) — The 31st session of the Special Court trying suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar and seven co-accused on Monday, December 15, centered on visceral, firsthand accounts of the fierce March 2025 clashes near the Nasir SSPDF barracks. The testimony provided not just a timeline of events, but a rare, ground-level view of the tactics, human cost, and alleged command failures that define this pivotal case.
The session’s focal point was SSPDF Captain Joseph Malong Akot, the third eyewitness, whose harrowing narrative of being trapped for six days in a disabled armored personnel carrier (APC) under constant fire offered the court a powerful illustration of the conflict’s brutality. His account moves beyond mere chronology to expose the psychological and logistical realities of modern asymmetric warfare in South Sudan.
Deconstructing the Attack: From Standby to Siege
Captain Malong testified that the crisis was preceded by escalating tensions in late February, with the late Gen. David Majur placing forces on high alert. This context is crucial, suggesting the clashes were not a spontaneous outbreak but the culmination of a deteriorating security situation. The witness described recognizing the March 3rd assault as being led by Tor Gile, a deputy of Kang Makana, whom he identified in an army uniform. This detail is forensically significant for the prosecution, as it attempts to link specific actors and units—allegedly affiliated with the SPLA-IO and White Army—to the direct command structure of the accused.
The attack’s opening salvo was a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG-7) strike that disabled his armored tank. Malong detailed how this forced his unit to fight from within the immobilized vehicle, a tactic of last resort that highlights both the defenders’ desperation and the attackers’ effective use of anti-armor weapons to neutralize superior firepower.
The Six-Day Ordeal: A Microcosm of Systemic Failure
The core of Malong’s testimony was the period from March 5th, when he and his troops were pinned down near an evacuation plane and subsequently trapped inside an APC. His description of six days without water or supplies transcends a simple survival story; it becomes an indictment of broken supply lines, failed communication, and the collapse of standard military rescue protocols in the contested area.
His decision to raise a white T-shirt as a flag of surrender or truce marks a critical juncture—the moment a professional soldier exhausts all combat options. The subsequent evacuation, coordinated via a phone call with UN aircraft, underscores the complete reliance on international actors for basic extraction, raising questions about the SSPDF’s operational capacity in its own territory during the crisis.
Perhaps the most poignant element was Malong’s insistence that his soldiers board the evacuation aircraft before him, citing the principle that “a commander must protect his men first.” This stands in stark contrast to the alleged actions of the high command on trial, implicitly framing the courtroom battle as one between frontline honor and alleged top-level culpability.
Cross-Examination & The Evacuation Coordinator’s Testimony
Under cross-examination by the defense, Captain Malong clarified he did not witness fighting on February 14th, 2025. This careful delineation of direct observation versus hearsay is a key legal battleground, as the defense seeks to limit the scope of actionable evidence.
Earlier, the court continued its cross-examination of the second witness, SSPDF Captain Santino Akol, who supervised the evacuation. His revelation that all coordination with partners like the ICRC and UNMISS was conducted verbally, not in writing, is a critical insight into the informal, and potentially deniable, channels used during the crisis. While he confirmed authoring the official report, the lack of a written trail complicates the establishment of a clear, documented chain of command and responsibility—a point both prosecution and defense will heavily scrutinize.
Broader Implications for the Machar Trial
This testimony does more than recount a battle. It serves the prosecution’s narrative by:
1. Humanizing the Charge: Translating abstract allegations of “command responsibility” into a visceral story of suffering.
2. Establishing Linkage: Attempting to connect field-level attackers (Tor Gile) to broader SPLA-IO structures.
3. Illustrating a Pattern: Painting a picture of coordinated, sustained assault rather than isolated skirmishes.
The defense, led by advocates like Deng John, will likely continue to challenge the witnesses’ direct knowledge of orders from the accused, the precise identification of attackers, and the reliability of memory after traumatic events.
The court has adjourned until December 17th to continue the cross-examination of Captain Malong, where these strategic lines of legal attack and defense will be further drawn.