By Adia Jildo
The high court in Juba has for the fourth time adjourned the case hearing of controversial self-proclaimed prophet Abraham Chol Maketh and 4 others for unclear authorization from the prosecution team.
The defense lawyer for the 5th accused Deng John said the case had no clarity of who the complainant was and therefore forcing the judges to adjourn the hearing.
“In the law, we want everything clear as you are authorized by the government to represent them in any particular case,” he continued. “The court ruled out that the authorization that was issued by the IGP since it does not mention the name of the complainant in the authorization.”
He said the authorization that was brought before the court was a general authorization.
“We as the defense team we objected the letter of authorization issued by the office of IGP. The IGP is authorized by the law to authorize in the offences related to the government of South Sudan as it was mentioned in the chapter 5 and 6 of the South Sudan penal code act 2008,” he affirmed.
The prosecutor is meant to appear before the court after bringing a clear authorization letter for a cross examination to take place.
Deng Juma, a legal counsel at the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution team said the case was adjourned due to an objection imposed by the defense team on the authorization.
“The court decided to discuss the issue. The session was adjourned and will continue with the complainant with a specific requirement from the complainant to be mentioned in the authorization,” he said.
The plaintiffs include; First accused Abraham Chol Maketh, second accused Daniel Malith, third accused Samuel Mayen, fourth accused James Garang and fifth accused David Chan.
First accused Abraham Chol Maketh was picked from his house in July 2021 after proclaiming that the regime of President Salva Kiir government would come to an end.
The court session was rescheduled for the 27th and 28th for the complainant to be cross examined with a condition that the authorization from the IGP is made clear with the complainant’s name representing the government of South Sudan.