By William Madouk
A lawyer representing dismissed national staff has objected decision by police to grant bond to UAP Managing Director, Japheth Omare Omwero
Marko Reech said the prosecutor’s action was “unlawful.”
Mr. Omwero was arrested on Friday for failing to appear in court and disobeying a court summon.
In a statement to this outlet, lawyer Reech revealed that the defendant was released the same evening.
According to presiding Judge Francis Amum, Mr. Omwero was meant to be detained and presented before him on Wednesday, February 26.
“Today [Saturday] in the morning, I came to check on whether the defendant arrested for defying the court had been presented to someone to appeal before the court,” he said. “However, I found out that he was released yesterday evening by orders from the senior prosecutor, Honorable Latjore, according to the statement from the police.”
Advocate Reech expressed astonishment at the intervention of the public prosecutor in this matter, which he believes undermines the high court’s directives.
“I believe the judiciary is senior to the public prosecutor’s office, and the prosecutor does not have the authority to overturn any court decision,” he explained.
He emphasized that only an appeal to the highest judicial level can nullify a court order, and the prosecutor cannot simply rescind it.
“What I want is to inform the public about the malpractices committed by the UAP management since the beginning of this case; they have been using such tactics to delay proceedings,” he added. “Therefore, it is unlawful for him [the UAP boss] to be outside.”
The court referenced Section 155, Clause 2(a) of the South Sudan Civil Procedure Act of 2007, which grants it the authority to hold a defendant and require them to ensure their presence.
The relevant portion of the Act states, “The Court may, subject to the provisions of Section 171 of this Act, issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant and bring him or her before the Court to show cause why he or she should not give surety for his or her appearance.”
Section 155 further specifies that the court may act if the defendant intends to delay the plaintiff, avoid the court’s process, or obstruct the execution of any decree issued against them.
Marko Reech submitted long-awaited evidence at the beginning of this year, including contracts, wage structures, and justifications for customer terminations.
The court has also allowed the defense counsel to accept or dismiss the case and to present their evidence, which has not yet occurred.
In October of last year, UAP Insurance dismissed at least ten national staff members for demanding improved pay.
This decision by the UAP administration contradicts a directive from the Ministry of Labor, which had called for the reinstatement of the ten dismissed employees.
As a result, the National Staff Association (UNSA) initiated legal action against the insurance firm.
UAP and its national employees have been in conflict over allegations of unfair treatment, specifically regarding pay disparities between national staff and their foreign expatriate colleagues.