The Special Court hearing the Nasir Incident case involving suspended First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar and SPLM/A (IO) members saw heated legal arguments over disputed digital forensic evidence, while the court also issued a decisive ruling upholding detainees’ constitutional rights.
The court, sitting for its 52nd session at Freedom Hall, heard testimony from South African national Peter Rafadi Calvin, a digital-forensic expert hired by the government, who appeared as the prosecution’s final witness.
Calvin resubmitted what the defense repeatedly described as a digital forensic report concerning electronic devices seized from SPLM/A-IO detainees, together with six annexed documents.
The attachments included correspondence requesting forensic support and mutual legal assistance, diplomatic communications between South Sudanese ministries and the country’s mission in South Africa, and documents related to the transportation of materials through diplomatic channels.
The prosecution argued that the resubmission addressed earlier concerns raised by the panel after it found the report disorganized and internally inconsistent during the previous session.
Defense counsel strongly objected, singling out one annex linked to the use of a diplomatic bag.
They cited South Africa’s Cybercrime Act of 2020, arguing that the expert lacked jurisdiction to handle the materials and that the entire body of evidence was legally defective and therefore null and void.
According to the defense, the manner in which the data was accessed, transported, and analyzed violated applicable laws and rendered the evidence inadmissible.
The prosecution dismissed the objections as misplaced, premature, and misleading. Prosecutors maintained that the contested document was original and authentic, noting that the defense had not challenged its form or provenance.
They further contended that the South African legislation cited had no bearing on the expert’s testimony before a South Sudanese court.
Beyond the evidentiary dispute, the session produced a significant ruling on detainee treatment.
Responding to a defense petition filed on February 2, the court ordered the National Security Service to immediately stop the practice of forcibly removing detainees’ underwear during searches.
The judges described the practice as degrading and a violation of constitutional rights to dignity and privacy.
The defense had informed the court that detainees were also subjected to additional humiliating measures, including restrictions on clothing, intrusive searches, and the confiscation of personal books and notebooks.
They argued that such treatment went beyond lawful security procedures and amounted to systematic humiliation.
Delivering the ruling, Judge Stephen Simon directed security operatives to adhere strictly to lawful detention standards and to respect the fundamental rights of accused persons.
He ordered the immediate return of confiscated notebooks to allow detainees to take notes during proceedings, while clarifying that searches when entering and leaving the courtroom are lawful but must be conducted with dignity and respect.
Judge Simon further emphasized that while detainees remain subject to rules and regulations while in custody, those rules cannot override constitutional protections.
Following the ruling and the heated exchanges over forensic evidence, the court adjourned proceedings to Friday, February 20, 2026, when the digital-forensic expert is expected to face cross-examination by the defense.
