Digital evidence lacks direct link to accused, Forensic Expert tells Special Court

2026-03-18 - 14:54

JUBA, South Sudan (Eye Radio) – A digital forensic expert testifying in the trial of First Vice President Dr Riek Machar and seven co-accused has told the court that several videos and messages presented as evidence cannot be traced to a specific sender. Calvin Rafhadi, a South African digital forensic expert, made the remarks during the 61st session of the Special Court hearing the case involving Dr Machar and senior members of the SPLM-IO. During cross-examination, lead defence lawyer Dr Geri Raimondo Leggi questioned the process by which the expert was engaged, specifically whether the Government of South Sudan had made an official request to South Africa for forensic services. The court heard that the letter in question was an internal communication from the Directorate of Public Prosecution to the Minister of Justice. Although the prosecution objected to this line of questioning, Presiding Judge James Alala overruled the objection and allowed the witness to respond. Mr. Rafhadi subsequently agreed with the defence’s position regarding the nature of the communication. The expert testified that he submitted his company documents to the South Sudan Embassy in Pretoria in June 2025. He confirmed that he did not see any other bidders and was unaware of how his company, Bizztracrs, was selected for the case. He further noted that he had appointed himself as the lead investigator for the firm. Under questioning, Mr Rafhadi admitted that some of his findings were based on personal analysis rather than direct evidence. He cited a purported transfer of $1,500 linked to the first accused, Mr. Puot Kang, explaining that the conclusion was based on his interpretation of another person’s conversation and was not explicitly shown in the extracted data. The court also heard that several messages presented as evidence were not directly linked to the first accused. The expert stated that while some conversations involved other individuals, they were connected based on phone numbers. However, he admitted he had no confirmation from telecommunications companies or authorities linking those specific numbers to the accused. Regarding key evidence, Mr Rafhadi testified that there was no documentation proving that money was sent by the first accused. He also stated he could not determine the location of the accused at the time certain messages were received. The defense raised further questions about the timeline of the evidence, noting that some images appeared to predate the alleged incident. The expert said he could not confirm the timeline and had relied solely on extracted data. Furthermore, Mr. Rafhadi told the court that several videos used as evidence were found in the first accused’s phone gallery with no information regarding the sender or recipient. The defense challenged the relevance of these videos, describing them as general in nature. Mr. Rafhadi explained that he selected them based on keywords such as “gun” and his own analysis. The court also heard that the expert could not confirm whether the accused was already in custody when some of the videos were allegedly received. The session concluded with the court adjourning the hearing to Wednesday, March 25, 2026, for the continued cross-examination of the forensic expert.