Court rejects NSS’s request for adjournment in land dispute case

Lawyer Kiir Chol Deng (Photo: Radio Tamazuj)

A Juba court has rejected the National Security Service’s (NSS) plea to adjourn a longstanding land grabbing case against Lawyer Kiir Chol. Despite a High Court ruling in Chol’s favour last September, the NSS has resisted vacating the disputed property.

A Juba court has rejected the National Security Service’s (NSS) plea to adjourn a longstanding land grabbing case against Lawyer Kiir Chol. Despite a High Court ruling in Chol’s favour last September, the NSS has resisted vacating the disputed property.

The High Court summoned Gen. Akol Koor, Director General of NSS’s Internal Security Bureau (ISB), in early November to explain the continued defiance of the court’s order.

In a recent turn of events, NSS hired a new counsel to handle the case, requesting a month to study it. However, the court dismissed the request and gave the NSS counsel ten days to analyse the case before advising the client.

Kiir Chol Deng, speaking to Radio Tamazuj after the session on Thursday, opposed granting more time to NSS, citing the nearly five-year legal battle. The court’s decision signals a push for resolution in the ongoing dispute.

“The National Security introduced a new counsel who sought a one-month adjournment to study the case with the aim of an amicable resolution. However, we opposed the request, having negotiated with them for nearly five years without progress,” stated Counsel Chol.

He further explained, “We urged the court to either bring the matter to the president’s attention or proceed with forcefully executing the court order. Despite our opposition, the court granted the new counsel 10 days to seek an amicable resolution, a move I doubt. Nevertheless, I respect the court order, and the case has been adjourned until February 13th.”

Expressing skepticism about the new counsel’s intentions, Counsel Chol emphasized, “I’ve been negotiating with National Security for almost five years, and they have shown no readiness to resolve the matter. That’s why I took the matter to court.”