Can Port Sudan and Nairobi Governments Withstand the Illegitimacy Impasse?

Professor Mekki El Shibly
Executive Director – Mamoun Behairy Center, Khartoum

📌 The incredulous Port Sudan and Nairobi governments suffer from the absence of constitutional legitimacy for both of them, which makes them vulnerable to dire legal and political consequences internally and externally.
📌 The intended Port Sudan government, backed by Lieutenant General Al-Burhan and his allies, is based on the illegal amendment of the 2019 Constitutional Document, which derives its legitimacy from the legitimacy of the December popular revolution after it overthrew the corrupt, authoritarian Salvation government.
📌 The Constitutional Document signed between the Forces of the Declaration of Freedom and Change (FFC) and the Transitional Military Council (TMC) in August 2019 remains the exclusive legitimacy and sole constitutional reference in Sudan, as it emerged from the legitimacy of the December 2018 Revolution. It can only be replaced by a constitution emanating from an electoral reference, after fulfilling all the tasks assigned to the transitional period specified by the Constitutional Document (Article 8).
📌 The Constitutional Document may not be cancelled or amended except by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Legislative Council (Article 78).
📌 The Legislative Council may only be formed by the FFC and the TMC, as stated in the Constitutional Document (Article 24).
📌 Accordingly, whatever the intended Port Sudan government decides is subject to popular and international non-recognition challenges due to its lack of a credible constitutional basis. Hence, it will face the fate of a decision taken by a mere de facto authority.
📌The intended Nairobi “founding” government will suffer from its failure to gain legitimacy and impose the law within secure geographical borders, which forced its supporters to announce the government from abroad rather than through a constitutional process from within Sudan, which made it closer to a government in exile.
📌 Despite the efforts of the alliance supporting the intended Nairobi government to include revolutionary and civil forces to broaden its power base, that alliance did not follow accredited constitutional procedures to establish a constitutional reference based on revolutionary legitimacy, popular referendum, or electoral mandate.
📌 Accordingly, any party can consider the Nairobi government a mere symbolic entity and a diplomatic front for a political alliance lacking executive powers and real influence.
📌 As a result, it is no wonder that the proposal to form a “founding” government from Nairobi has faced regional and international rejection, which constitutes a major obstacle that frustrates any ambition for the Nairobi government to obtain any internal popular recognition, which reduces it to a mere symbolic entity that lacks credibility and reliability.
📌 Accordingly, both the incredulous governments of Port Sudan and Nairobi suffer from a constitutional legitimacy dilemma even if either controls more ground through the raging war or gains some malicious regional support.
📌 The bottom line is that both governments are politically and legally fragile, which leaves Sudan in a deep constitutional vacuum and increases the likelihood of the outbreak of severe chaos, or the search for an alternative third government through an internal consensus between the civilian forces of the December revolution and the military establishment propelled by regional and international backing.

melshibly@hotmail.com