Sudan Between Two Governments?!
Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shiglawy
In a move marking a highly significant political turning point, the Sudanese Sovereignty and Council of Ministers, in a joint meeting in Port Sudan on February 19, 2025, approved amendments to the 2019 Transitional Constitutional Charter, known as the “2025 Amendment.” The accompanying decisions included key legal reforms, such as amendments to the Criminal Procedures Act, Companies Act, and Investment Promotion Act. Additionally, a special committee was formed to study the political implications of Kenya’s recent stance on hosting meetings that support the idea of forming a parallel government in Sudan.
This article seeks to analyze these developments alongside ongoing events in Nairobi, where the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia and their local and regional supporters are exploring a last-minute political repositioning opportunity after being on the verge of losing militarily, aiming to catch up with the political process whose contours are becoming clearer following the African Union’s involvement in resolving the crisis.
The amendments to the constitutional charter have sparked widespread controversy, with the Sudanese government, according to its official spokesperson and Minister of Culture and Information Khalid Al-Ayesar, dismissing them as “inaccurate and unprofessional speculations.” This highlights an emerging tension between political and military forces. Among the most notable reported changes, according to sources close to Al-Sharq, is granting military leaders the authority to nominate and recommend the dismissal of the Sovereignty Council Chairperson, in addition to increasing the council’s membership to nine members.
These amendments reflect a desire to restructure the transitional authority to align with new balances among civilian forces, military elements, and Juba peace agreement parties. However, they also raise questions about their impact on the stability of the transitional process. Increasing the armed forces’ representation may bolster their role in managing the transitional phase but could heighten concerns about growing military influence at the expense of civilian forces. This remains a question to be addressed through the Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue currently taking shape in Addis Ababa, mediated by the African Union.
The confusion surrounding the announcement of these constitutional amendments appears to stem from the government’s attempt to hastily achieve political and media superiority against the backdrop of the mobilization of political forces siding with the militia in Nairobi. The government approved the amendments in a rush before completing consultations with some of its supporting political parties. Therefore, it is now delaying the formal announcement until consultations are completed and necessary adjustments are made to maintain internal unity against potential repercussions.
In any case, the political realism guiding the Sudanese government’s actions—such as granting the Sovereignty Council Chairperson broad powers, including appointing and dismissing the Prime Minister, increasing the council’s membership, and incorporating regional governors into the Cabinet—seems like an effort to restructure authority in favor of centralized decision-making. This may also reflect the Sudanese people’s preference for military leadership in the next phase, given their loss of trust in the deeply divided political parties. Additionally, excluding references to the Forces for Freedom and Change and the Rapid Support Forces from the amended charter is seen as a step toward reinforcing the legitimacy of the government and turning the page on a shameful past.
However, this path raises questions about the government’s ability to reconcile these amendments with the requirements of peace and stability. Against this backdrop, General Al-Burhan’s government emerges as a representative of political realism, relying on military power and popular support on the one hand, and facing a reserved stance from the international community, which is closely monitoring Sudan’s developments without yet declaring a position on Al-Burhan’s measures to manage the transitional phase.
On the other hand, efforts to establish a parallel government backed by the RSF militia and certain political forces represent an attempt to redraw the political landscape. This government is less concerned with executive management and more focused on creating a symbolic entity that grants renewed legitimacy to the militia and its supporters, following near defeat at the hands of the Sudanese army on the battlefield.
The militia now seeks to remain politically relevant by hinting at adopting a potential separatist project in the Darfur region. Establishing a parallel government aims to achieve political gains and advance its agenda, placing it in direct confrontation with the Sudanese government and the international community. However, the militia faces growing international isolation due to its brutal violations against civilians, coupled with domestic and regional opposition to its government, including from the UN Secretary-General and several Arab, African, and Western nations.
Despite the Sudanese government’s firm rejection of any foreign interference that weakens national sovereignty, certain nations, such as Kenya, seem determined to position themselves as mediators in the crisis. This stance places Kenya in a challenging position, as it faces accusations of supporting divisive agendas that serve regional and international interests. According to Sudan News, some Western countries and regional powers have provided logistical and financial support to ensure political meetings leading to the formation of a government-in-exile. Meanwhile, countries like Uganda have opted to distance themselves from these efforts, recognizing the risks of Sudan’s division and its implications for regional stability.
Sudan is approaching a critical stage, where Al-Burhan’s government seeks to establish political stability based on a constitutional framework, popular approval, and cohesive military strength. Meanwhile, the parallel government bets on international and regional support to destabilize this stability and reshape the power map in the country. Amid this complex equation, as we see through the lens of truth, the priority for Sudanese people must be to pursue a unified national path that restores Sudan’s unity and sovereignty. Overcoming political polarization is crucial to keeping the specter of division off the politicians’ agenda.
Wishing you well and in good health.
Friday, February 21, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com
