When Regulations Fall Silent and Justice Cries Out: The Plight of Non-Active Employees in Sudanese Banks

Nu’man Yousif Mohammed
Silence is no longer an option. What is currently unfolding within parts of the Sudanese banking sector, regarding employees who have been unable to report to work due to the war, can no longer be dismissed as mere “administrative confusion”, as some prefer to call it. At its core, it has become a real test of the very idea of justice: is it a principle, or merely a slogan invoked in times of stability and set aside in moments of crisis?
Three Years of Suspension… or Exclusion?
For more than three years, thousands of employees have remained in an anomalous legal and human condition: no salaries, no benefits, no clear decisions, and no explicit legal classification. It is a situation that can only be described as a deliberate suspension of rights—or, more precisely, an “undeclared dismissal”.
The question that inevitably arises is this: on what basis can rights be withheld without a just decision? And by what logic can people’s lives be indefinitely suspended?
Forced Absence… or Selective Interpretation?
These employees did not abandon their posts out of choice; they were forced out by war, displacement, and the collapse of the working environment. Yet, in many cases, they have been treated as though they were voluntarily absent. This is not a minor administrative error—it reflects a deeper flaw in legal interpretation itself, where the concept of force majeure is entirely ignored and replaced by selective readings that serve predetermined decisions.
In the Courts: When Institutions Stand Against Their Employees
Today, the courts are flooded with cases brought by employees—claims for frozen salaries, appeals against implicit decisions, and disputes over employment status. This alone should sound the alarm. When disputes between institutions and their own staff reach the judiciary on such a scale, the issue is no longer individual; it is structural.
Even more troubling than the suspension of rights are the widely reported disparities in recalling certain employees to work while others remain excluded, all in the absence of clear or published criteria. Where standards are absent, suspicion takes hold. And where suspicion grows, trust erodes. It requires little effort for any observer to conclude that a system managed in this way opens the door to arbitrariness, favouritism, and perhaps even more troubling practices—whether acknowledged or not.
What Are the Banks Losing?
Some may view this as merely “crisis management”, but the reality is far more serious. It is a quiet depletion of human capital. Skilled banking professionals—into whom institutions have invested for years—are now being driven towards emigration, withdrawal, or psychological disengagement from their institutions. In time, these institutions will pay a far greater price to rebuild what has been so easily squandered.
The Problem Is Not the War… but What Comes After
Yes, the war is a force majeure. But what is happening now is an administrative choice, not an inevitable consequence of war. There is a significant difference between an institution that manages a crisis and one that shifts its burden onto its victims.
What Is Required Now?
What is needed is not statements of sympathy or superficial reassurance, but clear decisions that explicitly recognise that the absence of these employees was forced, not negligent. The indefinite suspension must end—legally and ethically, it is unacceptable to leave employees in a state of “non-existence”.
This must be followed by transparent criteria for reinstatement, applied equally to all without exception, alongside fair—if even interim—financial remedies that preserve a minimum level of human dignity.
A Necessary Word
The most dangerous outcome of this crisis is not the loss of jobs, but the precedent it risks establishing: that rights can be suspended without just cause, and that justice itself can be indefinitely deferred.
If such a precedent takes hold, it will not only threaten employees—it will undermine the very idea of the institution itself.
In the end, the question will not be: how many employees were absent?
It will be: who did them justice—and who failed them?

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=12471