Land and Hawakeer: From Fuel for Conflict to a Foundation for Building a Productive State

Dr Al-Haytham Al-Kindi Yousif
Dr Al-Haytham Al-Kindi Yousif continues to advance his vision for re-engineering the Sudanese state through what he describes as “interconnected economic federalism”, stressing that any genuine project to rebuild post-war Sudan cannot succeed without a radical solution to the issue of land and hawakeer, which he considers the historical driver of many of the country’s conflicts and civil wars.
The writer argues that Sudan’s crisis is not merely a political struggle over power, but rather the result of a structural imbalance in the management of land and resources since the foundation of the modern state, when historically diverse regions, sultanates and kingdoms were brought together under a central authority without creating any meaningful economic or social balance between them. He points out that colonial rule linked the Nile-centred core to the global economy through projects such as the Gezira Scheme. At the same time, the peripheral regions were left isolated and marginalised, creating fertile ground for later rebellions and armed conflicts.
The article reviews the legal transformations affecting land ownership, beginning with the 1925 Land Settlement and Registration Act and culminating in the 1970 Unregistered Lands Act, which declared most land to be government property and effectively abolished legal recognition of hawakeer and traditional native administration. According to the writer, this shift enabled the allocation of land to investors and elites linked to the centre without regard for the rights of local communities or traditional pastoral routes, thereby turning land into a tool of conflict and tribal mobilisation.
The author proposes an alternative vision that integrates hawakeer and historical communal land rights into the “regional investment funds” he previously advocated as part of his model for a production-based federal system. Under this approach, land would be transformed into revenue-generating capital assets through digital registration and linkage to a unified governance platform designed to prevent manipulation or politically motivated land confiscation.
The proposed framework is based on establishing regional public shareholding companies for natural resources. Under this arrangement, 40 per cent of ownership would be allocated to local communities and region-wide residents, as historical holders of the hawakeer, allowing citizens to receive direct profits and employment opportunities from the exploitation of resources on their land. The remaining 60 per cent would go to the regional investment fund to finance infrastructure, services and local development, while fixed allocations would also be made to the sovereign centre and a national development equalisation fund to ensure fairness among the regions.
The writer stresses the importance of a transitional phase to resolve historical border disputes between hawakeer by involving traditional leaders, tribal elders and native administration structures before embarking on digital registration and mapping processes. He also underlines the need to guarantee pastoral rights and traditional migration routes within an integrated model linking agriculture and livestock production.
To strengthen his argument, the author highlights several international experiences, including Botswana’s “Land Boards”, which combined tribal and state representation in resource management; New Zealand’s integration of customary land ownership into commercial shareholding companies benefiting local communities; Ghana’s constitutional recognition and digitisation of customary lands; and Mexico’s transformation of communal lands into part of national economic value chains.
The article argues that this approach could put an end to chronic economic marginalisation by turning local resources into engines of self-sustaining development rather than leaving regions dependent on central government allocations. It also contends that such a framework would help dismantle the war economy, since former combatants and local communities would become direct beneficiaries of the stability of economic projects and production networks, transforming them from actors in conflict into stakeholders in security and stability.
The writer concludes that Sudan’s future cannot be built on a mentality of spoils and competition over land, but rather through the “capitalisation of resources” and the transformation of citizens into genuine partners in wealth and decision-making. Under this vision, land and hawakeer would become part of an integrated productive system linking Sudan’s regions through interconnected value chains, thereby transforming national unity from a political slogan into a shared economic interest capable of preserving stability and preventing state fragmentation.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=14149