Judicial Reform in Sudan: A Foundational Vision for an Integrated Justice System in the Post-War Period

Dr Awad Alhassan Alnoor
(Former Judge)

Introduction
The University of Khartoum established several committees to support reconstruction, including a Judicial Committee chaired by, and comprising, a considerable number of experts representing different schools of thought and professional backgrounds. These included former Chief Justices, former Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General, university professors, judges, lawyers, legal advisers and specialists in various legal fields.
Over several months, the Committee produced papers and recommendations. Given the objective circumstances surrounding Sudan, and so that these important recommendations are not lost, I sought permission to publish a summary of the papers and recommendations in order to expose them to discussion by a wider audience. They may also help the State make decisions or convene a comprehensive national justice conference.
Recent developments have included the formation of the Constitutional Court. I have also had a few additional ideas. I have also noted media reports on the Judiciary’s engagement with the Ministry of Communications, as well as proposals submitted by the Minister of Justice on legislation, including digital transformation. I drew all such information from media reports.
The papers submitted addressed the crisis of Sudan’s justice system in light of the consequences of the war that has continued since April 2023. They present a comprehensive reform vision, diagnose negative features within justice institutions—features that are nevertheless capable of development—and analyse the effects of technological underdevelopment on case delays and training. They also discuss the relationship between the Public Prosecution and the Police, and examine the role of case management as a central mechanism for accelerating litigation and reducing the burden on judges, while taking into account the current constitutional context concerning the appointment of Constitutional Court judges. The papers conclude with constitutional proposals and practical recommendations open to discussion.
Important note: Under Sudan’s successive constitutions, including the 2019 Constitutional Document and its amendments, one factor complicating reform in the justice institutions is that most fall under the authority of the Sovereignty Council or the Presidency, making communication difficult under the prevailing circumstances. By fortunate coincidence, I found in one of the WhatsApp groups the Sovereignty Council Adviser, Mr Amjad Fareed, who does not object to being contacted. I thank him and hope he will read these articles.
Keywords: Judicial reform; Supreme Judicial Council; judicial independence; Public Prosecution; Constitutional Court; training; legal education; transitional justice; case management; digital transformation; Sudan.
First: Introduction
Sudan is experiencing a structural crisis in its justice system that has accumulated over time. It has manifested in weak justice institutions—including the judiciary, the prosecution, and the legal profession—weak legal education, technological underdevelopment, the absence of transitional justice, and a loss of confidence in public institutions.
This crisis has been further aggravated by the war that has continued since April 2023, which has destroyed infrastructure, displaced professional staff and intensified violations.
This article, and the articles that will follow, God willing, form part of the post-war reconstruction initiative. Drawing upon the work of the Judicial Committee, they seek to present an integrated vision that lays constitutional, institutional and technological foundations for reforming the justice system. The purpose is to submit this vision to an inclusive national debate through summaries of the papers and the presentation of their recommendations.
In the context of hopes for reconstruction and the return of modernised justice institutions, and without engaging at the outset in a detailed discussion of the system’s shortcomings, I believe it appropriate to begin with a brief presentation of certain issues before moving into greater detail and presenting specific recommendations.
From Reconstruction to Digital Justice
The war in Sudan has imposed unprecedented challenges upon the institutions of justice. Infrastructure has been damaged, some courts, prosecution offices and legal services have ceased operating, and portions of files and records have been lost or damaged. There has also been widespread displacement of citizens and public-sector employees.
As reconstruction begins to be considered, an important opportunity emerges—not merely to restore institutions to their previous condition, but to modernise how justice itself is administered, using technology, remote working, and carefully regulated partnerships with the private sector.
The aim is not to replace traditional justice with technology, but to use technology to facilitate access to justice, reduce administrative burdens, protect rights and documents, and allow leaders and staff to devote more time to functions requiring expertise, planning and decision-making.
Modern Administration That Preserves Institutional Time
One well-known challenge of public administration is that a substantial proportion of senior officials’ and staff time is consumed by meetings, correspondence, signatures, and monitoring daily transactions.
This phenomenon is not confined to any particular institution or individual. Rather, it is associated with traditional administrative systems based on paper records, centralised decision-making and weak delegation.
Digital transformation, administrative delegation and performance-monitoring systems can transfer many of these functions to their appropriate institutional levels. This would enable the leadership of the Judiciary, the Public Prosecution and the Ministry of Justice to devote a greater proportion of their efforts to planning, development, training, legislation, reconstruction and digital transformation, each within the limits of its respective mandate and independence.
Successful institutional reform is not measured by the number of transactions that reach the highest level of an institution, but by the system’s ability to complete them at the appropriate level, efficiently and transparently, without the need for exceptional intervention.
Managing Cases Rather Than Managing Paper
One of the most important elements of reform is establishing an integrated electronic case-management system, beginning when a claim is filed and continuing until the judgment has been enforced and the file archived.
This would include, in summary, registering and electronically numbering cases; identifying the competent court; paying fees; submitting documents and pleadings; service and notification; scheduling hearings; monitoring deadlines; recording decisions and judgments; appeals and enforcement; and final archiving.
Electronic case management would make it possible to determine the location and stage of every case, the time it has taken, and the reasons for delay. It would also generate accurate statistics to help allocate work, judges, and staff according to the actual volume of cases. In this way, the administration of justice would move from merely tracking files to managing the entire life cycle of a case.
A National Project for Remote Litigation
A national programme for remote litigation and digital justice services could become one of Sudan’s principal reconstruction projects after the war.
A litigant’s physical presence in a court building should not be the only means of completing every procedure that can safely and securely be carried out electronically.
Subject to safeguards established by law, the system could permit filing cases and applications, paying fees, submitting pleadings and documents, electronic service, case monitoring, access to judgments and certificates, and conducting certain hearings remotely where the nature of the proceedings permits.
Remote litigation does not mean abolishing traditional courts. Rather, it provides an additional route to justice—an option of particular importance in a geographically vast country affected by displacement and movement difficulties.
The Public Prosecution and the Digital Criminal File
The project should extend to the Public Prosecution by establishing an electronic system for managing criminal reports, investigations, and case files, while taking into account the particular nature, confidentiality, and procedural safeguards of criminal investigations.
Such a system would facilitate monitoring a criminal report from the moment it is registered, identify the procedures taken, track deadlines, periods of detention, assignments, and decisions, and provide the statistics needed to formulate criminal policy and allocate prosecutors according to workload.
Digital Archiving and the Protection of the Memory of Justice
The war has painfully demonstrated the dangers of relying on a single paper copy of a document or file. Digital archiving should therefore become a national project running in parallel with the reconstruction of courts and prosecution offices.
This should begin with an inventory of existing files, records and notarised documents, followed by their digitisation and indexing, the creation of secure backup copies in more than one location, and the development of legal and technical procedures for reconstructing files that have been lost or damaged, wherever possible.
Reconstructing a court building is important, but protecting the court’s memory and the rights of citizens contained in its files is no less important than rebuilding the physical structure itself.
Notarisation and Digital Justice Services
Digitalisation can also extend to services whose nature permits it, such as certain notarisation and authentication procedures, applications for copies and certificates, electronic verification of document authenticity, appointment booking, and fee payment.
This must be accompanied by a reliable system for identity verification, electronic signatures and data protection, so that digital documents enjoy clearly defined legal validity.
Private-Sector Partnerships
The cost of building such a system may be substantial, and the State need not undertake every technical component itself.
Subject to precise contractual arrangements and strict safeguards, the private sector could participate in developing technological infrastructure, software, communications, electronic payments, scanning and indexing, archiving, maintenance, and training.
It could also be licensed to establish justice service centres to help citizens—particularly in areas where digital services remain limited—file applications and claims, scan documents, pay fees, monitor procedures, and use the communications facilities required to attend remote hearings.
Such centres could expand access to justice while simultaneously creating opportunities for investment and employment.
However, any such partnership must rest upon a clear principle: technical support services may be entrusted to the private sector, but judicial or prosecutorial authority, investigation and judicial or prosecutorial decision-making may not be outsourced to it.
Ownership of judicial, prosecutorial and notarisation data, and the State’s sovereignty over such data, must remain fully protected, subject to stringent rules governing confidentiality, cybersecurity and accountability.
Training as Part of Reconstruction
Digital transformation cannot be achieved simply by purchasing equipment and software. The most important investment remains investment in people.
Continuous training should therefore become an integral part of the professional system for judges, prosecutors, legal advisers and administrative staff. Alongside legal training, it should include case management, electronic litigation, digital evidence, cybersecurity and the use of artificial intelligence within professionally and legally established limits.
Sudanese expertise inside and outside the country can also be utilised through remote training, turning the geographical dispersion of Sudanese professionals into an opportunity for knowledge transfer.
Legislation Before Expansion
This system requires a clear legislative foundation. Technology alone cannot create legal validity for electronic service, signatures or digital case files.
It would therefore be appropriate to prepare comprehensive legislation governing remote litigation and digital justice services. Such legislation should define the legal validity of electronic documents, electronic service, signatures, digital-file management, remote hearings, data protection, archiving, the licensing of service centres, and the role and responsibilities of the private sector.
Implementation could begin gradually in selected courts and prosecution offices, followed by evaluation before nationwide expansion, rather than attempting a comprehensive transformation in a single step.
Reconstruction as an Opportunity for Modernisation
Reconstructing justice after the war should not mean merely rebuilding offices, courtrooms and paper files in their previous form. It is an opportunity to create a system that combines the physical court and the digital court, direct services and remote services, State responsibility and private-sector capacity, and technology, legislation and training.
Such a vision could reduce administrative and routine burdens across justice institutions and redirect more time and expertise to their core functions: adjudication, investigation, legislation, planning and development.
The success of this transformation, however, cannot be achieved merely by enacting legislation on remote litigation, establishing electronic platforms or digitising files. People remain at the centre of the justice system. The best technologies and laws will not achieve their purposes unless judges, prosecutors, legal advisers, and employees are capable of using them and keeping pace with legal and technological developments.
For this reason, justice administration reform and digital transformation are closely linked to another equally important issue: rebuilding Sudan’s judicial and legal training system, so continuous and specialised training becomes part of the profession itself. This should include judges, prosecutors, legal advisers, and all other personnel within the justice system, drawing on both in-person and remote training and on Sudanese expertise inside and outside the country.
This issue—requiring examination of the training institution, its independence and governance, specialisation, continuous training, its relationship with evaluation and promotion, the role of technology and artificial intelligence, and lessons from comparative experience—deserves separate treatment.
It will therefore be the subject of the second article in this series:
“Judicial and Legal Training and the Reconstruction of Institutional Capacity in Sudan after the War.”
Digital transformation without training may transfer old shortcomings into an electronic environment, while training without institutional reform may produce knowledge that finds no path to practical application. Modern administration, remote litigation, digital archiving, legislation and continuous training are therefore not separate projects, but interconnected components of a single endeavour to rebuild a State governed by the rule of law.
The ultimate objective is for citizens to reach justice by the easiest, safest, and most reliable means; for their rights and documents to remain protected regardless of changes in location or difficulties in accessing a physical building; and for justice institutions to have the human and technological capacity required to continue operating and developing.
Reconstructing justice in Sudan is not merely about restoring what once existed, but about building what ought to exist.
I also hope that, given the existence of the Judicial and Legal Sciences Institute in Sudan—which is attached to the Presidency and has a council comprising the leaders of the justice institutions, and which has reportedly been subjected to burning and looting—the Chairman of the Sovereignty Council, accompanied by the leaders of these institutions, will visit this important institution and oversee its reconstruction. We can then, God willing, discuss its anticipated role.
Conclusion
I realise that merely reading this article will raise major and complex questions—questions that have been debated throughout history—between those who hold firmly to the old system, including what they regard as sacred or even obsolete, and those who may consider such proposals a luxury in circumstances where basic infrastructure, including electricity, is lacking.
Nevertheless, in my view, it is necessary to examine the experiences of other countries, particularly those with which we once believed ourselves to be keeping pace; to consider the impact of this war; to reflect on the documents and rights that have been lost; and to ask what might have been preserved had automation and other systems been in place, particularly given the relative ease with which technological development and training can now be pursued.
This summary is also insufficient because of the diversity of the papers and perspectives involved. The full papers submitted should therefore be examined so they can be supplemented, developed, and critically assessed.
Judicial reform in Sudan is not merely a matter of amending laws. It is a foundational national project requiring inclusive dialogue, political will, investment in human resources and technology, and active public participation. The success of this project is the true guarantee of the rule of law, State stability, investment attraction and the achievement of the justice that the Sudanese people deserve.
Towards a pioneering Sudanese justice system—independent, capable and integrated—one that restores confidence in the State, safeguards sovereignty and shapes the future.
And God is the Giver of Success.
** A summary and reflections in light of the work undertaken by the Judicial Committee established under the University of Khartoum’s Reconstruction Committees.
Article One

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=17287