A Parallel Government – The “Apocrypha Government”

Dr Inas Mohammed Ahmed
To begin with, I extend my greetings, appreciation, and respect to the Sudanese Armed Forces on their 71st anniversary — salutations to its heroic knights and righteous martyrs, and its steadfastness and pride throughout history. It is the symbol of national sovereignty and the safeguard of security and stability. Greetings to its victories throughout its long and distinguished history. May our valiant armed forces be ever victorious by the grace of God, and may our country enjoy safety and prosperity each year.
On the subject of national sovereignty and its protection, we must first understand the concept of sovereignty, which first emerged in Athens, where Greek philosophers grasped its meaning, linked it to governance within the state, and established laws to regulate it. This helped them to recognise organised societies, find methods to resolve disputes between them, and to resort to arbitration as well as form regular armies to defend the state and its sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty remained closely tied to the idea of the state until the modern form of the state became clear. The importance of sovereignty lies in the fact that it is the core element that constitutes and distinguishes a state from other entities.
The idea of sovereignty is associated with the name of the French philosopher Jean Bodin (1530–1596), a political parliamentarian and professor of law, who explained that sovereignty means “the state’s possession of supreme authority not subject to any other internal or external power.” International law, throughout its development, has adopted numerous theories, including the theory of state sovereignty, which has had a significant impact on both international and constitutional law. It is regarded as a fundamental principle in international custom, a turning point in the modern international order, and a prerequisite for a state’s membership in the international community and its organisations. Political factors have certainly influenced the formation of international legal principles, particularly after the Second World War, as the nature of the international community changed with the independence of new states joining international organisations — thus increasing the number of members with recognised sovereignty.
This sovereignty means that international law, the United Nations Charter, the African Union Charter, and the Arab League Charter all prohibit any group, supported by another state, from forming a parallel government to that of a member state of the United Nations, as this constitutes a blatant violation of national sovereignty and contravenes the principle of non-interference in a state’s internal affairs.
Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter enshrines the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Member States, while Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any Member State. Article 2(7) prohibits intervention in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, unless there is a threat to international peace and security — the latter being determined by the United Nations. Similarly, the African Charter affirms respect for Member States and non-interference in their internal affairs, recognising each state’s right to self-determination and to establish its political system without any external interference. Such interference can take many forms — military, political, economic, or diplomatic — or involve a state’s support for a group within another state to form a parallel government, or to back a rebellion for that purpose. The principle of self-determination cannot be invoked here, as it applies to the people themselves to choose their political system without external interference.
Therefore, anyone supporting the creation of a parallel government is in violation of international law and could face sanctions from the United Nations or international and regional organisations, as they are breaching the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states.
Such “Apocrypha” governments lack international legitimacy and are not recognised internationally; therefore, forming a parallel government in Nyala — or elsewhere — will neither have legal legitimacy nor international recognition.
Moreover, the so-called “Tasis Alliance” is inherently fragile and incoherent, plagued by deep internal conflicts and disputes that render it unfit even to form an association, let alone a parallel government. It suffers from a lack of clear vision and defined objectives, and is characterised by blatant competition over positions and spoils alone.
This pitiful “adventure” has found no acceptance among the Sudanese people or the Sudanese political forces, with many viewing it as a poor-pressure tactic of little impact. It was met with international rejection, as reflected in the statements of the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), as well as the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, and several other countries, all rejecting what is referred to as the “Nairobi Declaration.” Once again, Nairobi has failed to learn the lesson!
Has the Nairobi administration felt no shame in the remarks of former Kenyan Vice President Rigathi Gachagua, who directly accused the Kenyan President of involvement in commercial dealings with the militia leader? He revealed that proceeds from Sudanese gold deals had been used to purchase weapons to fuel the war in Sudan, promising to disclose further details of these deals as part of his humanitarian duty, according to his statements. Such remarks carry weight, especially since the terrorist militia and its leaders face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity currently under investigation by the International Criminal Court. Yet Nairobi has, for the third time, indulged the terrorist militia’s ambitions by announcing the “Tasis Alliance” from its soil!
How can a so-called “government” without popular support, without a political or civilian base, without genuine grassroots backing on the ground, and without any geographical control, form any entity — especially in light of the Sudanese Armed Forces’ victories and the support of the Sudanese people who stand firmly beside their army against the terrorist rebel militia and its internal and external backers? This militia has committed genocide, war crimes, rape, forced detention, crimes against humanity, and theft, and has displaced the Sudanese people.
Finally, the decisive UN Security Council statement rejected the establishment of any parallel government in areas under militia control, deeming it a threat to Sudan’s territorial integrity and unity, and a development that risks worsening the conflict. The Council reaffirmed its commitment to supporting Sudan’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity.
These criminals will have no entity and no foothold in our land. The battle continues, and victory comes only from Almighty God.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=6987