Al-Asjad: When a Coordination Problem Evolves from Export Costs to Financial Sovereignty

By Eng. Muhannad Awad Mahmoud
I have written extensively—almost to the point of exhausting the ink—about the importance of coordination among state institutions. Many of our economic problems have not stemmed from a lack of resources, but rather from the fact that government institutions often operate like isolated islands. Each authority approaches decisions from its own narrow perspective without considering their overall impact on the national economy.
When we previously discussed the taxes and levies imposed on exports, the issue was never whether a particular government body had the right to collect revenue. Rather, it was the absence of coordination between the authority imposing the charges and the institution responsible for assessing their impact on the cost of Sudanese products. After all these financial burdens, can those products still compete in international markets, or are we securing modest revenues today only to forfeit far greater export earnings and foreign exchange tomorrow?
Today, however, we face a far more sensitive and consequential issue. The matter is no longer about the cost of exporting a tonne of sesame, gum arabic or any other commodity. It has moved into an area that touches the very infrastructure of Sudan’s financial system, where technology intersects with banking, data with economic security, and administrative decisions with public confidence in the state and its institutions.
The issue surrounding Al-Asjad Digital Solutions should not be turned into a trial of a company that applied for a licence. In principle, any company or investor has the right to enter the market provided it satisfies the relevant legal and technical requirements. Sudan needs private-sector participation, innovation and financial technology.
The real issue, however, is not the company’s name. It is the methodology by which sovereign decisions are made.
We are confronted with a situation that deserves careful reflection. A licence in a highly sensitive sector was granted, launched with the attendance of senior government officials, and presented to the public as a major step forward in Sudan’s digital transformation. Yet only days later, the very institution that had granted the licence announced its cancellation following a technical and legal review.
Undoubtedly, the courage to review and reverse a decision in light of new information is a positive step that reflects well on the Central Bank of Sudan. Persisting in an error is far more dangerous than correcting it. Nevertheless, one institutional question cannot be ignored: how did the decision reach the stage of public announcement and official launch before these reviews had been completed?
Decisions affecting the state’s financial infrastructure are not ordinary investment decisions. They directly affect confidence, financial stability, service continuity, and the protection of sensitive data.
Digital transformation within the banking sector is no longer optional—it is essential. Sudan genuinely needs to modernise its payment systems, develop electronic banking services, expand financial inclusion, and harness private-sector capabilities.
However, there is a fundamental distinction between allowing companies to provide digital financial services and entrusting them with core components of the national payments infrastructure that connects banks and facilitates the movement of funds.
In many countries, the private sector plays a leading role in financial technology, but it operates within clearly defined governance frameworks that specify responsibilities: Who owns the core infrastructure? Who manages operations? Who controls the data? Who bears responsibility in the event of technical failure or cyberattack?
This is precisely why national institutions such as EBS should be approached from a reform rather than a replacement perspective. Any institution that has accumulated substantial experience in banking infrastructure and electronic payments should be strengthened, evaluated and modernised. At the same time, the door should remain open to competition and innovation.
The right approach is neither to preserve outdated monopolies nor to embrace new entrants without adequate safeguards. Rather, it is to establish a balanced model that protects national sovereignty while benefiting from technological advancement.
The Al-Asjad case therefore exposes a problem that extends far beyond a single licence. It highlights the need to review how decisions are made within sovereign institutions.
Were all the technical risks properly assessed?
Was cybersecurity thoroughly evaluated?
Was the impact on the existing payment infrastructure carefully examined?
Was there effective coordination among banking, technical and security authorities before the project reached the stage of public announcement?
These are not questions of accusation; they are questions about building strong institutions.
In today’s world, money is no longer merely banknotes. It consists of data, networks and digital systems. Control over payment and settlement infrastructure has become an integral component of a nation’s economic power.
From another perspective, the rapid reversal of the decision carries an institutional cost that should not be overlooked. When investors witness a project in a strategic sector being officially launched, only for its licence to be withdrawn days later, they do not focus solely on the final outcome. They also assess the stability and predictability of the procedures that produced both decisions.
Investment requires a regulatory environment that is predictable and governed by clear rules which do not change after a project has already reached the public launch stage.
In countries governed by strong institutions, such events do not end with the cancellation of a decision. Instead, they mark the beginning of a systematic review: Where did the process fail? How can similar failures be prevented in the future?
The Al-Asjad case should therefore not conclude with one side claiming victory over another, nor should it be reduced to a debate about individuals. It should serve as the starting point for deeper reforms in the licensing process, the governance of sovereign decisions, and the relationship between the state and the private sector in the digital economy.
Nations safeguard their future not only by protecting their borders and natural resources but also by safeguarding their institutions, decision-making processes, and data.
In an era in which digital transactions have become the lifeblood of modern economies, any country that fails to govern its financial infrastructure today may find itself tomorrow possessing wealth—but no longer holding the keys to its movement.
If you wish, I can also adapt this into an op-ed style suitable for an international newspaper or a policy paper with a more formal economic and governance tone.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=15565