In a Battle of Existence: Positions That Admit No Half Measures

Brigadier (Retd) Omar Mohamed Osman
In the aftermath of the proposal for national reconciliation with the Nimeiri regime in 1977, Al-Sharif Hussein al-Hindi adopted a firm stance of rejection, which exposed him to criticism from both the authority and the opposition. In response, he delivered his well-known statement:
“Let all those who believe we reject reconciliation and national unity read this, and those who believe we are scrambling for power as well. Let the former cast a stone at us, and let the latter cast all the stones they wish. Let history, the future, and the nation be a just judge between them and us.”
This was not merely a passing remark, but a defence of a principled position in the face of two contradictory accusations: rejecting national unity on the one hand, and seeking authority on the other. At its core, it conveyed three clear messages: confidence in the integrity of one’s position, rejection of political point-scoring from all sides, and faith that the ultimate judgment belongs not to the moment, but to history.
Moreover, this statement does not establish a specific stance—whether in favour or against—but rather lays down a deeper principle: that decisions should arise from a free and unencumbered will, guided solely by the interests of the nation, without fear of accusation or hesitation in adopting a position, regardless of its cost.
Today, amid the war that is engulfing Sudan and the sharp polarisation it has produced among political forces and independents, a number of parties, blocs, and individuals have chosen to align themselves clearly with state institutions, foremost among them the armed forces, in confronting the rebellion of the Rapid Support Forces militia, in what is increasingly described as a battle of existence.
Among these figures, the position of Dr Amjad Fareed Al-Tayeb stands out. He moved beyond previous disagreements and transcended known divisions, adopting a clear national stance. He defended Sudan with clarity and courage, and played an active role in dismantling misleading narratives, presenting a model for distinguishing between opposition to a government and opposition to the nation itself.
While many have interpreted his appointment as Adviser to the Chairman of the Sovereignty Council for Political Affairs and External Relations through the lens of this national stance, there is another equally important dimension: the criteria of competence set out in the 2019 Constitutional Document, which stipulates that holders of constitutional positions must demonstrate integrity, competence, qualification, practical experience, and appropriate administrative capabilities. Beyond political contention, his record and experience indicate that he meets these standards convincingly.
Returning to the atmosphere of the 1977 reconciliation, where Imam al-Sadiq accepted it, and Al-Sharif rejected it—without diminishing the patriotism or standing of either—we find ourselves today in a far more complex and dangerous reality, one that calls for raising the roof of sacrifices for the sake of the nation.
In this context, Dr Amjad accepted the appointment and presented a clear national argument, stating:
“I have accepted to bear the responsibility of this assignment in my position, in fulfilment of part of the duty we owe to our nation, in the midst of an existential battle that does not tolerate half positions and leaves no room for manoeuvre.”
This is his position, and this is his effort. It demands respect—whether one agrees or disagrees with it. As Al-Sharif Hussein al-Hindi said:
“Let history, the future, and the الوطن be a just judge between them and us.”

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=12210