Political Trials

Dr Abdel Azim Hassan – Lawyer

Nothing threatens any state more than turning law from a safeguard for rights and freedoms into an instrument for settling political scores. Since the colonial era, most governments that have ruled Sudan have inherited the practice of using criminal legislation to suppress opponents, at times relying on ministers of justice to propose provisions that justify such abuse.

The irony is that the victims of these laws have, for the most part, not been political leaders or influential figures, but ordinary citizens who pay the price for conflicts over which they have little control. More seriously, people have often conflated opposition to the government with hostility toward the state, even though the state is a broader national and legal entity than any ruling authority. Criticising the government does not necessarily undermine the state or threaten its security. Protecting the nation requires distinguishing between legitimate opposition and actions that threaten its existence and security.

In this context, the amendment to Article 51 of the Criminal Act of 1991, introduced under Decree No. 7 of 2026 and published in the Official Gazette, Issue No. 1982, dated 19 October 2026, raises serious questions about the soundness of the legislative drafting.

The original provision criminalises waging war against the state by military means through the mobilisation of individuals, their training, the gathering of weapons and military equipment, or attempts to undertake such activities, as well as inciting or supporting them.

However, adding the phrase “including publication through electronic and media platforms” to the end of paragraph (a) raises a fundamental problem. It could be interpreted to mean that publication alone constitutes a criminal offence, even when it has no connection to any of the specific acts defined in the provision.

In this way, a means of expression could become a basis for criminal liability for an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the possibility of confiscating property, without sufficient clarity on the connection required between the publication and the criminalised act.

The danger of this amendment lies not only in its defective drafting, but also in its potential to broaden criminal liability to encompass political and media expression, blurring the line between criticising the government and waging war against the state.

The courts must not be left to resolve this defect through interpretation. The legislature, particularly when extremely severe penalties are involved, must ensure that criminal offences are clearly defined.

To combat incitement to hostile acts, the law must clearly specify the prohibited conduct and the conditions under which criminal liability arises.

Accordingly, legal and national responsibility demands that this amendment be repealed and that everyone who proposed it or participated in its enactment offer an apology to the Sudanese people.

Acknowledging a legislative error does not diminish the authority of the state; rather, it strengthens it. A state governed by the rule of law protects the nation without turning the law into a sword hanging over the heads of those who oppose the policies of a government that may itself be causing the greatest harm.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=19337