When the App Goes Down… Who Pays the Price? Towards an Integrated Electronic Payments System

Noaman Yousif Mohammed
Electronic payments in Sudan are no longer an optional service citizens use at will. They have become part of everyday life: bus fares, a cup of tea, coffee, vegetables, milk, restaurants, cafés, and wholesale and retail transactions. All of these can now be carried out electronically, and some may be worth no more than one thousand, three thousand or five thousand Sudanese pounds. With cash in short supply, the mobile phone has become, for many people, something akin to a wallet.
But what happens when that wallet stops working?
An Hour and a Half Because of a Suspended App
A few days ago, I witnessed an incident on public transport. A number of passengers tried to pay their fares electronically through one of the apps, but the application remained stuck. They tried again and again, waiting without success.
The fare collector wanted to collect the fare, while the passenger insisted that the money was available in his account but that he could not access it at that particular moment. Tension built, followed by arguments between some passengers and the driver’s assistant, and the bus remained stationary for long periods.
Some passengers paid cash on behalf of others so the journey could continue, while others politely apologised, took the collector’s account number, and promised to transfer the fare later when the app was working again.
The immediate result was simple, but its significance was important: the fares of ten passengers could not be collected at the time, and the journey was extended by about an hour and a half.
The incident may seem trivial, but it reveals a much larger problem: we have moved citizens from cash to electronic payments, but have we built a system that guarantees they can pay when one of its links fails?
The Problem Is Not the App
Any application can malfunction, and no technological system is completely immune to failure. But the real problem is not that an application stopped working. The problem is that a single channel failure halted the transaction.
The app is not the payment system; it is merely a channel for accessing money. The system itself includes banks, telecommunications networks, payment service providers, switches, settlement systems, alternative payment channels, risk management and business continuity arrangements.
This direction has already begun to emerge in Sudanese banking regulation. The Central Bank of Sudan has taken steps to regulate connectivity between banking applications, transfers between them, and USSD services, reflecting the importance of expanding and linking payment channels.
What is needed now, however, is to move from regulating individual channels to building a system that can keep operating when one channel fails.
Sudan Does Not Need One App… It Needs One System
The question we should be asking is not: Which app is better?
It is: How can citizens make payments regardless of which channel is available to them?
This represents an important shift in thinking.
If the app goes down, there should be another channel. If the internet connection is lost, the transaction should not have to stop. If a citizen does not have a smartphone, an appropriate payment method should still be available. And if a transaction fails, there should be a clear mechanism to confirm, reconcile, and settle it.
In other words: multiple channels for the citizen, one system behind them.
How Could the System Work?
A practical and simple model for everyday low-value payments could be built around the integration of four principal channels:
Banking applications and electronic wallets would be the customer’s normal channel.
QR codes would provide a fast, low-cost payment method for retailers, public transport operators, and small businesses.
USSD would provide an important channel where there is no internet connection or no smartphone.
POS terminals would provide a practical option for public transport, markets and shops.
However, these channels matter not for their own sake. It lies in their being connected to an interoperable payment, settlement and reconciliation system that allows the service to continue and transactions to move between channels when necessary.
If the app fails on a bus, the fare should not fail with it.
If the internet goes down, USSD can be used.
If QR payment is unavailable, POS can be used.
If the payer and recipient bank with different institutions, the interoperable payment system should handle routing and settlement.
What Happens When It Does Not Work?
Here, the question must change from “Does the system work?” to “What happens when it does not work?”
If the app fails, USSD should provide an alternative for continuing small payments.
If the app fails, QR should provide an alternative for continuing payments on public transport and at retail outlets.
If the app or QR fails, POS should provide an alternative for continuing payments on public transport and in markets.
If the internet fails, USSD should allow the service to continue when mobile data is unavailable.
If a transaction fails, a reference number and reconciliation mechanism should minimise disputes.
In the event of a temporary outage, subsequent settlement and reconciliation should protect all parties’ rights.
These alternatives are not a technological luxury. As the economy becomes increasingly dependent on electronic payments, service continuity becomes essential infrastructure.
USSD Is More Than Just a Backup
USSD is particularly important in Sudan because it doesn’t depend on the internet or require a smartphone. It should therefore not be viewed merely as a temporary solution when applications fail, but as a core channel for financial access and continuity.
A passenger standing on a bus while an app is not working should not have to wait for half an hour. If the system is properly integrated, the passenger can switch to another channel and complete the transaction quickly.
This is where technology becomes a service to the citizen, rather than the citizen becoming a captive of technology.
QR, POS and Contactless Payments: Simple Tools for a Large Economy
A vast range of small, everyday transactions happens in markets, on public transport, in restaurants, and at various points of sale.
Clear QR codes could be displayed on buses and at tea and coffee stalls, vegetable and milk vendors, restaurants and cafés, allowing customers to pay directly from their phones.
The use of POS terminals and contactless payment methods could also be expanded, including NFC-based solutions, at locations that require a fast, on-site payment method.
The objective is not necessarily to deploy complex or expensive equipment, but to use solutions suited to the nature and value of the transaction and the needs of the trader or fare collector.
If a transaction is worth one thousand or three thousand Sudanese pounds, the cost of processing, confirming and reconciling it should be proportionate to its value.
The success of digital payments should therefore not be measured simply by the number of devices or applications, but by their ability to make small transactions faster, easier, less costly and more traceable.
Interoperability: The Era of “Send It to My App” Must End
One of the major obstacles to the spread of electronic payments is when a citizen has to ask, “Do you have this particular app?”
Interoperability should move us towards a different reality: I pay from my account, you receive the money in yours, and the system takes care of the rest.
A trader should not have to carry several devices simply because they deal with more than one bank, and a passenger should not have to search for the app the fare collector accepts.
The success of interoperability is not measured by the number of technical agreements between institutions, but by what citizens experience on the street:
Can they pay easily to any recipient, regardless of which institution that recipient uses?
Settlement… The Part the Citizen Does Not See
When the words “Payment successful” appear on a mobile phone screen, important processes begin behind the scenes involving the payer’s bank, the recipient’s bank, the service provider, the switch, the telecommunications network and the settlement system.
The stability of electronic payments therefore depends on much more than the application interface. Liquidity, settlement, reconciliation, and the processing of pending or failed transactions must be managed effectively, so a technical problem does not turn into a financial dispute between a citizen and a trader, or between two banks.
We also need to change how we measure electronic payment success. It is not enough to say that we have a large number of users or transactions. What matters is knowing:
What percentage of transactions succeed on the first attempt?
How long does a transaction take?
How many transactions fail?
What are the reasons for failure?
How often does a customer have to try again?
How many transactions are successfully transferred to an alternative channel?
How long do settlement and reconciliation take?
These indicators could form the basis of a national electronic payment quality index.
Citizens do not care about the number of servers or the complexity of the technical infrastructure. What matters is being able to pay when they need to pay.
NIPS: An Opportunity to Build National Infrastructure
In August 2026, the Central Bank of Sudan announced the launch of a project for the National Instant Payment System (NIPS), reflecting the move towards developing national infrastructure for instant payments.
The project should not be seen as just another new technology project. More importantly, it should form part of a national infrastructure that delivers interoperability, supports instant payments, provides a foundation for service continuity and expands the use of electronic payments.
The principle that should guide this development is simple:
The channels are multiple… but the system is one.
From electronic payments to reliable payments.
Sudan does not merely need more payment applications.
It needs a system that makes payments more reliable and resilient.
The real transformation should not be measured simply by the number of payment applications launched, but by citizens’ ability to access and use their money when they need it, even when one of the channels fails.
The bus incident demonstrated in practical terms that an application failure can, within minutes, turn into delays, disputes, lost time and difficulties in collecting revenue.
In an economy that is increasingly dependent on electronic payments, this issue goes beyond the application itself. Money sitting in an account cannot perform its economic function unless the system can move it securely, quickly and at the right time.
The next phase must therefore move us from merely having electronic payments to having reliable payments.
Citizens do not need to know the name of the switch, the type of system, or where the database is located. They want something simple:
They want to pay—and for life to continue.
Former Banker – Institutional Development Consultant.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=18582