Bakri Al Jak: The Constitutional Declaration is reduced to being a mere tool in Al Burhan’s hands

Bakri Al-Jak, the spokesperson for the Civil Democratic Alliance of the Revolutionary Forces in Sudan (Sumoud), stated that the appointment of a Prime Minister in Sudan lacks any constitutional or legal foundation, asserting that the Constitutional Declaration has become a mere “tool” in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan following the October 2021 Coup.

In an interview with (Erem News), Al-Jak shared that this particular step represents an attempt to delude the international community into believing that a political transition is taking place, whilst in reality, an escalation in the intensity of the conflict can be observed on the field, compound with severe societal division.

The spokesperson for (Sumoud) pointed out that the original Constitutional Document, which governed the transitional period, expired (39 months) following the date of its signing. He noted that the amendments introduced by Al-Burhan to the document reduced the Prime Minister’s powers to that of a mere “Executive Secretariat” with no real authority over resources or the management of the country’s affairs.

Furthermore, from a political point of view, Al-Jak explained that this particular development is primarily aimed at improving the regime’s image before the African Union (AU) and regional countries, in an attempt to restore Sudan’s suspended membership. He warned that this “political charade” will not contribute to ending the ongoing war or improving the conditions of citizens, emphasizing that the real solution begins with ending the conflict and launching a comprehensive national dialogue.

The following is the text of the interview:

What are the Constitutional and legal foundations on which Al-Burhan relies in regards to appointing the Prime Minister in Sudan?

Objectively speaking, there is no Constitutional reference any longer in Sudan. The Constitutional Document that led to the recent appointment of Kamil Idris, and which Al-Burhan amended in March of this year, is the result of a revolutionary movement that began in (December 2018). On (April 11th), a Security Committee appointed an officer to command the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Following these developments, people took to the streets until the appointment of Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf was withdrawn, and was followed by the appointment of Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan as head of the Transitional Military Council (TMC).

Throughout the period from April to August, negotiations took place between the political forces represented by the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), leading to the adoption of a Constitutional Document to form a three-year transitional authority. Based on the aforementioned reality, Abdullah Hamdok was appointed Prime Minister and the Transitional Government was then formed.

However, on the (25th of October, 2021), General Al-Burhan carried out a coup, overthrowing the gains of the Constitutional Document, in addition, a number of Constitutional articles were temporarily suspended, and the Sovereignty Council was promptly dissolved. Ever since, the Constitutional Document has been reduced to a mere “plaything” in Al-Burhan’s hands, allowing him to do whatever he wants with it.

Nonetheless, objectively, the Constitutional Document’s term has expired, as it was designed for a period of (39 months). The Juba Peace Agreement (JPA) was a result of the Constitutional Declaration, which granted the government the right to negotiate with Armed Movements, particularly from Darfur. Additionally, the Peace Agreement’s term has also expired, which provides no Constitutional basis. The Document is merely a “piece of paper” with which Al-Burhan can do whatever he wants, claiming it has legal authority.

Furthermore, Al-Burhan amended several articles that made him an absolute “ruler by the command of Allah.” The Prime Minister’s powers are limited to those of an “Executive Secretariat,” with no authority over resources, public funds, or even the management of the country’s affairs.

This paints a very clear picture, conveying that we’re witnessing a major political charade, the goal of which is to distract domestically and send messages abroad. The idea here is to attempt to present the African Union (AU) with the image that Sudan has appointed a civilian government and is now pursuing a democratic civilian transition, so that Sudan can restore its membership in the African Union.

The aforementioned is a plan being implemented by a group of countries in the region, with the assistance of Ramtane Lamamra, the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Sudan. This was rather made obvious, as there were discussions regarding a plan Al-Burhan sent to the UN Secretary-General, attempting to market his intention to form a civilian government and withdraw -confine- the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to Darfur, under the assumption that the Sudanese Army has the inherent right to victory and then negotiations with the Rapid Support Forces can follow.

Nevertheless, this plan has found support from two countries in the region, both of which are putting forth diligent efforts to consolidate it. The appointment of Kamil Idris comes within this context as well, meaning that the appointment is politically motivated and has no connection to the constitutional framework, and there is no constitutional framework in Sudan to begin with.

Does Al-Burhan’s appointment of a Prime Minister conflict with the democratic and transitional principles agreed upon in the Sudanese political documents?

This appointment certainly contradicts the aforementioned principles. If Al-Burhan had wanted a consensus formula that would enable the country to end the war and enter a transitional period, he would have considered a number of issues in this regard, such as stopping the war through a negotiation process that would enable the Sudanese people to overcome their deep wounds and the severe social divisions. He would then launch a Sudanese dialogue under international and regional supervision that would enable the Sudanese to bring their views closer together and agree on a vision for the future.

This is the democratic formula in the absence of any form of elections or mandate. Therefore, this issue has nothing to do with democratic principles and practice recognized in Sudan or the world. What happened was merely a flimsy political farce that will have no positive impact on ending the war, nor even on managing people’s affairs and improving their lives.

How can we assess the position of the international community and local political forces regarding the legitimacy of the Prime Minister’s appointment in the absence of elected institutions?

From a domestic point of view, the position is clear for the vast majority of political forces. The revolutionary forces rejected the appointment, not because it was related to Kamil Idris, but because there is no legal or constitutional reference and no political legitimacy for the de facto authority in Port Sudan.

However, from an international point of view, the Sudanese crisis has become rather complex, in addition, a number of countries have reached a stage where they no longer can viably asses what is right, especially given the current intransigence of the warring parties. Previously, this intransigence was primarily linked to the Sudanese Army, which refused to negotiate.

At the same time, the international community doesn’t want Sudan to reach a stage where a de facto authority maintains the form and Prestige of the State. Therefore, the attempt to appease the Sudanese Army by agreeing to negotiate came at the request of some countries that sent clear messages at the London Conference.

The alliance, which was used to operate under the guise of defending the Sovereignty of State Institutions, insisted that the statement refer to defending the Sovereignty of the State, represented by the de facto authority.

This development was a point of contention with the other Member States, as the latter wished to include the issue of legitimacy in regards to the military. Meaning that the de facto authority wants to define the war as between a legitimate party with a legal constitutional reference and a rebel party with whom future peace negotiations will be held.

This particular equation further complicates the situation and prolongs the war. In my opinion, the international community is divided, at least regionally. Internationally, the position is clear. The United States -for example- doesn’t recognize any party and doesn’t believe any of the warring parties are qualified to govern. Britain, the European Union (EU), and the African Union also have clear positions. Consequently, the issue remains, and it is unlikely that the moment will come when the de facto authority can restore full legitimacy in Sudan.

What are the potential Constitutional and political repercussions of appointing a Prime Minister without parliamentary authorization or broad political consensus?

History repeats itself, and it is a tried and tested issue. This will have no positive impact, including the inability to consult with broad political forces. Ultimately, this appointment was made in an effort to implement orders and instructions and to present a civilian image to the outside world.

However, I don’t believe the political context allows for such measures. On the contrary, the context of war and political developments has moved beyond this stage. Currently, we’re in need of a negotiated project built on a broad popular base and popular consensus. This begins with addressing the severe social divisions amongst the Sudanese people.

Any other formula will remain limited and address only a portion of the divided population. I don’t believe that Mr. Kamil will have the capacity to discuss how to manage the affairs of the people, whether in Kordofan or Darfur, or in the numerous areas that aren’t under the control of the Sudanese Army. Even the areas under its control have become mere arenas for military operations, and everyone is free to bear arms. Hence, its practically impossible for a civilian authority within this context to manage and govern the affairs of the people.

Simply put, the end of the political life is imminent, and it is unlikely to have a positive impact on changing people’s lives and creating a suitable political reality.