Amendments to Sudan's Constitutional Document: A Violation of Agreements and a

 

The Sudanese government has recently approved amendments to the constitutional document, granting extensive powers to army commander General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. This move has sparked widespread controversy both within Sudan and beyond its borders. Legal experts have criticized the amendments, asserting that any changes to the constitutional document require parliamentary approval and the consent of all Sudanese stakeholders—conditions that have not been met—rendering these amendments legally invalid.

The danger of these amendments lies in their blatant violation of the spirit of political consensus that characterized Sudan's transitional period. The constitutional document was originally a product of dialogue among various political and civilian forces in the country. Granting al-Burhan sweeping authority marginalizes other voices in the political arena, deepening divisions and fueling internal conflicts at a time when Sudan desperately needs stability and national unity. This approach does not serve the interests of Sudanese citizens; rather, it appears to benefit the military and a specific group aligned with its leadership, at the expense of the nation’s security and development.

Internationally, observers argue that these amendments are unlikely to gain recognition or legitimacy, as they contradict the agreed-upon constitutional and legal framework. Such a deviation could politically isolate Sudan and complicate its relations with the international community, particularly at a time when the country urgently needs economic and political support to emerge from its successive crises.

On another front, al-Burhan faces accusations of prioritizing the interests of his inner circle over those of the Sudanese people, casting significant doubt on his credibility as a leader capable of steering the country toward stability. His record, coupled with his and the military leadership’s involvement in documented war crimes, further complicates the situation. These crimes, which do not expire under the statute of limitations, remain a stain on his political and military legacy. This reality makes it difficult for Sudanese citizens, as well as the international community, to view him as a unifying figure or a guarantor of peace.

In conclusion, the new amendments to the constitutional document represent a dangerous step that threatens to undermine any hope of achieving a peaceful democratic transition in Sudan. They reflect a unilateral approach that strengthens military authority at the expense of the people, exacerbating crises rather than resolving them. The question remains: Will these amendments mark the beginning of new conflicts, or is there still a chance to correct course and return to the table of national dialogue? The answer hinges on the willingness of Sudanese stakeholders to defend the principles of consensus and justice in the face of this new challenge.