On the Apology of the National Islamic Movement to the Sudanese People

By: Othman Jalal

(1)
Was the Salvation Revolution—the June 30, 1989 coup—an “historic sin” that warrants an apology?
The memorandum issued by the Sudanese Armed Forces’ Command in February 1989 effectively ended Sudan’s Third Democratic Experiment (1986–1989). In the aftermath, three ideologically conflicting forces raced to seize power: the leftist faction within the army; the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) led by John Garang, which sought to uproot Sudan’s Arab-Islamic identity and erase its Arab component—much like the Christian coalition led by King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile expelled Muslims and Arabs from Andalusia; and finally, the Islamic Movement’s military wing.
Thus emerged the National Salvation Revolution of June 30, 1989—a project to rescue Sudan from cultural, political, and national disintegration.

(2)
From 1989 to 2019, the Salvation regime represented a comprehensive civilizational resurgence, beginning with intellectual reconstruction through a focus on human development as the cornerstone of progress.
It launched a revolution in general and higher education, liberating Sudanese minds from sectarian loyalties that sanctified hereditary leaders, redirecting allegiance toward ideas and institutional politics instead.
The regime also fostered a culture of community governance through the federal system, empowering citizens at neighborhood, local, and state levels, all the way to the national parliament.
Graduates of this educational renaissance went on to lead key national projects: the telecommunications revolution, extensive road networks, bridges, airports, the oil and petroleum industries, and the establishment of the Giad Industrial City and a robust defense industry capable of producing everything from bullets to tanks and aircraft.
Sudanese talent also contributed to the Gulf’s economic renaissance and left an indelible mark on Europe and the United States, enriching modern global civilization.

(3)
Throughout its long history, Sudanese civilization has undergone successive transformative waves—each leaving a structural imprint on the nation’s identity, culture, and progress: from the ancient Kushite and Meroitic kingdoms, to the Christian states led by Alwa, to the Islamic kingdoms of Sennar and Darfur, and finally, the modern revival during the Turco-Egyptian and Anglo-Egyptian periods.
Within this continuum, the experience of the National Islamic Movement in power constituted the most recent great civilizational wave in Sudan’s history.

(4)
The apology owed by the Islamic Movement to the Sudanese people lies in acknowledging that the Salvation regime’s early achievements in modernization and development were possible only through unity between the movement and the Sudanese public.
However, the movement later fragmented into rival parties and groups, withdrew from society, and reduced governance to a pursuit of personal gain. In doing so, it alienated itself from the people and sought legitimacy from foreign powers hostile to Sudan’s statehood and civilizational identity.

(5)
The apology owed by the National Congress Party is an admission that the so-called “revolutionary uprising” of December 2018—culminating in the April 15, 2023 war—was in fact one of the most sophisticated acts of infiltration and deception, targeting both the ruling party and Sudanese state institutions through the instruments of the Zionist project and its regional and international proxies.
Today, the unity between the grassroots of the Islamic Movement, the Sudanese Armed Forces, and the wider public in the “Battle of Dignity” marks a confident new beginning. It signals the emergence of a new generation of Islamic leaders capable of rebuilding trust between the movement and society—until Islam becomes organically embedded in the nation’s social fabric, like a Sufi dissolved in worship.
Only then can Sudan aspire to genuine leadership under a sustainable democratic order.