A Government That Lets Its People Down

As I See

Adel El-Baz

1

Without question, this is Prime Minister Kamil Idris’s government. I have never seen a government that deliberately undermines its own people and works against their interests in the way this one does. Why does it fail to understand? And how has it come to this? Let me explain.

The government recently took what appeared to be an excellent step toward the 2026–2027 summer agricultural season by announcing the largest government-backed banking initiative since the outbreak of the war. The plan aims to provide farmers with the financing needed to ensure a successful season through a banking finance portfolio worth more than SDG 3 trillion, targeting the cultivation of approximately 33 million feddans.

On the surface, this is welcome news. Unfortunately, it comes far too late—and that is the puzzling part.

Every government knows that preparations for the agricultural season begin in March each year. That is when financing should be made available to allow farmers to prepare their land, import fertilisers, secure seeds, obtain fuel, and complete all other essential agricultural requirements. Yet, despite knowing this, the government repeatedly delays these processes until the end of July, at the height of the rainy season, citing funding shortages.

Why?

It is not because of a lack of information or financial resources. The banks that have now established this financing portfolio, together with the Central Bank of Sudan and the Ministry of Finance, are fully aware of the agricultural calendar. The funds exist.

So why was financing not provided to farmers when they actually needed it?

Is the government unaware that Sudan is facing a severe food shortage, that poverty has reached 82 percent, and that the livelihoods of millions of Sudanese depend on the success of the agricultural season?

Of course it is aware. These are figures issued by the government itself.

Could it really be this negligent?

I find that difficult to believe.

The only explanation that seems to fit is that this government has adopted a policy of self-destruction—at the expense of both itself and the Sudanese people.

2

Aramco—and what a missed opportunity.

The government continues to struggle to stabilise the exchange rate. Every day, the Central Bank injects millions of UAE dirhams into commercial banks. To date, the total has reportedly reached around AED 1.5 billion.

But for how long can this continue?

Is this a permanent solution?

Certainly not.

There are practical alternatives readily available, yet the government has failed to pursue them, once again acting against its own interests and those of the Sudanese people.

President Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan reportedly asked Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to encourage Aramco to supply Sudan with petroleum products under deferred payment arrangements similar to those Saudi Arabia extended to Kenya. Under that arrangement, Kenya was allowed to pay for oil six months after delivery, easing pressure on its foreign exchange reserves and helping stabilise its currency.

Following President Al-Burhan’s request, the Crown Prince reportedly instructed the Saudi Ministry of Energy, which in turn informed Aramco of Sudan’s request.

Only one step remained: for the Sudanese government to send a delegation to Riyadh to meet Aramco officials and finalise the agreement.

It never happened.

Five months have now passed.

Why?

When I asked officials about the delay, their answers were disappointing and contradictory. Some claimed the Sudanese embassy had been unable to secure an appointment. Others said they were waiting for an invitation from Aramco, while still others argued that the initiative should come from the Saudi side.

Meanwhile, the country continues to struggle, the agricultural season approaches, and the government waits for what appears to be a mirage.

One is reminded of the story of South Sudan after shutting down its oil pipeline and then travelling abroad seeking financial assistance. A diplomat reportedly remarked: “It is like cutting off your right hand and then begging with your left.”

How else can such indifference toward an issue that could contribute significantly to exchange-rate stability be interpreted, except as a betrayal of the people the government was entrusted to serve?

3

The pressure is mounting on the Auditor General, yet he remains silent.

Every time another corruption scandal emerges, the public asks the same question: Where is the Auditor General?

Recent examples include the reported looting of trillions of Sudanese pounds from Nilein Bank, the cotton-sector corruption scandal that led to the resignation of Lieutenant General Nasr Al-Din, irregularities involving state-owned banks that allegedly failed to repatriate export proceeds while retaining millions of dollars without financing imports, and the reported loss of USD 150 million only weeks ago due to corrupt officials accused of conspiring against the country’s interests.

All this has occurred while farmers continue to suffer from a lack of financing.

Corrupt companies continue to siphon off public funds, and, according to the author, these matters are documented in reports prepared by the Auditor General. Yet the government has not requested that these reports be made public, thereby exposing itself to mounting accusations of corruption.

Would it not be in the government’s own interest to publish the report, demonstrate transparency, and allow those responsible for wrongdoing to face justice?

Does it make sense for the government to continue operating dozens—perhaps hundreds—of loss-making state-owned companies that drain public resources?

Would it not be better simply to close them? They are commercial enterprises, not social welfare programmes. If they have consistently failed, they should cease operating.

What are people supposed to make of reports that the head of one loss-making state-owned company appointed 22 advisers, each reportedly receiving thousands of dollars while residing in luxury resorts in Egypt, while the company’s director continues to enjoy generous benefits?

At a time when poverty affects 82 percent of the population, how can such extravagance be justified?

Whose interests are being served?

Why would a government willingly tarnish its own reputation in this way?

The only conclusion, in my view, is that it has become a government that continues to fail the very people it is meant to serve.

In the end, Sudan now finds itself confronted with a government whose negligence, complacency, and lack of accountability threaten the country’s future and risk pushing it ever closer to the brink.