The National Umma Party… A Peg in the Instability of RSF Occupation of Gezira

By: Abdullah Ali Ibrahim

The leader of the Coordination of Progressive Civil Forces “Taqaddum” in Sudan, Yasser Arman, has lamented the “RSF” after its occupation of Gezira in December 2023, and the bad reputation that followed it as a result of its excessive rudeness towards its people. He considered it as if he was poking his eye with his finger, saying, “as if RSF had set a trap for itself by invading Gezira, or had swallowed a trap set by its remnant opponents.” What availed it of an invasion that increased its calamityof his record of violating the humanitarian law of war. However, the loss of “RSF” is a transitive act, as it did not only lose by occupying the Gezira , but the loss also extended to groups of “no to war” advocates who wanted to stand at the same distance from both sides . These violations raised among them the question whether its leaders were still neutral in the war, or had they drifted to the side of “RSF”?
The question led to serious disputes that were deducted from the balance of “RSF” among civilians calling for peace from an independent position. The dispute was renewed in the Unionist Association, a member of the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) and Taqaddum , between its secretariat and a group known as the Leadership Office. The latter issued a statement on the first of this April in which it launched accusations against the secretariat, saying that it had taken strategic decisions outside the institutional path, such as joining “Taqaddum ” alliance without permission from the party, and signing the Declaration of Principles with “RSF” during January 2024 in Addis Ababa in a way that exposed its bia for the “RSF” party in the war.
The statement concluded by freezing the membership of the group in “FFC” itself, not to mention “Taqaddum ” and dismissal of members of the party’s secretariat.
The most influential and dangerous dispute is the one that exploded in the corridors of the National Umma Party. It is the party that is most prolific in “FFC” and “Taqaddum ” and even among all parties. It won 101 seats out of 260 seats in the last democratic elections in 1986, in which it won 38 percent of the Sudanese votes. The “Democratic Unionist” Party, which followed it, won 63 seats, with 30 percent of the votes. The party was established in February 1945 by Abdul-Rahman Al-Mahdi, son of Mohammed Ahmad Al-Mahdi, who founded the Mahdist state in Sudan (1885-1898) before English eliminated it. The strength of the party are the people of the Mahdi’s supporters and their descendants to this day, whom Imam Abdul Rahman succeeded in regrouping after the catastrophe of their defeat through smart and different methods, which the historian Hassan Ahmed Ibrahim provided a lesson in his book about him. This includes using the British’s reconciliation with him after hostility in the 1920s, so that the supporters can mobilize a powerful religious, historical, and political energy. Darfur state, the Ansar’s stronghold, was a closed district for the party. In the 1986 elections, it won 34 of the 29 districts without dispute. He served as prime minister in all three democratic periods in Sudan, except for the period of self-rule (1954-1956).
The crisis erupted within the party following the selection by the RSF on the 25th of last March of members of the party in the civil administration of the state of Gezira , and it began with a “statement to the people” on the 29th of the same month from Mrs. Rabah Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi, daughter of the Mahdi House and a distinguished journalist. And the assistant to the head of the party and the head of its Coordination Council, who edited the biography of her father, Imam Sadiq Al-Mahdi, and his writings in volumes that are still being published.
In her statement, Rabah rejected all formations and administrations, such as the civil “RSF” government, that resulted from the emergency situations since the war of April 15, 2023. She added that, as long as the party opposes this war and seeks to stop it by committing to stand at the same distance from its two sides, then “everyone who joins it or shares in its civil administration and in the measures intended to expand its area, or in deepening the societal division that it has caused, is considered to have violated the party’s decision and is outside its line and represents only himself, and everyone who participated will be referred to the Control and Performance Oversight Authority for investigation and accountability.”
When Rabah sent her statement to be published on the party’s Facebook page and the party’s secretariat refused to publish it, she wrote on March 30 to protest against the blocking of a speech that she wanted to answer questions about the percentage of the party who participated in the “RSF” government on Gezira. It seemed that the party leadership explained to Rabah not publishing her statement that it was issued by an unauthorized party, namely the Coordination Council, as we will see in a later statement, even though Rabah’s statement, which she published on her page, was labeled “National Umma Party.”
In her response to the party, Rabah blamed the party for its departure from neutrality between the parties to the war and its inclination towards “RSF.” She said, “Why did those in charge of the party’s account on Facebook to achieve positive neutrality not take the initiative to disavow our participation in the atrocities of the ‘RSF’ on Gezira through the constituted administration?” It includes some members of the organization,” denouncing the account officials’ refusal to publish her statement under the pretext of the illegality of the meetings held for it, and challenging the party’s neutrality among the parties.
She wondered, “Did the recent statements issued regarding the armed forces’ bombing of El Fasher, or the military intelligence’s arrest of some loved ones, or comments on the statements of Kabbashi (Lieutenant General Shams Al-Din Kabbashi, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces) require legitimate meetings? And why did the page administrators not take the initiative to achieve positive neutrality?” What is required is to issue a statement to condemn the “RSF” shooting of the beloved Political Bureau member Hisham Azaza, while he was defending his land in the village of Azaza, or to condemn the horrific violations in the state of Gezira in general, or at least to disavow our participation in these atrocities through the administration (the civilian government of RSF What is the component and whether it includes some party members?
She added, unequivocally, that the party’s statements contained on its documented page violate its decision to reject the war and take one side from both sides, and that those responsible for it should be referred to party accountability. She added, undaunted, that the statements issued by the party do not represent it and stain its face by remaining silent about one party’s violations and focusing only on the other party’s violations, and that “the day of reckoning for them will soon come, and even then I disavow them.”
In its response to Rabah, the party’s general secretariat refuted the legitimacy of issuing any statement by the Coordination Council while she was its head. The council, according to the party’s constitution, as they say, was established to coordinate among its institutions (the presidency, the political office, the general secretariat, the head of the control body, the head of the central body and its rapporteur), Its responsibility is limited to coordination between the agencies and making emergency decisions in the absence of the Political Bureau. The Council does not convene, according to the party’s secretariat, except at the invitation of the head of the party and in the presence of representatives of the institutions, especially the president, the Political Bureau, and the General Secretariat. Accordingly, the recent meetings of the Coordination Council, according to the General Secretariat, Illegitimate because it was not invited by the Acting Presidenta of the party, and “the institutions of the Political Bureau and the General Secretariat did not participate in it,” in addition to the fact that the Council is not authorized to issue any statements on its part, and therefore the General Secretariat postponed the publication of Rabah’s coordination statement “because it did not pass the institutional frameworks for further Consultation to consolidate institutional work.”
The secretariat denied itself the accusation of bias towards one party over another in the war, saying, “Rabah Al-Sadiq’s talk sidesteps reality and abstract facts, and if it had reviewed the party’s official page, it would have found a number of statements in which violations of the ‘RSF’ were condemned.”
The party’s secretariat stressed that its declared position on the war is binding on everyone, which is not to support any party, and to remain completely neutral between its two parties. In a clear statement, the General Secretariat alerted Rabah that the Secretary-General is the party’s official spokesman and “no statement is issued without the approval of the Acting President and the head of the political bureau.”
We will overcome the clash of the party leadership with state leaders over accusations that they were siding with the “RSF”, which the General Command described as consisting of harassing impersonators. Suffice it here to say that with the entry of voices from the party’s ranks into the conflict, it seemed that the breach would widen.
As for the center level, the good efforts ended with a meeting between the party’s leadership and the Coordination Council between the third and seventh of last March, and there was a debate about the party’s exit from “Taqaddum” or freezing its membership in it. The Secretary-General of the Party, Al-Wathiq Al-Brair, said that they agreed to a compromise solution, which was to prepare the party’s vision for “Taqaddum ” about the reform that would take into account what the Coordination Council was grievanced about without departing from “FFC” or freezing. He added that if they threatened to freeze, it would be reform they wanted, not departure.
The party prepared its reform vision for “Taqaddam”. A delegation from it met with its leader, Abdullah Hamdouk, in Addis Ababa to discuss the details of that reform vision. After mentioning the positives of Taqaddum to this day, the party complained about the predominance of civil society representation (unions, resistance committees, civil society organizations, independent figures) (70 percent) over parties, political forces, and armed movements (30 percent). The remaining complaints about Taqaddum’s performance appeared to have a strong echo of the criticism directed at the party’s leadership by the Coordination Committee and others. The party’s vision of the Addis Ababa agreement between “Taqaddum” and “RSF” on January 2 was to avoid the well-known rules of mediating to resolve conflicts because it concluded in it with a road map with “RSF” for the post-war period, while it should be limited to stopping it, nothing else. The party delegation also took Taqaddum statment that the
“RSF” pledges in Addis Ababa, such as the release of prisoners as paradox, not only was not fulfilled, but was reversed on the ground. The vision alerted to the suspicion that the “Taqaddum” media was biased in favor of “RSF” without calling it “RSF” explicitly. In the conclusion of its “Reform” vision, the “Umma Party” called for complete neutrality between the two sides of the war, and to reconsider the representation of the parties that were dominated by civil society organizations. It stipulated that it should wait two weeks after presenting its vision for “Taqaddam” to then determine it role in it. Two weeks passed to no avail. Perhaps this vision is what is being discussed at a “Taqaddum” meeting being held at the time of writing these lines in Addis Ababa. Here consider the “Umma Party” transferring its differences to “Taqaddum ” and for a while.
Thus, the stigma of the violations of the “RSF” in the state of Gezira was not limited to the “RSF” alone, but it also struck political circles that chose, if they did not choose in one way or another, to remain neutral from it as well as from the army, it is a big gain. But the imposition of “RSF” by terrorizing the people of the safe villages on Gezira is a hot topic in the struggle of the trends in these circles. We saw how the quick and bad reputation of “RSF” on Gezira undermined a party with the prestige of the “Umma Party” above its historical group (Al-Ansar), uprooting the peg that the people had been waiting to anchor to the ground of war.
Were Yasser Arman’s words true when he said that “the RSF invasion of Gezira was a risk in the unknown, as if there it had “set a trap for itself or swallowed a trap set by his remnant opponents?”