Sudan: Civil Opposition Transforms Proposal for ‘Exile Government’ into a Political Mechanism

The Sudanese civil opposition alliance “Taqaddum” has referred issues related to the political process and the withdrawal of legitimacy from the Sudanese government, which has made Port Sudan its capital, by forming an “exile government,” to a new “political mechanism” for further study. This decision came after disagreements within the components of “Taqaddum” that met in “Entebbe,” Uganda, from December 3 to 6.

Abdullah Hamdok, the former Prime Minister and head of the Civil Democratic Forces Coordination (known as “Taqaddum”), stated in his speech at the conclusion of the leadership meeting that many issues were discussed, including the “protection of civilians” in the face of the humanitarian disaster the country is experiencing, the challenge of delivering humanitarian aid to those in need, and addressing the problems of displaced persons and refugees, in addition to political issues.

During the alliance’s meetings, differing viewpoints emerged on several political issues, the most prominent of which was the call for the formation of an “exile government” that would work to strip legitimacy from the “de facto authority,” which has made Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast its alternative capital, and to establish a broad civil front. In this regard, Hamdok explained that the meeting discussed these differences “with transparency and high responsibility, reflecting the spirit and values of the alliance,” ensuring its direction would focus on ending the war, achieving lasting peace, and establishing a civilian democratic system. Hamdok confirmed that the meeting referred discussions on the civil front and the political process, as well as the withdrawal of legitimacy from the October 25, 2021 coup, to the “political mechanism” for further detailed study within the components of “Taqaddum.” He also reiterated the call for unity among their peers in the peace camp and the anti-war camp to achieve the people’s goals of freedom, peace, and justice.

Hamdok urged friendly and neighboring countries, as well as the international community, to exert necessary pressure on the warring parties to declare a ceasefire and expedite the opening of humanitarian corridors based on the Jeddah humanitarian platform’s resolutions. He also called for increasing humanitarian aid to those in need, in proportion to the scale of the disaster, considering it the largest ongoing humanitarian crisis.

The final statement of the meetings emphasized addressing the humanitarian disaster and implementing measures to protect civilians, considering it a top priority. It condemned the grave violations committed by the Rapid Support Forces, the Sudanese Army, and their allied forces against civilians. The statement called for activating mechanisms for international justice and protection to ensure the cessation of crimes, justice for the victims, holding perpetrators accountable, opening humanitarian corridors, and delivering aid. It also decided to form a “special mechanism to follow up on the issues of refugees and displaced persons.”

In this context, the participants called for more effective measures to protect civilians, including developing the proposal for “safe zones,” the withdrawal of warring forces from civilian sites, reducing military presence in populated areas, and halting artillery and airstrikes. The meeting also called on the international community to expand the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to investigate all crimes committed against civilians and to extend the arms embargo in Darfur to cover all of Sudan, which would help shorten the duration of the war.

The meeting concluded that a military solution to Sudan’s crises is impossible, stating: “The April 15 war is complex, with many deep dimensions that must be addressed genuinely and fundamentally so that it becomes Sudan’s last war.” The meeting called for designing a political process that addresses the dimensions of this war and leads to sustainable peace, as well as completing the December revolution’s path. The participants also called on the warring parties to stop targeting civilians, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, and return to negotiations without conditions, prioritizing reason to end the suffering of millions affected by the war. They agreed on what they termed as “ending the state’s hijacking and restoring the legitimacy of the December revolution.” According to the final statement, legitimacy “disappeared from Sudan following the thwarting of the civilian democratic transition process by the October 25, 2021 coup, and since then, legitimacy has been entirely absent from Sudan. No authority with legitimacy has emerged, and the regional and international community suspended Sudan’s membership in the African Union and did not recognize the coup authority.”

They also condemned what they called the “Port Sudan authority’s” use of legitimacy to prolong the war and obstruct peace opportunities, using war as a means to achieve what the coup failed to do, in addition to using false legitimacy to divide the country. This was evident, according to them, in actions such as currency changes, obstructing the delivery of humanitarian aid, depriving citizens of their constitutional rights to official documents and education, and enacting discriminatory laws like the “foreign faces” law.

In a press conference, Taqaddum’s spokesperson, Jaafar Hassan, told journalists that the humanitarian situation has reached its peak, with hunger affecting half of the population, and health services completely unavailable. He mentioned that some gunshot victims’ wounds have become infected due to “lack of medicine and medical care,” warning the warring parties against using humanitarian aid as a tool of war.

For his part, the spokesperson for the alliance, Bakri Al-Jak, clarified that the nature of the war has changed, becoming a “war of revenge.” He stated: “When control of areas changes hands, there is a reaction accusing civilians of collaborating with the losing side. This has happened in every area where control has shifted between the two parties, which is alarming and new in the nature of the war.”

Al-Jak warned of the war turning into “small wars” and confrontations between citizens based on ethnic, regional, and geographical grounds, away from the conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces. He said: “No war lasts as it is for a long time. Any conflict creates internal conditions that change the dynamics of the struggle, and those who ignited the war may not be able to stop it.”