Merging the Ministries of Industry and Trade: Calls to Reverse the Decision

Report by: Rehab Abdullah

Industrialists, economists, and owners of industrial establishments have expressed strong disapproval of the Prime Minister’s decision to merge the Ministries of Industry and Trade. The announcement came as part of the features of the new government he intends to unveil in the coming days.

Broad Rejection

The former Secretary-General of the Federation of Industrial Chambers, Abdulrahman Abbas, rejected the decision by Prime Minister Dr. Kamil Idris to merge the two ministries as part of a package of structural government reforms aimed at reducing spending and simplifying the executive apparatus. He declared their outright rejection of merging the Ministry of Industry with that of Trade.

He called for the separation of the Ministry of Industry from Trade, emphasizing the importance of having an independent Ministry of Industry, as it brings numerous benefits to the state and enhances its industrial status—especially in matters of export. He warned against restricting its role through a merger with the Ministry of Trade, which would render it ineffective. He pointed out that the current phase is one of reconstruction following the destruction caused by the war, particularly in the industrial sector, which requires a developmental vision since industry is the spearhead of national reconstruction.

The Silent Victim

Professor Ahmed Obeid Hassan also criticized the decision, saying that while the political and administrative motivations behind the merger may be understandable, the current status of “industry” in Sudan demands serious reconsideration—especially at a time when long-term developmental vision is required rather than mere reactive responses or downsizing logic.

He added that industry in Sudan is not merely an “economic sector” but rather the backbone of reconstruction, a safeguard for the national economy, a key to addressing unemployment, ensuring social stability, and creating local added value instead of exporting raw materials. From this perspective, he warned that merging the industry portfolio into a commercially-oriented ministry risks diluting its developmental priorities or marginalizing its complex and multifaceted issues in favor of immediate trade concerns—often dictated by daily market needs rather than long-term strategic planning.

He explained that in a country like Sudan, which still heavily depends on raw material exports and imports most of its industrial and consumer needs, industrial revival is a necessity—not a luxury. This revival cannot materialize without a dedicated ministry with a clear industrial identity, equipped with the capacity, human resources, and administrative structure to craft national industrial policies, provide legal and financial frameworks, and coordinate with internal and external stakeholders to establish and develop industrial zones, attract investors, and open markets for Sudanese products.

He pointed out that past attempts to merge the two ministries have failed disastrously—particularly during the post-revolutionary government of 2019, and in earlier governments that treated the Ministry of Industry as a token appointment. In many developing countries, similar mergers have often resulted in industry becoming the “silent victim” of the new ministry—overshadowed by pressing daily trade issues like inflation, commodity prices, currency shortages, and import regulations. In such contexts, key issues like industrial infrastructure development, local manufacturing support, technical training, and factory financing are either sidelined or postponed due to their long-term nature and lack of immediate results.

He stressed that it is a strategic mistake to view the Ministry of Industry as merely an administrative structure that can be eliminated or merged without consequences. Today, it represents a gateway to economic recovery, a pillar of future development, and the voice of industrialists who need a ministry that represents them and professionally addresses their concerns.

He confirmed that maintaining an independent Ministry of Industry is not a political luxury but a national necessity in a phase of economic revival that demands clear vision, focused effort, and flexible policies.

Sudan, in its post-war reconstruction phase, needs an “exceptional Ministry of Industry” in every sense of the word—a ministry to lead structural economic transformation, develop plans to restart halted factories, encourage investment in priority industrial sectors (pharmaceuticals, food, construction materials, and manufacturing), develop human skills, and build integrated local value chains.

He added that if a merger is inevitable at this stage, then logically and strategically, the Ministry of Industry should be merged with the Ministry of Minerals—not Trade. Mining is essentially an industry and faces similar challenges related to infrastructure, environment, finance, and technology. Such a merger could allow for coordinated planning, especially since Sudan has vast mineral wealth that could serve as the basis for local mineral-based industries (e.g., cement, fertilizers, chemicals, light metal industries).

He emphasized that Sudan’s economy urgently needs a leap in production—not just market regulation. Economic history teaches us that nations emerging from war to stability built their economies not merely through trade, but through strong local production supported by a robust national industrial base. Thus, weakening the institutional presence of industry—whether through merger, budget cuts, or reduction in authority—would be a strategic mistake with long-term consequences for the economy.

He concluded that the call to reconsider the decision to merge Industry and Trade is not an objection to administrative reform per se, but a reminder that true reform lies not in reducing the number of ministries but in empowering them with clear mandates, adequate funding, and sufficient authority to achieve developmental impact.

Therefore, it is essential to re-evaluate the decision in light of Sudan’s exceptional circumstances and grant industry its rightful place within the executive structure—either as an independent ministry or as a fully empowered administrative entity within a merged ministry, preserving its name and position within the developmental identity of the state.

Development is not achieved by trade alone—it is built by industry first.

A Disruptive and Hindering Decision

Industrial expert Ahmed Ali Abbas expressed his astonishment—shared by others involved in the industrial sector and thousands of investors, industrial facility owners, and both current and former Ministry of Industry employees—at the Prime Minister’s decision to re-merge the Ministry of Industry with the Ministry of Trade, despite the flaws exposed by previous merger attempts (a reference to the 2019 revolutionary government under Madani Abbas Madani).

He criticized the move to reduce the Ministry of Industry to a mere part of another ministry, especially after the immense destruction and looting that devastated the industrial sector and its infrastructure during the war. He emphasized that this reality necessitates rebuilding and reconstruction from the ground up, including overhauling production equipment, tools, and adopting modern manufacturing technologies.

He argued that the Prime Minister overlooked the fact that industry is the engine of economic and social development, the backbone of the economy, and the driver of all its sectors. He pointed to China as a model country that recognized the importance of industry, becoming one of the world’s leading industrial nations—with entire ministries dedicated to specific industrial branches.

He added that if the criteria for establishing ministries are based on the responsibilities of the post-war reconstruction phase, then the sheer scale of destruction in the public and private industrial sectors justifies the need for a standalone, empowered Ministry of Industry, supported by a new law enabling it to carry out its mission effectively—especially considering the pivotal role the industrial sector plays in driving economic and social development.

Ali Abbas described the announced merger with the Ministry of Trade as a “disruptive and hindering” move for the Ministry of Industry.

He firmly stated that the decision to merge with Trade was ill-considered for the reasons mentioned, and that revisiting the decision should not be seen as a flaw—on the contrary, correcting it would be commendable.

Engines of National Recovery

Dr. Mohammed Al-Jack Suleiman, a researcher at the Industrial Research and Consultancy Center, told Al-Ahdath newspaper that all ministries in the economic sector are vital engines for national economic recovery, ensuring stability and maximizing economic resources and national revenues. These ministries provide crucial channels for employment and production, thus reducing unemployment, integrating citizens into the production cycle, combating poverty and crime, and ensuring family stability.

He emphasized that each economic ministry plays a key role in the state’s economic recovery programs, and thus no ministry’s role should be minimized or merged merely for cost-cutting purposes.

He argued that merging the Ministry of Trade with the Ministry of Industry, and reducing Trade’s role to merely marketing industrial goods, is an injustice to Trade. The Ministry of Trade is Sudan’s gateway to the world, acting as the primary engine and regulator for exports, imports, and trade partnerships that safeguard national economic interests. Therefore, merging it with Industry undermines its role—at a time when the country needs every effort to guide and revitalize trade, both exports and imports.

He acknowledged that some specialists in other fields—like Industry—see the necessity of having a separate ministry to rehabilitate and support the industrial sector in the post-war period. This makes it all the more essential to maintain both the Ministry of Trade and other productive and service-oriented federal ministries to effectively fulfill their roles in Sudan’s economic recovery phase.