The Face of Truth: The Popular Campaign to Protect Public Service Facilities Ibrahim Shglawi
Ibrahim Shglawi
Amid the complex conflict engulfing the country, a new civil initiative has emerged under the title “The Popular Campaign to Protect Public Service Facilities”. It reflects a growing public awareness in the face of accelerating institutional collapse. This initiative presents a societal vision to safeguard critical infrastructure—chief among them, electricity facilities—which have become frequent targets of systematic attacks by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), using advanced technologies such as strategic drones, signaling direct regional support.
Recent attacks on power stations in Greater Omdurman—such as the Al-Mirkhiat, Wad Al-Bakhit, and Al-Mahdiya stations—were carried out within a span of less than thirty minutes. This demonstrates a high level of military and technical coordination and confirms that these attacks aim to paralyze vital infrastructure and disrupt daily life for civilians.
These are not merely acts of sabotage—they are tools of war intended to uproot societal stability. With electricity and water cut off, and hospitals and bakeries ceasing to operate, it becomes impossible to restore normal living conditions or allow displaced citizens to return home. This deepens the internal displacement crisis and undermines the civil structure of the state.
From the perspective of international humanitarian law, targeting such facilities constitutes a full-fledged war crime. Article 52 of the First Protocol of the 1977 Geneva Conventions clearly states that “civilian objects shall not be the object of attack.” Moreover, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court considers attacks on vital civilian infrastructure—including power plants and hospitals—a serious violation of international law. Therefore, if the targeting of electricity infrastructure in Sudan is proven to be systematic and deliberate, it is not only a domestic violation but also a matter of international criminal responsibility, particularly if there is direct or indirect foreign support involved.
In this context, the popular campaign launched by activists represents an urgent response to the scale of the threat. It serves as a model of civil resistance aimed at supporting the state in protecting its facilities. The initiative—which proposes forming grassroots committees composed of journalists, engineers, and businesspeople—seeks not only physical protection but also to restore the concept of community participation in preserving national assets. A state is not built by armies alone, but by the awareness and willingness of its citizens to sacrifice—even if that means becoming human shields to protect these facilities. Media support and active public engagement are now essential, and the campaign’s impact will be determined by how effectively these sectors respond to the current threats.
In this regard, I recall the words of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “When the homeland is in danger, the citizen’s first duty is not to ask what the state is doing, but what he can do to ensure its survival.” This sentiment eloquently captures the spirit of the initiative, which views the people as active agents rather than passive victims, and solidarity as a weapon no less powerful than a rifle.
On the official level, Sudanese government spokesperson Khalid Al-Eyasir accused the United Arab Emirates of enabling the RSF to use Chinese-made suicide drones, allegedly through violations of “end-user certificate” agreements that legally restrict arms sales. The Sudanese government, through official statements, has called on China to intervene directly to disable the technology in these drones, asserting that Abu Dhabi’s collusion with the militia threatens Sudan’s national security and contradicts China’s historic stance toward Sudan.
Amid this deliberate destruction of Sudan’s infrastructure—including Port Sudan and power stations in Um Dabakir, Merowe Dam, and Atbara—a painful irony emerges: calls for negotiations with the RSF continue, despite its responsibility for these attacks. Regrettably, in his recent statements, Dr. Abdalla Hamdok merely called for an end to the war without clearly condemning the attacks, stating only that “Sudan is going through the worst disaster in its history” (Asharq Al-Awsat). According to observers, in such a context, silence toward the aggressor is an unethical stance—one that cannot be justified or left unchallenged.
From the standpoint of #TheFaceOfTruth, the Popular Campaign to Protect Public Service Facilities is a step in the right direction—toward restoring society’s role in taking the initiative. It lays the groundwork for a larger idea: that the state cannot endure on its own, and its survival depends on a population that is aware of its role, involved in its defense, and resilient in the face of the storm. The threat facing Sudan today is not merely military—it is existential. It requires every actor—individual or institution—to see themselves as participants in the battle to preserve Sudan as a state, a vision, and a homeland, until our collective efforts culminate in the restoration of peace and security.
Wishing you well and good health,
Saturday, May 17, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com