The Face of Truth: Justice or Settling Scores?
Ibrahim Shaglawi
If we seek to understand the current political landscape, we must first look at the impact of the war on the consciousness of Sudanese society, which has coalesced around the military institution into a massive popular bloc that goes beyond changeable political support to become an emotional state rooted in a sense of dignity and the desire for retribution.
This bloc, which President Abdel Fattah al-Burhan referred to during his address on Tuesday to the people of Jazirat Maqrat in Nile River State as the “popularity of the army” rather than his “personal popularity,” represents a fusion between society and the military institution in the face of an existential threat that nearly engulfed the state. It has posed a complex challenge for the country, as it is unorganized and not easily engaged within partisan conflict or political settlement frameworks.
In this context, the announcement by “Sumoud” to resume the work of the Committee for the Removal of Empowerment came as a development detached from this reality, moving beyond political debate to the core of the struggle over defining justice and law. The committee, which was established under the Constitutional Document as a tool within the transitional governance structure, now faces complex questions: to what extent is its legitimacy intact? Is it part of the state structure, or does it seek to transform into a parallel political instrument? And what is the impact of international shifts and ambitions on its reactivation, particularly the pressures of the Quad, which seeks to impose peace according to its own vision and interests?
The problem does not lie in the principle of combating corruption or dismantling empowerment, as these are legitimate goals for rebuilding the state, but rather in the tools and mechanisms. Should this process be conducted through independent and transparent judicial institutions, or through political committees operating in a polarized environment dominated by a spirit of retaliation against opponents? The committee’s previous experience demonstrated its fragility, as its performance sparked widespread controversy and revealed professional and legal violations, making any attempt to revive it outside the framework of law a matter of doubt and suspicion.
The danger lies in the blending of justice and politics. When accountability mechanisms are managed according to political agendas, justice shifts from being a unifying national value into a tool for settling scores. Moreover, certain political forces exploit the concept of justice to reposition themselves or advance their interests, while external actors at times intervene as influential players, further complicating the situation and threatening the independence of any judicial process.
At the same time, a Sudanese paradox emerges: society demands justice and retribution, yet rejects approaches that may reproduce war and retaliatory politics. Polling results and media outputs reflect a popular conviction in the necessity of justice, but with a preference for it to be administered through an independent judiciary, clear institutions, and objective standards that include integrity, competence, and commitment to the constitution and national unity—far removed from partisan quotas or political selectivity.
The greatest challenge now is to establish a new model of justice in Sudan that balances legal legitimacy, societal needs, and the realities of the state. Any miscalculated step could reproduce internal conflicts and widen the gap between the will of the people and decision-making centers, especially if the committee is used as a political tool or as a channel for external influence. This is particularly evident in the recent U.S. decision to designate the Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization, which could turn the committee into a cover for regional and international collusion, placing it under legal scrutiny while stripping it of any moral or legal legitimacy, as it benefits from international leverage to neutralize political opponents.
As experience suggests, the solution does not lie in slogans or retaliatory measures, but in rebuilding judicial and political institutions on national foundations that enable justice to fulfill its true role. This requires an independent national will that does not borrow its legitimacy from abroad, nor is swayed by the emotions of the moment, while safeguarding the rights of all political actors in a way that returns Sudan to the path of the rule of law.
The question that will determine Sudan’s future and the integrity of its political process is not only whether accountability is necessary, but how it is practiced, by what tools, and under what legitimacy. True justice begins with state institutions—not with discredited instruments or external agendas seeking to exploit the country’s resources.
When the foundations of law are established and the integrity of the political process is agreed upon, Sudan can break free from the cycle of conflict and embark on a new phase of political and social stability—far from the logic of revenge and closer to a state of justice.
Today, as reflected in #Face_of_Truth, Sudan needs justice that protects the state rather than destroys it, and institutions that give society its rightful voice in political decision-making before the state is lost to conflicts of interest and influence. At this critical moment, the path to a stable state passes through a fair judiciary, clear legitimacy, and accountability that reflects the will of the people—not the interests of regional and international actors. Only then can justice avoid becoming another face of conflict and instead serve as the cornerstone for rebuilding the nation and securing its future.
Wishing you health and well-being.
Thursday, March 19, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com