The Face of Truth: A UN Fund for Compensating Sudanese…
Ibrahim Shaglawi
The idea of compensation, in the Sudanese context, does not appear as merely a financial demand; rather, it has become a political question tied to the efficiency of the state and its ability to rebuild trust with a society exhausted by war, where the very notion of justice has eroded. After three years of suffering and deprivation, the discussion of reparations has become one of the keys to stability.
Official estimates indicate that losses resulting from looting and destruction amount to nearly $150 billion, excluding the widespread devastation inflicted on infrastructure—universities, hospitals, factories, and service facilities. Sudanese families have lost everything they owned; cities have turned into tragedies, and a society has been forcibly pushed to the brink of destitution. Compensation has thus become a duty, one that the government must lead, as it represents another definition of the dignity for which the war was named.
Although judicial authorities have begun documenting these violations through official committees and serious initiatives, the gap between documentation and implementation remains wide. Thousands of reports have been filed, properties recorded, and rights documented on paper, yet the citizen who lost their home or livelihood still awaits a tangible sign that justice is not an indefinitely deferred promise. This gap reflects the complexity of procedures and reveals a political dilemma related to the absence of a clear vision on how to manage the compensation file within the broader reconstruction project.
In this context, civil and human rights initiatives have emerged, such as the “A’idoun” movement, seeking to break this deadlock by internationalizing the issue, drawing on similar international experiences in post-conflict reparations. These efforts have succeeded in delivering thousands of complaints to UN fact-finding missions, in an attempt to move the file from the confines of national will to an international legal arena. This shift reflects the importance of addressing justice in a war of this magnitude from a perspective that goes beyond the local scope to the international sphere, thereby enhancing the prospects of its enforcement.
However, this path is not without complications. Reliance on the international community remains contingent on complex political and legal balances, as justice is not granted but rather secured through the accumulation of evidence and the effective management of legal and diplomatic battles. In this regard, the discourse of legal authority gains additional significance, especially with the former Attorney General, Al-Fateh Mohammed Tayfour, accusing the United Arab Emirates of supporting the Rapid Support Forces militia and calling for it to bear responsibility for compensation. Such accusations, if properly constructed legally, may open the door to productive international avenues for holding involved parties accountable. At the same time, caution is necessary to ensure they do not become mere tools in a political struggle that yields no real justice.
Meanwhile, the absence of the compensation issue from the forefront of political negotiations since the outbreak of the war is a notable indicator of a flaw in prioritization.
Local and regional actors have focused on ceasefire efforts and addressing urgent humanitarian conditions, while the issue of reparations has been left on the margins of the scene—barely mentioned—despite being the natural entry point for any sustainable stability. A peace that does not do justice to its victims remains fragile, liable to collapse at the first test.
Yet the most serious threat to this file is not only limited resources but also the erosion of trust. A citizen who files a report, waits for months without response, or witnesses promises without tangible results, begins to lose faith that justice is possible. Here, the loss is not merely material but also moral and political, as the bond between the individual and the state erodes, and the sense of injustice turns into a persistent feeling of exclusion.
Therefore, the current phase requires a transition from slogans to actionable measures for compensation within defined timelines, along with the inclusion of affected individuals in shaping solutions. War-weary societies do not wait for miracles but for signs of reassurance.
In the matter of voluntary return, it should not be reduced to a return to geography alone, but rather to the re-establishment of life in its full meaning: stable security, effective services, and an economy capable of absorption. This necessitates a package of serious facilitative measures, including exemptions for furniture and building materials, electricity connections, and the exemption for importing one car per family. The displaced person does not return in search of shelter alone, but of a life that can be trusted.
Compensation, according to #Face_of_Truth, is not merely a financial obligation but a pillar of transitional justice, which is based on acknowledging harm, holding those responsible accountable, and restoring dignity to victims. Without these elements, the state becomes an entity incapable of protecting its citizens or even recognizing their suffering. Therefore, the proposal to establish a UN compensation fund, with international and regional support, does not appear as a luxury option but as a practical necessity to overcome the limitations of national resources, accelerate the path of redress, and achieve justice.
Wishing you continued health and well-being.
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com