The Truth Lens: State Justice… Amnesty or Accountability?

The Truth Lens: State Justice… Amnesty or Accountability?

Ibrahim Shaglawi

In post-war moments, the strength of the state is not measured by the military or security victories it achieves, but by its ability to define justice. Every peace that is realized becomes a test of the concept of the state: is it a state capable of enforcing justice, or a state that manages balances through an amnesty suspended on the edge of accountability?

The return of some actors in the war scene—whether through defection from the Rapid Support Forces militia “as in the case of Al-Nour Quba,” or the potential return of political leaders who opposed the army, failed the Sudanese, and supported the coup that plunged the country into the war of April 15, 2023—places the state before a delicate equation that does not tolerate simplification.

Absorbing these transformations may appear, from a pragmatic angle, as a necessity imposed by battlefield considerations and balances of power, as well as by intelligence calculations aimed at dismantling the adversary from within and weakening its organizational and moral structure.

However, this path, no matter how strategically justified it may be, cannot be separated from the fundamental question of justice in the equation of war and peace, as it is the cornerstone upon which the legitimacy of the state and its authority are built in the aftermath of major conflicts.
A state that chooses amnesty without moral or legal conditions may gain a moment of temporary stability, but in the longer term, it loses society’s trust in the meaning of the state and in the mechanisms of achieving justice.

Conversely, a state that immerses itself in a logic of retaliatory accountability may reproduce cycles of violence in different forms and keep the wound open without a horizon for healing. Between these two extremes lies the most complex zone: the balance between amnesty and accountability.

In this context, the issue of integrating defectors returning from battlefields, or those returning from political parties and entities, appears as a dual test: a test of the state’s ability to dismantle the structure of war without recycling it in a new form, and a test of its ability to respond to the call of the victims, who see in the absence of accountability a threat to the meaning of justice and a forfeiture of rights.
Societies emerging burdened with violations do not treat these issues as mere political arrangements, but as an extension of the memory of pain and betrayal.

While field considerations may at times impose flexible approaches, such flexibility cannot become a permanent pattern that rewards bearing arms or turns military power into a gateway to political legitimacy. Here lies the greatest danger: that war becomes a shortcut to power, and that the logic of “warlords” is reproduced in a new political guise that combines military influence with formal legitimacy.

The essence of the problem is not the return itself, but how it is framed. Reconciliation that is not built on a clear commitment to a comprehensive national path—one that separates the logic of the state from that of the armed group—turns into a temporary deal rather than a foundation for sustainable peace. Conversely, reconciliation that is embedded within a clearly defined state project, in which the perpetrator is not rewarded but instead aligns with the nation without compensation, can become a lever for expanding the base of stability without undermining the essence of justice.

On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that the war has produced conflicting narratives. Some parties have sought to present their own versions domestically and internationally to support the militia, including justifying violations or demonizing opponents, while others have framed the conflict as an existential battle—which was closer to reality given the United Nations’ definition of the war as a war of greed. Amid this complexity, the pure truth has at times receded in favor of politically and media-engineered narratives, making the task of justice more difficult and complex.

Any serious reading of the scene, however, cannot overlook that the victims are the true center of this equation. Between forced displacement, documented violations, and the destruction of social and economic structures, questions of justice accumulate as an entitlement that does not expire with time and cannot be bypassed in the name of stability. Here, the importance of distinguishing between amnesty as a tool to end conflict and amnesty as a concession of the essence of accountability becomes clear.

Therefore, political solutions cannot come at the expense of the suffering of victims who have endured displacement, violations, and loss of property. These individuals are the core of any genuine justice process, and their rights must not be overlooked in the name of political stability.

International experiences indicate that successful solutions are not based on absolute amnesty nor open-ended punishment, but on transitional justice, which balances the establishment of crimes, graduated accountability, reparations, and national reconciliation.

According to #TheTruthLens, the fundamental question concerns how to build a precise equation that ensures amnesty does not turn into impunity, and accountability does not turn into revenge. A state that succeeds in achieving this balance is the only one capable of transforming peace from an idea into a new social contract that establishes a more just and stable phase.

Stay well and in good health.

Wednesday, April 22, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com