Rashan Between the Prestige of Law and the Wisdom of Forgiveness
Ibrahim Shaglawi
The Cybercrimes Court issued a one-year prison sentence against journalist Rashan Oshi, along with a large financial fine, in connection with a complaint related to defamation and slander through a Facebook post. The post was based on allegations directed at a member of the diplomatic corps concerning suspicions of financial corruption, prompting him to resort to the judiciary and file a case that ultimately ended with this ruling.
The judicial ruling sparked wide reactions within journalistic and media circles. While some consider resorting to the judiciary a natural course for protecting reputation and rights, others see custodial penalties in publication and online expression cases as an expansion of the logic of deterrence in a way that may affect freedom of expression. Thus, the debate extends beyond the individual case to the nature of the relationship between journalism, law, and politics.
In principle, the right to litigation remains a fundamental pillar in any legal system, and there is no dispute over that. Whoever is harmed by publication or accusation has the full right to resort to the judiciary in pursuit of justice. A state cannot be governed by the logic of chaos, and protecting personal reputation is not a secondary issue in law, but rather part of protecting social stability and individual rights.
However, the real issue begins with the nature and limits of the punishment, and with the philosophy governing publication and cyber laws in Sudan. Custodial penalties in cases of expression and journalism have long been the subject of broad global debate, not because journalists are above the law, but because the very nature of journalism involves approaching areas of influence, corruption, and power — areas that are always fraught with legal and political risks. Therefore, any expansion in the use of imprisonment against journalists raises legitimate fears that the law could shift from being a tool for protecting rights into a tool for producing fear, trivialization, and intimidation within the media sphere.
In Sudan, the issue appears complex because Rashan Oshi is not viewed by a broad segment of public opinion as merely an ordinary journalist. During the war, her name became associated with a mobilizing discourse aligned with the Sudanese Army against the Rapid Support Forces militia, making her image among supporters of the “Battle of Dignity” transcend professional journalism into that of a political and national icon. For this reason, many reactions did not interpret the ruling from a legal perspective, but rather from the perspective of political and moral loyalty to a figure considered part of the moral support front during the war.
In this context, attention is turning toward a clear role for the General Union of Sudanese Journalists in this case, with reference to “Joudia” as an authentic Sudanese tradition that has historically played the role of containing disputes before they reach the threshold of prisons. Within journalistic circles, a culture of pure professional solidarity has become deeply rooted, regardless of political and intellectual differences, stemming from an awareness of the sensitivity of the relationship between freedom of expression and the risks of prosecution. It is an ethical solidarity that does not aim to absolve mistakes, but rather to protect the right to expression and prevent punishment from becoming a tool for breaking willpower or restricting press freedom.
Nevertheless, Sudan’s own experience shows that prisons have rarely succeeded in silencing controversial voices; rather, they have often granted their occupants greater presence and influence. Sudan’s political and media history is filled with well-known figures who emerged from ordeals and hardships more influential and widespread, because societies in moments of sharp polarization tend to create symbols as much as they create adversaries. From a broader perspective, the case of colleague Oshi remains an entry point for rethinking the delicate balance between the prestige of law and the wisdom of forgiveness.
Therefore, the approach requires distinguishing between war crimes and violations against civilians on the one hand, and issues of expression and publication on the other, as they should not be conflated within transitional justice. Yet the issue goes beyond the legal dimension into a moral and political question regarding the kind of climate desired for Sudan after the war: should it be based on a balance between accountability and forgiveness, or on rigidity? Post-conflict experiences confirm that stability is not achieved through law alone, but through wisdom that rebuilds trust and eases tensions, making the strength of the state lie in combining law enforcement with humane treatment without compromising justice. Thus, the call for a balanced approach is not an alignment with any side, but rather a concern for preserving the balance between the firmness of justice and the humanity of treatment.
In conclusion, societies, as affirmed by Truth Perspective, are not built on deterrence alone, nor governed by absolute tolerance. Rather, they are founded on a balance between the firmness of justice and the spirit of reform and forgiveness when capable. In the Sudanese experience, the legacy of “Joudia” and the values of forgiveness remain among the most important social safety valves in containing conflicts. Accordingly, legal or humanitarian calls aimed at appeal or mitigation do not diminish the prestige of the judiciary, but rather express an authentic social need to introduce wisdom into the application of justice, so that the law remains decisive in its logic while mercy remains present in the conscience of society and the complainant.
Stay well and healthy.
Wednesday, May 20, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com
#Rashan_Oshi
#Rule_of_Law
#Wisdom_of_Forgiveness
#Freedom_of_Expression
#Sudanese_Journalism
#Justice_and_Forgiveness
#Joudia
#Press_Freedom
#General_Union_of_Sudanese_Journalists
#Ibrahim_Shaglawi