The Hour of Accountability…

Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shiglawi

During her chairing on Thursday of the first meeting of the National Committee for the Investigation of Crimes and Violations of National Law and International Humanitarian Law in Khartoum, Sudanese Attorney General Intisar Ahmed Abdel Aal stressed the need to expedite the implementation of the established plans, activate monitoring and documentation mechanisms, and complete investigations related to crimes committed against civilians in war-affected areas.

This important news, in my view, is not merely a judicial move imposed by the circumstances of war, but rather announces a real moment of transformation in the structure of the state, as it approaches one of the most sensitive files by confronting what the war has produced in terms of violations according to the law, not political calculations. It is a good beginning of transition from silence to organized legal action, through which the state restores its meaning and citizens’ confidence in it, through justice that is not managed by temporary balances or incomplete truths.

The initial reaction from legal circles, observers, and politicians came in a positive direction, as this step was considered an indication that the violations file is no longer postponed or subject to the logic of political balances, but has begun to enter the realm of legal accountability that public opinion has been waiting for since the outbreak of the war. This welcome reflects the scale of popular aspiration for a moment in which the state redefines its relationship with the concept of justice, away from balances, selectivity, or postponement.

The importance of this measure also lies in the fact that it touches one of the most sensitive issues in the current Sudanese context, namely the scale of violations that affected civilians during the war, and what resulted from them in terms of widespread displacement, the collapse of social structures, and documented crimes that require a clear judicial path that does not stop at moral condemnation, but moves toward legal characterization and actual accountability.

At this moment, the state is not only being tested in its ability to manage the security reality, but in its ability to transform public injustice into an applicable path of justice that preserves rights, restores dignity to victims, and prevents the reproduction of impunity.

Justice in this context is a necessity for rebuilding trust between society and state institutions. Every war without accountability leaves behind a legal and moral vacuum that, over time, turns into an environment capable of reproducing violence once again.

We previously addressed this file in the article “State Justice… Amnesty or Accountability?”, where we pointed out that the real challenge facing states emerging from wars lies not only in stopping the conflict, but in the ability to formulate a precise equation between the requirements of stability and the rights of victims, and between the necessities of political settlement and the requirements of transitional justice. A state that leans toward unconditional amnesty risks eroding the concept of justice, while a state that slides toward unbalanced accountability may reproduce polarization through judicial tools. Between these two limits, the space of the modern state attentive to managing the post-war phase is formed.

Here, the idea we raised previously intersects directly with the new reality. If the war has produced the return of some political actors, the defection of some military leaders, and political and field transformations, then any accommodation of these transformations will not be sustainable unless it is founded on a clear judicial basis.
It is not possible for return to the
to become a gateway for erasing crimes, nor is it permissible for justice to become a tool for excluding opponents or settling scores.

Therefore, the National Committee for Investigation is viewed not merely as a committee for documenting violations, but as the cornerstone in determining the shape of the Sudanese state after the war: will it be a state of institutions and law, or a state of temporary settlements managed by the logic of power?

The fact is that the victims remain the true center of this equation. Between forced displacement, documented violations, and the destruction of social and economic structures, justice cannot be reduced to mere reports or field arrangements. Justice here is not a slogan, but a national and moral entitlement that does not expire by statute of limitations or balances.

This measure lays the foundation for shaping the legal memory of the war, the memory that will determine how events are narrated, how trials are built, and how the state’s narrative is formulated before itself and before the world. Modern wars are no longer decided on the battlefield alone, but in the arenas of evidence, documentation, and facts, because whoever possesses the tools of law possesses direct influence in shaping reality. From this perspective, the National Committee represents an important mechanism, being a governmental tool for protecting justice and safeguarding national sovereignty from any vacuum that may be filled by regional and international interventions.

According to #Face_of_Truth, “The Hour of Accountability” does not merely mean the beginning of investigations, but rather the entry of the state into a more sensitive stage of its modern history, a stage in which legitimacy is measured by the achievement of justice, not political rhetoric. States are not tested only when war stops, but at the moment they are prepared to confront what war has left within them—in the law, in society, and in values. And when this confrontation begins with sincerity and awareness, the state begins to restore its true meaning.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.

Saturday, May 16, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.