Face of Truth: Dismissal of Employees Between Denial and Affirmation
Ibrahim Shaglawi
The success of any state depends on the transparency of its official discourse, because citizens’ trust is tied to its credibility and clarity. The problem in decisions emerges when documents say one thing while official statements say another, turning the matter from the decision itself into a state of confusion and doubt about the credibility of the official discourse.
This is precisely what was produced by the issue of the technical committee’s report tasked with studying and inventorying employees in the federal government, public authorities, and public companies, which sparked a wave of debate after details of it were leaked to the public. The report was not merely hearsay or anonymous leaks, but a written document containing figures, recommendations, and implementation mechanisms. It concluded with a proposal to reduce about 63,833 jobs out of 106,388 positions in the federal government, authorities, and judicial bodies, equivalent to nearly 60% of the total workforce in the civil service.
However, the situation became more complex when the Prime Minister, Dr. Kamil Idris, came out to deny the existence of any recommendation before the Council of Ministers to dismiss 60% of employees, affirming that what is being circulated on this matter is not true, and stressing that the government’s priorities are people’s livelihoods, reconstruction, improving services, and achieving peace. Here, questions begin to arise that have not yet found convincing answers.
If there is no recommendation presented before the Council of Ministers, then what is the nature of the committee that completed its work? What is the purpose of the report that was prepared with its details, figures, and estimated costs? Was the committee working in a vacuum, or under an agenda belonging to others outside the institutional framework, or under an official mandate from the competent authority? If the recommendations do not represent a governmental direction, why did the committee continue its work until the end? And if they represent a direction under study, why was it denied outright instead of clarifying its stages and limits to the public?
These questions are not directed at the Prime Minister or the government personally, but rather relate to the essence of good governance and transparency in decision-making. The modern state is not measured only by its ability to make decisions, but also by explaining them and convincing citizens of them.
What is more striking is that this controversy coincides with recent official directives issued by the Sovereign Council calling for urgent solutions to people’s livelihoods, reducing living burdens, and improving services—priorities consistent with the country’s exceptional circumstances after the war. Here, an important political and economic paradox emerges: how can the call to ease living hardships be reconciled with government measures that lead to the exit of tens of thousands from service?
Some may argue that the goal is to address administrative bloating and reduce government spending, which is a legitimate objective in principle. However, the key strategic question is: is Sudan’s crisis today a salary crisis or a resource management crisis?
Reality indicates that institutions have not yet resumed full activity after the war, and that the government itself has not been able to fully reactivate the executive apparatus in some locations due to infrastructure, services, and workplace conditions. If institutions are still facing return challenges, then reducing the crisis to salaries appears closer to treating the symptom rather than the disease.
From the perspective of political economy, reducing government employment on such a scale is not merely an administrative measure, but a decision with wide social and political implications. We are talking about tens of thousands of families that rely on these jobs as their sole source of income under the most difficult economic conditions in decades. The report itself also pointed to risks related to social impacts, pressure on the pension fund, and the loss of expertise and skills.
These concerns become even more significant when we know that the proposals affected strategic institutions such as electricity, ports, railways, and other sectors that are supposed to lead recovery and reconstruction. Countries emerging from wars typically move toward mobilizing their human resources and investing their national expertise, not reducing them arbitrarily before the stabilization phase is complete.
According to #Face_of_Truth, the essence of the crisis does not lie in whether the report exists or is denied, but in the nature of the authority that decides its outcome. Administrative reform gains legitimacy only under transparent institutions, foremost among them an elected legislative council, which serves as a safeguard against political agendas or regional and international pressures infiltrating national decision-making. Between denial and affirmation, the full truth remains a right of the citizen and a duty of the state to disclose clearly and rebuild trust.
May you remain in good health and well-being.
Sunday, 21 May 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com