Contracts Between Transparency and National Security
By: Dr. Ibrahim Sheglawi
The copper development agreement in eastern Sudan has sparked a debate that has extended beyond the Ministry of Minerals to raise important questions regarding government contracts amid war and regional transformations. Between calls for transparency and considerations of national security, the challenge remains in achieving a balance between the public’s right to know and the state’s requirements during this complex phase. Accordingly, this article seeks to approach the issue from legal, political, and security perspectives in order to understand how state resources are managed.
It is certain that transparency is a cornerstone of good governance, the protection of public funds, and the enhancement of trust in government. However, in the management of strategic affairs, it is based on a careful balance between citizens’ right to know and the state’s duty to protect its supreme interests. Therefore, reducing transparency to the disclosure of all details, or linking confidentiality to corruption, overlooks the requirements of national security.
Under such transitional circumstances, contracts are no longer merely legal agreements; rather, they become security instruments that affect the state’s position within the international system and determine its ability to negotiate and remain within the spheres of influence.
Hence, the debate over transparency is not merely a prudent discussion, but a conflict between two approaches: the logic of full disclosure as an absolute value governing transactions, and the logic of the state as a cautious negotiating entity operating within a hostile and non-transparent environment.
Accordingly, linking confidentiality to corruption, or considering the immediate publication of every detail of negotiations as the sole standard of transparency, represents a superficial reading of the nature of managing sensitive files.
The state does not act as an administrative actor, but rather as a strategic actor, possessing what may be termed “the right to gradual disclosure,” in accordance with the sensitivity of the stage and security assessments.
The experiences of states during times of war confirm that confidentiality is not the opposite of transparency; rather, it is a tool for protecting national decision-making, as information becomes part of the equation of power.
Therefore, some contracts are managed away from public view, not to conceal corruption, but to protect the negotiation process from pressure or sabotage.
In the Sudanese context, confidentiality acquired an important dimension due to years of sanctions and isolation, which necessitated managing certain projects away from public view in order to protect the negotiation process from pressure and disruption, rather than to conceal corruption. The experience of the Merowe Dam during its initial planning stages demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach, while the experience of the Mashkour Sugar Factory illustrated how leaks and pressure can derail a strategic project. This confirms that confidentiality, under exceptional circumstances, may be a necessity dictated by considerations of national security and the national interest.
Contracts related to minerals, energy, ports, water resources, and infrastructure are no longer merely economic agreements; they have become instruments for strengthening influence, geopolitical standing, and national security in a world where politics and economics are increasingly intertwined.
Therefore, government agreements should not be evaluated based on the details published during negotiations, but rather on the strength of the governmental process that shaped them and their outcomes for the state. Transparency here does not mean the immediate publication of every document; rather, it means that decisions are subject to legal, technical, and financial reviews within state institutions, while remaining accountable at a later stage. In the copper project, it has been revealed that the negotiating delegation included the Minister of Justice, the Security and Intelligence Service, the competent authorities, and experts, reflecting a collective management of the file. This makes any judgment dependent on facts rather than impressions.
On the other hand, once the security requirements surrounding negotiations have ceased to exist, the state is required to disclose what can be disclosed, because building trust is achieved by establishing traditions that make transparency the rule and confidentiality an exception governed solely by the necessities of national security. Excessive secrecy weakens public trust, just as excessive disclosure may weaken the state’s position and limit its ability to protect its interests.
Here lies the responsibility of the media. It is not required to abandon its oversight role, nor to become an instrument for justifying authority, but rather to strike a balance between the public’s right to know and the requirements of national security. Professionalism requires distinguishing between what should be published immediately and what is linked to the current reality, so that journalism is measured not by its ability to reveal, but by its sound judgment regarding publication and its limits in a manner that serves the nation.
As Sudan prepares for reconstruction, it needs not only investment flows but also a new vision for managing its resources—one that views gold, copper, agriculture, water, energy, and ports as instruments of national power, and official contracts as a cornerstone for state-building and the protection of national decision-making. The real challenge lies not in choosing between transparency and national security, but in building institutions capable of balancing both, making transparency the rule and confidentiality an exception dictated by the national interest. Only then will sovereign contracts be transformed from economic agreements into instruments for consolidating sovereignty and advancing sustainable development.
Therefore, the real challenge is neither excessive transparency nor excessive control through secrecy, but rather the building of institutions that balance society’s right to know with the protection of the state’s supreme interests. When resources and government contracts are managed in accordance with the law and the national interest, they are transformed from legal documents into instruments for consolidating sovereignty, building national strength, and shaping the future of the Sudanese people.