Face of the Truth: Osama Daoud… Between Money and Politics
Ibrahim Shaglawi
The meeting between Prime Minister Dr. Kamil Idris and businessman Osama Daoud on Thursday sparked widespread political and media debate. It also exposed a major crisis in the national discourse, reflected in the confusion between the calculations of politics and the necessities of the economy, and between holding officials accountable and evaluating investors. Instead of directing the discussion toward issues of production and development, it turned into a trial of intentions and loyalties, as though Sudan’s crisis today lies not in its exhausted economy, but in politically classifying businessmen.
For years, Osama Daoud has been surrounded by accusations and suspicions concerning the nature of his network of relationships and the sources of his economic influence. Some platforms have also circulated claims linking him to international circles of influence. However, these allegations have not been supported by documented evidence or judicial rulings, placing them within the realm of public debate.
In my view, however, the issue is not Osama Daoud himself, but rather the way the state and society perceive national capital. Countries emerging from wars face not only the challenge of rebuilding roads and factories, but also a far more complex challenge: rebuilding trust between the state and national capital, and between politics and the economy. That trust is the true fuel of the national recovery project.
The war in our country has produced an economy governed by security imperatives. Yet the real danger is that the wartime mentality may continue to manage the recovery phase, where positions are judged by affiliations. In times of war, the question is: Who stands with whom? But the era of reconstruction demands a more important question: Who works? Who invests? And who creates jobs? Countries that emerged from wars did not recover through rivalries, but by opening the way for investment and encouraging production.
From this perspective, the campaign against Osama Daoud appears to reflect political confusion. The man has never presented himself as a political leader or party figure who should be required to account for his political positions. He is a businessman, and the standard by which he should be judged is the extent of his contribution to the national economy through production, investment, and job creation, as well as his compliance with the law—not the volume of stories woven around him or assumptions built on speculation.
This is not a defense of an individual, but a defense of a principle. Turning an investor into a political suspect simply because he possesses a network of regional or international interests reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of the modern economy. Capital, in every country around the world, moves through markets and forms partnerships according to economic considerations, not political alignments. If foreign commercial relations became a criterion for condemning investors, global investment would come to a halt, and no country would remain capable of attracting or retaining capital to support its economy.
Attempting to blackmail any businessman because of his partnerships in the United Arab Emirates or elsewhere does not harm that individual alone. It sends a negative message to every Sudanese investor, at home and abroad, that capital may at any moment become the subject of political prosecution—not because of any legal violation, but because of interpretations unsupported by legal evidence. This is not an environment that encourages investment; rather, it is one that generates fear, hesitation, and the flight of both domestic and foreign capital.
Despite the controversy surrounding the man, the economic facts remain. During the war, DAL Group maintained part of its commercial activities and contributed to supporting food security. Yet the next phase requires much more: restoring the confidence of national capital and attracting foreign investment toward production and infrastructure. This cannot be achieved through political grandstanding or political guillotines, but through a state governed by the rule of law that provides a stable environment. Capital seeks neither applause nor fears competition; it flees suspicion and settles where law and trust prevail.
As for the press, its responsibility at this stage is no less important. It has both the right and the duty to monitor the performance of the private sector and expose any corruption or violations of the law. However, it is not its role to replace the judiciary or substitute facts with suspicions. Journalism that favors sensationalism over truth loses its mission, just as journalism that merges with activists’ rhetoric loses its ability to produce awareness. States are built through responsibility, not incitement.
I say this without any personal acquaintance with the man. I have never met Osama Daoud, nor have I had any interest, relationship, or even a passing handshake with him. But fairness requires that people be judged by what they contribute in their respective fields, not by positions attributed to them or accusations manufactured by political imagination.
According to #Face_of_the_Truth, the meeting between Kamil Idris and Osama Daoud is not the trial of a businessman, but rather a test of the government’s ability to restore the logic of the state. The real battle lies in building an economy capable of overcoming the consequences of war. The coming phase requires both national and foreign capital to enter the fields of production and infrastructure, not a discourse that drives investment away through suspicion and political grandstanding. Nations do not rise by erecting guillotines for wealth, but by creating a fair legal environment that protects investors and subjects everyone to one standard: serving the nation and development.
Wishing you continued good health and well-being.
Sunday, August 2, 2026Shglawi55@gmail.com