After signing the constitutional document in Sudan .. Fears of legal pitfalls

Ahmed Fadl-Khartoum

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - The signing of Sudan's constitutional document on Saturday marked the beginning of a three-year transitional period and a new era in the country's political history, but there are fears of pitfalls that may hinder the true partnership between military and civilians.

The Communist Party, a partner of the Revolutionary Alliance, has rejected the document and the People's Congress fears it will tear the country apart.

Communist Party Central Committee member Abdel Fattah Beydab does not seem optimistic about the future of the constitutional document, saying that there are pitfalls that could arise with the beginning of the transitional period due to what he had written texts on board.

"The document stipulates that the 2005 constitution will be abolished and the laws issued under it will remain in force unless they are amended or repealed," he said.

Crime responsibility

The document considered the decrees issued since April 11, 2019, to be valid unless amended or repealed. Beydab says that the observation here is as if the forces of freedom and change have signed the document since April 11 with the military council, and therefore bear responsibility for any breaches and massacres during this period, including breaking up the sit-in.

Lawyer Tariq Kandik, a leader of the Freedom and Change Forces, believes that the amendment and repeal is settled by the Legislative Council, which authorizes laws by a simple majority.

Kandik told Al Jazeera Net that the decrees issued since April 11 are in effect unless amended or repealed does not mean that the forces of change are responsible for breaking up the sit-in, because these are directives related to routine powers and not presidential decrees.

Appointment and dismissal

According to the Central Committee member, it is the authority of the Sovereign Council to appoint the prime minister after his nomination of the forces of change, and note here that the dismissal is inherent to the appointment, and the Sovereign Council can exempt the prime minister at will.

The document also stipulates that the prime minister appoints ministers, a form of individual rule, and allows the prime minister to dismiss ministers at will.

However, Candik reduces the risk of the powers of appointment to the Sovereignty Council in the Constitutional Document in that it is governed by the powers of the Sovereign and Councils of Ministers.

He believed that granting the prime minister the right to choose the ministers intended to create a government team understanding, but is ruled by three options nominated by the forces of change for each portfolio.

Judiciary

Baidab criticized the granting of sovereignty to the amnesty for convicts in accordance with the law, and promised to circumvent the immunity in the constitutional declaration and threaten the independence of the judiciary.

Kandik denies the existence of an absolute power of amnesty, saying it is exercised through the Sovereignty Council, which authorizes decisions by a two-thirds majority and six civilians in its members, as opposed to five soldiers.

But the leader of the forces of freedom and change, Mohamed Esmat Yahya, acknowledges that there is a problem with the appointments of the judiciary and the Attorney General, because the military does not want institutions capable of accountability.

And confirms to the island Net that the National Consensus to which he belongs 14 notes in the document, including the lack of a text on the independence of the technical decision in the Bank of Sudan, as the Attorney General and the Auditor General.

Military hardware

He believes that the nomination of the military and the interior and defense ministers, and entrusting the reform of military institutions to the military; contrary to the nature of the civilian state, which requires the subordination of these matters to the Council of Ministers, and criticized the recognition of the rapid support forces.

Kandik acknowledges that there is recognition of a de facto imperfect, and states that it requires a gradual treatment in the document.

Regarding the Palestinian Legislative Council, Baydab fears that its formation will be hampered by 33% of its seats, which will include all components of society, opening the door to renegotiate who is participating.

But Candik shows that participation in this ratio will be on terms that include not belonging to the National Congress Party, or to any party that shared power until the fall of the regime, and faith in change, although not signatory to the Declaration of Freedom and Change.

He adds that the forces of freedom and change, which hold 67% of parliament seats, will be consulted in filling 33% of the other seats.

'Popular' concerns

On the other hand, the Popular Congress Party considered the document a cause for tearing Sudan, and the official of the Department of Justice of the party Mohamed Alam to the island Net that "the Sudanese will stolen and pawned in the document."

He blamed the document for failing to stipulate the sources of legislation, and expected that it would collapse quickly despite good thinking. He considered the omission of the text to religion and the official language of the state a mistake because it is self-evident.

Mohammed Alem wondered which parties could amend the document, one of which is the "military council" which will disappear forever from Saturday, and the other "freedom and change", which is divided after the views of the Revolutionary Front critical of its allies.

But the man returns and says the document confirms beginning Saturday the end of the Bashir era and the role of the military in political life "to some extent."