Khartoum -

The judges of the Supreme Court in Sudan rejected the provisions related to the judicial authority in the draft transitional constitution and the framework agreement signed between the military component and political forces - led by the Alliance of Forces for Freedom and Change (the Central Council Group) - last December.

About 200 Supreme Court judges - who represent 98% of its members - held a meeting in the presence of the Chief Justice, and decided to submit a memorandum to the President of the Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan.

The judges believed that the draft constitution and the framework agreement guaranteed the political forces control over the judiciary, enabling them to choose the Supreme Judicial Council, the Chief Justice and his deputies, the President and members of the Constitutional Court, and the Attorney General.

Al-Jazeera Net obtained the text of the memorandum, where the judges of the Supreme Court considered the judicial authority's submission to institutional reform through a commission appointed by the Council of Ministers as a violation of the judicial authority and a violation of the independence of the judiciary, and that what was stated in the draft constitution and the framework agreement is blatant political interference in the affairs of the judiciary.

A protest note to the President of the Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, against what was described as the interference of politicians in the judiciary (Anatolia)

"vague visions"

The memorandum addressed to Al-Burhan stated that the framework agreement included "vague visions", as Article 8 of it entrusted the appointment of the Chief Justice and his two deputies, the Supreme Judicial Council, the President and his deputy of the Constitutional Court, and the Attorney General to the political forces that signed the political declaration and the framework agreement through a body formed by these forces of their choice.

The protesting judges said that this is a violation of the principles advocated by international charters and treaties, and has no basis in all national decisions from the dawn of independence until the December 2018 revolution.

The memorandum stated that the text of the draft constitution and the framework agreement to annul decisions issued on or after October 25, 2021, without excluding judicial decisions, constitutes a dangerous precedent in prejudice to judicial rulings and measures.


Interference and exclusion from immunity

The memorandum also states that Article 58/b of the draft constitution explicitly stipulates that the judiciary is subject to institutional reform in accordance with the Law on Reform of the Judicial and Human Rights Apparatuses, and that is the responsibility of the Legal and Judicial Reform Commission whose members are appointed by the Council of Ministers, which - according to the judges - affects the judicial authority. It violates the principle of the independence of the judiciary and reform, and should not be a pretext for political interference in the affairs of justice institutions.

The memorandum also said that Article "58/a" of the draft transitional constitution stipulated the exclusion of judges - including the chief justice - from the scope of constitutional office holders and thus from the scope of procedural immunity, and considered this a shameful matter.

Judges say that the provisions of the draft constitution and the framework agreement on the judiciary destroy the principle of the independence of the judiciary (Al-Jazeera)

Absolute no

In their memorandum, the protesting judiciary expressed their rejection of what was stated in the draft transitional constitution and the framework agreement regarding the judiciary, "totally and in detail, because it puts the judiciary under the control of political forces, which destroys the principle of the independence of the judiciary."

The memorandum adds that there is no room for talking about the independence of the judiciary if the provisions contained in the draft constitution and the framework agreement on the judiciary are adopted, because they carried flagrant violations of the principles and slogans of justice advocated by the December 2018 revolution, and “We are proud of the involvement of justice and the judicial authority in political disputes.” ".

Upcoming modifications

Al-Jazeera Net learned that the "National Nation" and "People's Congress" parties, signatories to the draft transitional constitution and the framework agreement, have reservations about what was stated in the draft regarding the judiciary, and they propose an independent body of senior judges and jurists to nominate the Chief Justice, the President of the Constitutional Court and the Attorney General.

According to information in the presidential palace, the head of the Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, told the judges that he rejects any political interference in the affairs of the judiciary, and adheres to its independence and the implementation of any reforms through the mechanisms stipulated in the Judicial Authority Law.

Saleh Abdullah, a lawyer - a former judge - agrees with what was stated in the memorandum of the Supreme Court judges regarding the rejection of political interference in the affairs of the judiciary and the violation of its independence.

The lawyer told Al-Jazeera Net that the regime of ousted President Omar al-Bashir has created distortions in the judiciary, which now needs real reform, but this is not done through political forces, and it is believed that the judiciary includes an estimated number of loyalists to the former regime.

The memorandum was actually delivered to the President of the Sovereignty Council and received by the tripartite mechanism that includes the United Nations, the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD), which mediates between the Sudanese parties, as well as the quadruple mechanism consisting of the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates concerned with the Sudan file.

The lawyer said that the memorandum will push for amendments to the texts contained in the draft transitional constitution and the framework agreement through workshops that will be held in the second half of this January, to discuss the issues contained in the framework agreement and reach a final agreement on the political crisis.

The signatories to the framework agreement do not consider the appointment of a temporary Judicial Council an interference in the judicial authority (Al-Jazeera)

The signatories do not consider it an interference

For his part, Shihab Ibrahim al-Tayeb, the spokesperson for the Forces for Freedom and Change Alliance, which signed the framework agreement, believes that the appointment of a temporary judicial council by the prime minister after being nominated by the signatories to the agreement to choose the chief justice, the president of the Constitutional Court and the attorney general is not considered political interference in the affairs of the judiciary or detracting from its independence, because the membership of the Council will be judges and not politicians.

Al-Tayeb told Al-Jazeera Net that the text contained in the framework agreement and the draft constitution came as a political treatment after the formation of the Supreme Judicial Council and the Constitutional Court was disrupted, whose absence 4 years ago was a disruption of justice, as a large number of files and death sentences await a decision on them.

Al-Tayeb states that the constitutional document that was approved in August 2019 and governed the first phase of the transitional period provided for the formation of the Supreme Judicial Council, but it was not formed.

He pointed out that the Chief Justice and the Attorney General were appointed through a joint meeting of the Sovereign Council and the Council of Ministers, and thus they were appointed from an executive and political point of view, "Was this a violation of the independence of the judiciary?"