Question and Answer
The Military Coup in Sudan against the Transitional Civilian Government
Question:
The people of Sudan woke up today, October 25, 2021, to fiery movements by the army, which carried out arrests of several ministers and participants in the transitional civilian government, followed by the arrest of Prime Minister Hamdok himself... After that, Al-Burhan delivered a televised speech in which he declared a state of emergency, dissolved the Sovereignty Council and the Council of Ministers, dismissed state governors and then undersecretaries of ministries, and requested general directors to manage ministry affairs... He announced that he did not cancel the Constitutional Document but had canceled essential articles from it, as stated in his speech, and that he wanted to "correct the course of the revolution" rather than cancel it! All of this happened so suddenly, as if the civilian component in power was unaware. How is this possible? And will Sudan remain in a state of tug-of-war for long years during which people taste misery and hardship? Thank you.
Answer:
I will start, my brother, from the end. As for your statement (it happened so suddenly), it was not so. Anyone who has contemplated the matter since the beginning of the army and civilians' partnership in power realized that this partnership would not last. The two parties follow two different sides: Al-Burhan, Hemeti, and their associates are backed by America, while Hamdok and his group are backed by Europe, especially Britain. Both Al-Burhan and Hamdok work for the interest of the side they follow, and they are as far as can be from the interests of the people because the management of affairs (Ri’ayat ash-Shu’un) that Islam calls for is not on the agenda of either of them! This is from one perspective. From another perspective, a government is managed by one head, not two heads at opposite ends! We previously issued a response on this issue from the beginning on September 23, 2019, i.e., since the start of the partnership between the two parties in government. It stated the following regarding the agreement between the military and civilian components to share power:
"As for what is expected, America and Britain will not coexist peacefully; their interests are different, and their local tools follow them. Therefore, each party will work to abort the other's movements! From monitoring current events, pondering their related matters, and scrutinizing statements externally and locally—especially by American and European officials... it is possible to suggest the means each party will use to harass its opponent, gain control over them, and then exclude them from power..." We mentioned them there, and this is exactly what happened. To clarify the course of events, we review the following:
First: The Situation in Sudan and the Conflict within It:
Sudan is an ancient Islamic country, but it is controlled by America through its international influence, regional tools, and most importantly, its local agents. While the ruling system in Sudan serves American policy in a cheap manner, the people of Sudan suffer from injustice, hunger, deprivation, and unemployment. Whenever the people of Sudan rise in an uprising or revolution wanting change and wanting Islam, these rulers place obstacles, barricades, and fears before them to prevent them from reaching their goals, which are the goals of the Sudanese and the goals of the entire Islamic Ummah. They then shifted the conflict from a struggle of an Ummah against its agent rulers into a struggle between the agents of America—the (relatively) new power holders in Sudan—and the agents of Britain, the old power holder since its colonization of Sudan. By this conflict equation, America's agents ensure the exclusion of the Ummah in Sudan from the reality of the struggle between Islam and the agents of the Kafir states.
Since the agents of America (the Military Council) were governed by what was called the "Constitutional Document" alongside the agents of the British and Europeans (the leadership of the Forces of Freedom and Change, its core being the Professionals Association, loyal parties, and armed movements)—a document signed between the two sides on August 21, 2019—it was scheduled for the military to head the Sovereignty Council (presidential) for 21 months, followed by the civilians for 18 months, starting from last May, making the total period 39 months. However, an amendment was made after the Juba Agreement signed on October 3, 2020, making the duration 53 months, whereby the civilians were to start in November. Thus, it becomes clear that the agreement concluded in 2019 between the civilians in the Forces of Freedom and Change and the Military Council was a trap set by the Military Council—and America behind it—for these forces by making the first presidency of the Sovereignty Council for the military and the second for the civilians. The Forces of Freedom and Change were deluded into thinking they would be handed the council's presidency, i.e., the rule of Sudan after the first 21 months. If this were possible, it would have allowed the British and European agents to make broad changes affecting the army's leadership and its funding in a way that threatens American influence in Sudan, which America does not allow.
As for the British, they are in an overt position with their agents. (The Anadolu Agency reported on October 21, 2021: "Britain expressed on Wednesday its readiness to help solve the current political crisis in Sudan, within the initiative of its Prime Minister, Abdullah Hamdok... Hamdok met in Khartoum on Wednesday with the British Minister of State for African Affairs, Vicky Ford, in the presence of the British Envoy to Sudan, Robert Fairweather, and the British Ambassador to Khartoum, Giles Lever. Ford emphasized her country's support for the transitional process in Sudan, expressing concern over the current political crisis... She added that London is also concerned about the 'living crisis resulting from the closure of the national road in eastern Sudan.'... Ford said the British government is ready to 'work jointly with the Sudanese government to solve this issue in the context of solving the political crisis in the country, within the framework of the roadmap announced by the Sudanese Prime Minister.'") Similarly, European envoys continued to flock to Khartoum to support Hamdok's government and call for lifting the suffocating closure in eastern Sudan, which threatens to turn the people against the government due to food and fuel shortages and high prices.
This is the general framework in which events in Sudan have proceeded. From it, the state of repulsion, conflict, and entrapment of the opponent initiated by America's agents against British and European agents becomes clear. All of this was a preparation for the removal of the European civilian component from the scene in Sudan and the monopolization of power by the American-affiliated military component. Among these preparatory actions were:
a. The Failed Military Coup: Sudanese Defense Minister, Lieutenant General Yassin Ibrahim, announced on September 21, 2021, the thwarting of a coup attempt led by Major General Abdel Baqi Al-Hassan Othman Bakrawi, along with 22 other officers of various ranks, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers. By scrutinizing this coup attempt, we find it to be fabricated, as the movements of the Sudanese army sectors in Khartoum loyal to the military leadership (Al-Burhan and Hemeti) did not suggest the leadership felt any danger. Furthermore, the biography of the leader of this attempt and his presence in Cairo suggests that the army leadership was aware of everything that happened before it occurred. The leader of that coup attempt was a peer of Al-Burhan in military service during the Bahr al-Jabal operations and a peer of Shams al-Din Kabbashi in West Darfur (Arabi21, September 22, 2021). These are the heads of the military leadership in the Sudanese army and the Sovereignty Council. In 2016, he was promoted to the rank of Major General during President Bashir's era, and in 2018, the leadership transferred him to Khartoum, indicating great trust between him and the military leadership. This military leadership around Bashir is the same leadership of the Sovereignty Council today, meaning this man was close to and trusted by the top American agents in the army leadership. The idea that his coup attempt was real is misplaced; rather, it was something arranged between him and the leadership for the purpose of rearranging governance before the supposed date of handing over the Sovereignty Council leadership to the civilians. Nothing changes this perception, even though this man declared his lack of harmony with the Rapid Support Forces and was accused in 2020 of insulting its commander, Hemeti. Furthermore, this man had left for Cairo for surgery and a leg amputation, returning to Khartoum only about five days before the alleged coup attempt!
b. Eastern Sudan Disturbances: In order to heat the atmosphere against Hamdok's government or the civilian component in the Sovereignty Council, protests broke out in eastern Sudan starting on September 17, 2021, at Port Sudan. These protests quickly spread to close the entire eastern Sudan, including ports, oil pipelines, and the "national" road linking it to the capital, Khartoum. Commercial truck movement stopped, and the name of the High Council of Beja Nazirs and Independent Chieftainships, headed by Muhammad Al-Amin Turk, rose as he began announcing harsh and impossible conditions for Hamdok's government to lift his "siege on Khartoum and the rest of Sudan."
The signs indicating that this extensive and tight closure was fabricated include its start on September 17, 2021, in protest against the Juba Agreement, which allegedly ignores the rights of eastern Sudan and was signed with armed groups, some of whom were fighting for that region's rights. However, that agreement was signed in October 2020, almost a year earlier, and such protests did not emerge then with such deadly momentum. Thus, it is fabricated due to its lack of synchronization with the signing of the agreement. As for the military component being behind these protests, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan described them as "political," saying: ("What is happening with the closure in the East... is a political matter and must be dealt with politically." Independent Arabia, September 30, 2021), meaning the army disclaims responsibility for solving this crisis, even though it is of a security nature and affects the lives of almost all Sudanese people.
c. Demanding the Dissolution of the Government and Stopping Meetings in the Sovereignty Council: The tension led by the military component increased, and demands for dissolving the government rose. These demands were no longer just from political forces and protesters but from the military component in the Sovereignty Council. After freezing the partnership mechanisms between the civilian and military components following the coup attempt, the military component attacked its civilian counterpart. (Al-Sharq TV reported that Al-Burhan said in a speech to military personnel in the "Khartoum Bahri Military Zone" yesterday that any solutions to the current political situation in the country would only pass through "dissolving the current government," adding: "There are no solutions to the current situation except by dissolving the current government and expanding the base of political parties in the transitional government." Asharq Al-Awsat, October 12, 2021). Similarly, (Sudan Tribune reported that Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok rejected a request from Sovereignty Council President Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and his deputy Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti) to dissolve the current government and appoint a new one instead. Two sources from the Cabinet confirmed that the crisis between the military and civilian components returned to the initial square of disputes. The site quoted multiple sources saying the Sovereignty Council President and his deputy requested—during a meeting of the three officials yesterday to discuss the political crisis—replacing the government with another. Al-Burhan also requested freezing the activity of the Committee for Dismantling the Defunct Regime, known locally as the "Empowerment Removal Committee." Al Jazeera Net, October 15, 2021). Also, (Hamdok described the current crisis facing his country as the most dangerous crisis facing the transitional government since the departure of the former regime. He called on all parties to unite so that the country does not slide into chaos. BBC, October 18, 2021).
With these escalating events over the past two months, it became clear that the military component, led by Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and his deputy Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti), had pushed the transitional phase into the unknown. ("Hemeti said in a statement that 'handing over the presidency of the Sovereignty Council to civilians is premature and is not on the agenda at the moment,' adding that 'depicting what is happening now as being due to the proximity of handing over the council to civilians is a lie and a shame.'" Arabi21, October 8, 2021).
Second: The Division of Freedom and Change:
What also troubled Hamdok's government was that the Forces of Freedom and Change, which brought Hamdok as Prime Minister, began to split into two halves. One half, the "National Accord Group," began to see the problem as being within Hamdok's government. (A leader in the Forces of Freedom and Change - National Accord Group, Minni Arko Minnawi, said the real crisis in Sudan is within the Freedom and Change alliance. Al Jazeera Net, October 20, 2021). Another half, known as the Central Council of the Forces of Freedom and Change, represents the Sudanese Congress, National Umma, Unionist Gathering, and Ba'ath parties. While the first half held an open sit-in in front of the Council of Ministers demanding the dissolution of the government and Hamdok's resignation—recalling the 2019 sit-ins against the Bashir regime—the second half organized demonstrations to demand the handover of rule to civilians according to the Constitutional Document.
One issue remains: whether some agents of the British and Europeans have changed their loyalty. Specifically, the talk revolves around Jibril Ibrahim, leader of the Justice and Equality Movement and the current Finance Minister in Hamdok's government, as well as Minni Arko Minnawi, the governor of the Darfur region. By contemplating this matter, the following becomes clear:
Finance Minister Jibril Ibrahim enjoyed the trust of the British agent Abdullah Hamdok, who appointed him Finance Minister in the new cabinet formation on February 8, 2021. Before that, in mid-2019, the Qatari embassy defended him during the crisis of his deportation from Ethiopia on July 21, 2019. Before that, along with his brother Khalil, who was killed by the Sudanese army in an airstrike, he was one of the founders of the Justice and Equality Movement in Darfur and an opponent of the leader of the "Janjaweed" militias, which later became the Rapid Support Forces (Hemeti) in Darfur. Britain and Europe used to exploit the forces opposing the Bashir regime in Darfur, establishing contacts and weaving relations with them to strike the Bashir regime. He also had prior contacts with the UAE and Chad, i.e., within the circles of British and European influence. For all these reasons, it is unlikely that this man would abandon his long-standing relations with the British and European men and move to the other side, the agents of America.
Similarly, Minni Arko Minnawi is one of the warlords in Darfur who fought the Bashir regime for two decades before laying down his arms and reconciling with the authority in Khartoum to return as an assistant to Omar al-Bashir under the Abuja Agreement. Furthermore, until recently, he enjoyed the trust of Hamdok, the current Prime Minister, who appointed him governor of Darfur last May after signing the Juba Peace Agreement. Due to his tribal affiliation, he has a historical enmity with America's agent, the Vice President of the Sovereignty Council (Hemeti).
Thus, it is most likely that British cunning pushed these two men into the camp of America's agents and distanced them from the camp of British and European agents. If Al-Burhan succeeds in excluding Hamdok and his group from power and forms a new system, Britain will have inserted two of its men into it, thereby having a share in the new government according to the British way of cunning and deceit.
Third: Given what the situation in Sudan has reached and the malicious paths pushed by America's agents and the other malicious paths that the British and European agents tried to follow—all of which involve bloodshed, injustice, hunger, and crises—the people in Sudan must clarify their stance. They must turn their backs on all these failed rulers, the agents of America, the British, and the Europeans, who place the blood and resources of the Sudanese people at the service of these Kafir states. They must resolve their matter and unite their ranks against all these agents, without distinction between one group and another. They must hold fast to the strong rope of their Lord, rising against both groups to topple them and establish the system that their Lord is pleased with: an Islamic state, a Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood. The people of Sudan are worthy of all this goodness that preserves their blood, unites their ranks, and expels the influence of the Kuffar from their country.
وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ
"And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful." (QS. Ar-Rum [30]: 4-5)
18th of Rabi' al-Awwal 1443 AH October 25, 2021 AD