UK Parliamentary discussion on (lack of) human rights in Sudan

Why are there still no human rights in Sudan?
An Article by Peter Wiggins

On 28 January Liberation, the left-wing British campaign group, hosted a talk about human rights in Sudan in a committee room of British House of Commons.

Salih Mohmoud, the Darfuri Human Rights Lawyer, was billed as the first speaker but unluckily he was not able to attend. So Ahmed Duraj, Governor of Darfur from 1982 to 1986, read the speech that Mr. Mahmoud had prepared. He focused on development of the legal system of Sudan. Upon independence, Sudan had inherited from the British a Common Law system, which was regarded as being on of the best in Africa. But political manoeuvrings had led to the adoption of Islamic shari’a laws: first in 1982 under General Ja'afar al Nimiery and then again in 1989 under the present Omar al-Bashir administration. Mahmoud argued that no shari’a system could no uphold human rights. And he went on to explain how a climate of complete impunity had taken hold in Sudan. In Darfur 400,000 citizens had been killed and 2.5 million had been displaced. Grave war crimes had been committed. Victims had no form of legal redress. Incidents of mass rape had become commonplace. In order to convict, rape victims had to have four male witnesses or eight female witnesses.

The next speaker was Mohamed Mahmoud, a Sudanese Scholar. He focused on the political situation in Sudan since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005. The CPA had brought peace between the North and the South of the country and the worst restrictions on civic life had been relaxed. But the CPA had helped the Northern government by weakening opposition. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement SPLM, the best-organised opposition to government, was now part of the political power system. The SPLM had not done enough to highlight injustice e.g. in Darfur. The CPA was a mixed blessing. Real progress in Sudan, particularly on the issue of human rights, was yet to come.

Next came the Cooperative Labour Party MP David Drew, chairman of the Associate Parliamentary Group on Sudan (APGS). Mr. Drew described himself as a devotee to the nation of Sudan but he hastened to add that he made no pretence to fully understand the country’s problems. He recognised the immense complexity of the country. Highlighting the importance of the coming year and his commitment to carrying forward the CPA, he urged the audience to pay attention to Sudan. In the global media, the war in Palestine may have overshadowed everything else but in Sudan too blood is spilt. He drew attention to the South’s referendum for separation. If the South did break away, what would be the implications for human rights in Sudan?

Mohamed Suliman, Director of Institute for African Alternative, was the next speaker but he too was unable to attend. Arshaid Fayd-Ahmed, of the Sudanese Communist Party, read out the speech Mr. Suliman would have given. Bashir’s government, he argued, represented an ideological mix of the kind of Neo-Nasserite Arab nationalism and Islam-ism. The Northern government had never ruled on behalf of citizens it did not see as ‘true Arabs’. Meanwhile, Islam was used as a tool of political propaganda. The government was ruling without accountability and it felt able to make truly absurd claims -- such as that there are only 9,000 causalities from the war in Darfur. The government could not be taken seriously. He urged resistance against it from the Sudanese not just in Sudan but from all over the Diaspora.

Audience discussion followed with Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn in the chair. Several South Sudanese voiced their longing to see a separate South Sudan. They claimed that Sudan had never been one country. One speaker drew attention to the human rights situation in South Kordofan where it is clear further war crimes are being committed.
A young Sudanese woman drew attention to the importance of civil society in exposing the lies of the government. A journalist pointed to the irony of the discussion. Elections in Sudan seem to be the first step in the establishment of human rights but they would add to the legitimacy of the ruling National Congress Party, who are complicit in so many crimes.

Author: Peter Wiggins (pwiggins79@yahoo.co.uk)