‘We hope the new constitution brings us stability’

Sudan’s Interim Constitution expired a year ago, and the government is working on a permanent constitution. Lawyer Mohamed Ahmed Salim, legal advisor of the Supreme Council for Decentralised Governance in Khartoum, spoke to The Niles about the possibilities and pitfalls of creating a new legal framework:

Q: The last constitution is no longer valid. Why has Sudan not been able to draft a permanent constitution?

A: One of our major problems is that we didn’t draft a permanent constitution. Each regime abolished the previous constitution, instead of using its good points and reworking its bad ones.

The American Constitution is 200-year old and the Japanese one is 300-year old. A stable constitution is a good indication that the country is civilised -- too many constitutions mean instability. Each regime wanted to show that it had ‘the solution’ and that all those who had preceded it had been wrong. We hope that the coming constitution achieves stability.

Q: How many constitutions has Sudan had so far?

A: Too many! The first one was the condominium constitution which was the first document issued by Britain and Egypt to rule Sudan after the fall of the Mahdist state. Then there was the autonomy constitution (1953-1955) which was drafted by the British through a committee of Sudanese experts headed by an English officer.
 
It was the most important Sudanese constitution and its mission was to prepare and train Sudanese for the post-independence period, teaching them how to hold elections and set a cabinet and a parliament to enable them to rule themselves.

After independence in 1956, the interim constitution of 1956 was drafted, although it only made minor amendments to the 1953 constitution, like changing the country name from the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan to the independent Sudan.

The Abboud coup in 1958 suspended all constitutions and the country was ruled through republican ordinances by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces.
The October 1964 revolution reactivated the 1956 constitution and called it the 1964 constitution. Then there was the coup of 25 May 1969, which abolished the constitution and the country was ruled through military orders during the first years.

In 1973, Nimeiri drafted the permanent constitution that lasted until the elections of April 1985, and later that year the Military Council (Suwar al-Dahab, his companions and the cabinet) drafted a constitution that was approved by the political forces and was called the interim constitution of 1985.

On June 30 1989, there was the \"Salvation\" coup which suspended the constitution and the country was once again ruled through military orders until 1998 when they drafted a constitution that lasted until the Naivasha Agreement (CPA) was signed in 2005.

The current constitution, which is called the interim constitution of 2005 and expired in 2011, is based upon the CPA itself signed between SPLM and the National Congress Party (NCP). In total, Sudan has had eight constitutions.

Q: Were the past constitutions defective?

A: All the constitutions had great principles and they kept abreast of international developments. For example, Nemeiri’s constitution of 1973 democracy, freedoms, an independent judiciary and human rights. But in terms of implementation, the constitution becomes defective when political influences intervene and it becomes partial to the state or to the power.

Most of the Sudanese constitutions were drafted by scholars and approved by politicians and they are good, but the devil is in the implementation as it is completely different from what is written in the constitution document.

Q: The President is talking about an 100 percent Islamic constitution. Does this mean that the other constitutions had nothing to do with Islam? What is the difference?

A: The previous constitutions adopted Islamic principles; the constitution of 1989 -- drafted by the \"Salvation\" coup -- had an article about religiosity. I believe that the President means that the constitution should be based on the Islamic Jurisprudence because after the secession of the South, 98 percent of Sudanese are now Muslims.

For example, in the past, wine was banned, but there is an article in the CPA about respecting the rights of Non-Muslims; so the Non-Muslim Rights Commission was created to protect them. However, the vast majority are now Muslims so the constitution can be based on the tolerant teachings of Islam.

Q: Is there any difference between Islam and international conventions regarding human rights?

A: No. I teach a course about human rights in Islam at university, and I compare between Islam and international conventions. There is no conflict in major principles but only in minor matters because these conventions are influenced by French and American values.

Islam has preceded the international conventions on the rights of women, human and even animals.

Islam bans torture and ridicule and some peoples became Muslims because Islam is fair and humane even though the Islamic armies did not get to their countries, like India and Indonesia.

Islam preceded international conventions in terms of justice; however, there are conflicted issues. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), for example, established gender equality. Islam declares men and women equal too, but each gender has its own duties. For example, we can not say they are equal in terms of inheritance where men are given twice as much as women because they are the breadwinners.

There are only contradictions in specific details. This is because the majority of conventions are influenced by French and American values. Apart from this, there is no conflict between the shura, justice, juridical independence and judgment fairness.