Dr. Medani calls for new political agreement

The people of Southern Sudan voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence from Sudan as a whole last month, according to official results released on Monday 7 February 2011. With the South seceding from the North of Sudan, an intense political controversy has started. In question is the legitimacy of the current government in Khartoum. Aisha Samani interviewed Dr. Amin Mekki Medani, one of the most famous human rights defenders in Sudan, to shed light on the current power struggle in Sudan's capital Khartoum:

Click here for a Curriculum Vitae of              Dr. Amin Mekki Medani

Q: How legitimate and constitutional is the current situation, given the implications of secession on the North of Sudan?

A: This question is big and complex. It is true that the peace agreement was signed between the two parties alone. However, the other political parties joined to support the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) publicly, thus all being part of a new political contract aiming at democratic transformation. The provisions of the peace agreement added to the consequent need of drafting a new constitution both support the transition from a one-party system to a multiparty system.  

Download the texts of the CPA and the Interim National Constitution

However, the National Congress Party (NCP) stripped these texts from their meaning. For example, it is stipulated, in both the peace agreement and the constitution, that the National Security Act, would be a law which creates a body with a directive for the collection, the analysis and the presentation of information to the stakeholders. In reality however, this is far from being the case, as the modifications that have been applied to the Security Act in 2009, have made the law unconstitutional. This law gave the security forces the authority to detain and arrest without charging the detainees of any crime. It does not allow the public to see the places where the detainees are held, and it gives immunity to all those working within its system. The law is inconsistent with both the constitution and the peace agreement.

The list of similar situations is long, comprising of the Act of the Organisation of Voluntary Work, which gives the Office of Humanitarian Aid arbitrary powers against civil society. Another example is the abolishment of the most important judicial bodies's independence, such as the Supreme Judicial Council and the Supreme Constitutional Court.

With all this, the NCP is still sticking to the constitution in its most literal meaning: If separation is to take place, all texts and acts related to the South are to be cancelled, while the NCP stays in power until the next presidential elections.

The Supreme Court in Khartoum -        Source: Akhbar

This means in other words, that we are going back to square one, just like with the National Islamic Front on 30 June 1989, and the politicisation of all institutions - the army, security, the executive, legislative, public service, banks and the market economy, etc. The contract, that we mentioned earlier, by which all parties accepted the CPA and took part of it, has ceased to exist. Now, the most peaceful solution, after the independence of the South, is to make a new agreement, of which all parties take part, based on a democratic constitution, with democratic content and implementation.  
 
Q: But according to the current constitution, the elected  government is to remain for 5 years, even in the event of separation?

A: The issue, as I explained, does not lie in whether the text says so or not. It is rather question of finding an applicable solution. The agreement was acceptable before, but now it is not relevant anymore, and thus its content is as well irrelevant. Holding on to texts without any rational implementation means going back to the one-party system, which had barely accounted for 12% of the votes in the last honest elections in 1986, and which has yet been ruling the country for 22 years.  

Q: What are the adjustments that must be made to the constitution and to the conditions and institutions based upon it?

Readjustment is not the issue at hand. What we need is a re-drafting of the constitution, which has to first be based on the fact that Southerners will not be party to it. In addition, it has to account for a common vision of the post-separation Sudan and for the implementation of this vision, which all political parties are to agree upon. The new constitution has as well to account for the institutions to carry out this implementation, which should not mirror the current institutions, lacking political will and professional capacities for implementation, as for example the current justice system and the current public service institutions which are all politicised.  

Q: What laws should be changed or modified in the light of the debate over dual citizenship?

A: I think this is an empty debate. Citizenship laws say that as long as I was born in Sudan, I am Sudanese. The only instances when my citizenship can be withdrawn are either when a person gives it up voluntarily, in case of committing certain crimes, or in case of betrayal of the country. If none of this is the case, then there is no legal reason behind withdrawing the citizenship of anyone in Sudan.

In addition, Sudanese law allows dual citizenship. If the State of the South sets a system of citizenship, and the Southerners in the North were rewarded citizenship there, in addition to the one they have in the North, the law would not hinder that at all. Most ministers, both in the North and the South, hold foreign passports. Applying a double standard position concerning this issue would go against the democratic process Sudan claims to be engaging in.