By Dr. Faisal Awad Hassan
On 9 April 2025, the Financial Times published an article by Dr. Abdullah Hamdok with the title above. Dr. Hamdok stated, among other things, that Sudan was at breaking point as a result of decades of exclusion, economic inequality and the collapse of institutions. He also stated that the only force capable of maintaining Sudan’s unity and preventing its disintegration was a civilian, democratic government of all Sudanese. He also explained that real peace is achieved through a (negotiated political settlement) that addresses the root causes of war! Dr. Hamdok then called on the international community to support the principle of “civilian leadership” as the basis for any peace process in the Sudan.
I regret to say that Dr. Hamdok is never qualified to talk about the Sudan because he wasted the only historic opportunity to rebuild our country on sound scientific, human, moral and legal grounds. Dr. Hamdok failed to take advantage of the near-absolute popular support and trust that no one had before him, which allowed him to realize all the aspirations of the Sudanese people, but he did not do so because of his contradictory personality.
In his first statement, Dr. Hamdok stated that he had an economic programme based on production, not on loans and that he would reform the civil service, address administrative dependence and rely on (efficiency) criteria and achieve balance between regions of the country when selecting ministers. He is also committed to transparency, fighting corruption, and building the rule of law and justice. Dr. Hamdok had not fulfilled any of these obligations, despite his ability to do so at the time. Just three days after those promises and statements, Dr. Hamdok announced that he needed $10 billion (external assistance), and three months later told the Sudanese community in Saudi Arabia that he had no program or plan, and that he was waiting for the Freedom and Change group to provide him with a program/plan of action for the transition period. These inconsistencies have not only demonstrated Dr. Hamdok’s lack of vision but proven his inability to reform and structure the Sudan, because he (failed) to prepare a medium-term economic plan for a period not exceeding three years. So how is he doing with the rest of the complex challenges?!
Dr. Hamdok has not adhered to the standards of efficiency when selecting ministers, states governors and others, despite the availability of a highly qualified and experienced sudanese human resource working at the local and external levels. Dr. Hamdok also failed to reinstate those arbitrarily dismissed by Bashir and his Islamist group, particularly in the army and police. This would have contributed to developing the civil service on the one hand, and protected the people’s revolution and Hamdok himself on the other. As for administrative deterioration, Sudan’s administrative structure has deteriorated further with the creation of additional (unimportant) administrative positions and units, which has increased public expenditures.
In terms of transparency and fighting corruption, Dr. Hamdok left the currency production under the control of Islamists, who printed spectacular quantities of local currency and swallowed the foreign currencies available in the market which led to the weakening of the Sudanese currency and its approach to the brink of collapse. Worse, Dr. Hamdok and his collaborators not only ignored the Army’s control over productive activities and institutions, but also engaged them in some (documented) economic scandals/crimes, such as the Alfakhir Company scandal sponsored by Dr. Hamdok and his Minister of Finance (Ibrahim El-Bedawi)! Perhaps the most visible manifestation of Dr. Hamdok and his collaborators incapacity and failure was their acceptance of Hemedti’s presidency as the so-called Supreme Commission for Managing the Economic Crisis, despite his lack of experience in economics.
Dr. Hamdok’s lack of commitment to the rule of law and justice has been exposed by his successive participation in militia graduation ceremonies, both Janjaweed and others. These militias have continued to use excessive force and violence against unarmed protesters and civilians. Dr. Hamdok and his collaborators have also failed to demonstrate the necessary seriousness in prosecuting Islamists, such as Omar al-Bashir, who was tried on charges of possessing foreign currency and embezzling funds. These charges are trivial compared to his heinous crimes against Sudan and its people, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and the displacement and starvation of thousands of citizens.
These are some, not all, of the reasons why Dr. Hamdok and his collaborators should completely be excluded from any future role in the Sudan. The majority of Sudanese want a full civil government and do not want the Islamists to return. They want honest civilians with real and tangible national contributions. Dr. Hamdok and his collaborators are just as unacceptable as the Islamists, because they failed to develop our political and economic practices and sided with their personal interests and sectarian loyalty. They did not care about Sudan’s sovereignty and sustainability, nor did they establish the principle of preserving the public good and benefiting from our cultural and social diversity.
This is the reality the international community must recognize. Instead of wasting time, energy, and resources in failed attempts to impose Dr. Hamdok and his colleagues and integrate them with the Islamists and their loyalists, I hope the world will listen to the desire of the Sudanese people and their determination to bring about real change that contributes to their liberation and advancement and ensures the continuation of shared interests with the world.
Ending the war and achieving sustainable peace are two noble goals that cannot be achieved by Islamists or their tools (Burhan/Hemedti), or by Dr. Hamdok and his opportunistic comrades. Rather, they can be achieved through scientific management, correcting misconceptions, overcoming sedition, eliminating injustice, and exacting retribution from criminals, whether military or civilian.
