By Khalid Abdallah Abker,
Oct 28, 2015(Nyamilepedia) — President Bashir’s sudden departure from the African Union Summit, held in South Africa in June this year [2015], marked a new frontier in dealing with two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing him of war crimes and the genocide crimes in Darfur, Western Sudan.
The decision of the South Africa’s High court banning president Bashir from leaving the country until an application calling for his arrest had been heard, has shown that Bashir’s opportunities for impunity are really limited and that an independent judicial system, civil society organisations as well as democratic oppositions parties in Africa spearhead this battle against impunity.
Moreover Sudan’s president will no longer be able to continue traveling freely throughout Africa and challenging the ICC’S arrest warrants.
The departure of Al-Bashir, despite a clear order from the judicial power, has led to serious consequences in the government in terms of international and domestic law as well as politically .
The African National Congress Party embarrassed itself in front of people all over the world, who supported its long struggle against Apartied regime. This events has also raised real questions about their commitments towards democracy and the state of law.
Internationally, the ICC has given the Republic of South Africa a new deadline set for 31 December 2015, to submit their views on the events surrounding Omar Al-Bashir’s attendance to the African Union Summit in Johannesburg. In the face of these events South Africa’s ruling party has voted to withdraw the country from the ICC, accusing the court of losing its direction. Although the decision of withdrawal has been taken, the obligations of the South African State according to Rome Statute Article 127(2) will last for one year after reporting its decision to the UN Secretary General.
Domestically, ever since October 10th 2015 Sudan’s government has been organising what has been called a national dialogue, in an attempt to solve Sudan’s crisis and seek Al-Basher’s own safety regarding his accusations by the ICC. The dialogue, however, seems to be on the wrong track, as intends to be a substitute for the efforts of the African Union High-Level Implementation panel (AUHIP) to bring the opposition and the government together, according to the 539th meeting on August 2015.
The boycott of the national Dialogue by the oppositions, shaped the event as a government conference with its many unknown allies. The only well-known party participated in the government conference is the Popular Congress party led by Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi, the masterminded of Al-Bashir’s coup in 30 june 1989. It was only Later on, in 1999 when Turabi was being at odds with Al-Bashir over the government policies. As a consequence Turabi established the Popular Congress. Ever since then, he has been trying to reinstate himself a leader of this Islamic regime, BY using the competitive powers group inside the National Congress Party and Bashir’s psychological state that led him to follow steps of the late Sudan’s president Jafer Nimiri (1969/1985). Nimiri abandoned his allies several times and made constitutional amendments to seize more power, when his government was exacerbated with opposition groups, economics problems, human rights violations, amongst other, this government, however, is the worst in Sudan’s history and it is surrounded by all the circumstances that led to defeat other dictators in Sudan. As part of his plans to come back in power, Al-Turabi has brought back to Khartoum the former popular security chief, Al-Safi Nor-Eldin, who was living in Kenya for many years. There have also been some reports announcing that the second man in Turabi’s party Dr.Ali Al-Haj is about to return home as well.
It is obvious that there is no way to bring about a reform in terms of economy, peace, stability and international relations unless Bashir is out of power, something which also Al-Turabi is aware of.
In conclusion the future of Sudan is not easy to be predictable given the dividing among the opposition groups, many of whom are willing to make a deal with the government without solving the root causes of the crisis that Sudan has been facing since it is independence in January 1956. It worth saying that, the main challenge that the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel faces in it is efforts to accomplish a comprehensive national process for peace, is following the South Africa’s peace process back in 1990th, without focussing on differences between the two situation. In South Africa’s Apartheid regime, however, peace achieved ultimately as a result of the International pressure, the boycott and the severe internal circumstances the regime was facing. While Sudan’s government is still challenging the international community, it still believes in power to win the war. Furthermore the President seems to have no confidence in any mediators. The oppositions appears to have more tactics than strategies and to depend more on international pressure rather than their own political methods.
The author could be reached at khalaswd7866@gmail.com
