“The Revolution Was Stolen”: Can the transitional government bring justice for killed protesters?

Despite international advocacy organisations concluding that Sudanese security forces were responsible for the June 3 2019 massacre in Khartoum, Sudanese civilians remain critical of the transitional government’s incapacity in prosecuting the alleged perpetrators. Some civilians are withdrawing their support for the government due to its inability to deliver justice for the dead protesters.

However, the government faces structural obstacles in hold perpetrators of the massacre to account. The government’s inquiry into the massacre is flawed by an inability to quantify death toll figures or protect witnesses. The Sudanese legal system is also believed to lack independence, which poses a concern as the RSF – who are accused of conducting the massacre – launch legal action against their critics.

Proposed solutions include: an independent investigation, international sanctions, constitutional reforms and for Sudanese security forces to adopt a “new culture.”

Sudanese security forces accused of responsibility for the June 3 2019 massacre

An inquiry by New York-based advocacy organisation Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) concluded that Sudanese security forces systematically planned and coordinated the June 3 2019 massacre which killed up to 241 pro-democracy protesters and injured hundreds more (Guardian, March 5).

Citing interviews with 30 survivors, eyewitness accounts, and analysis of thousands of still and video images among other sources of information, PHR found that Sudanese authorities “purposefully pre-positioned” state security forces armed with tear gas, whips and assault rifles in the month before the protests began, and “intentionally targeted” medical personnel and facilities during and after the protests.

Amnesty International (March 10) blamed the “shadowy” armed operational units of the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) and the Rapid Support Forces militia (RSF) for the June 3 2019 massacre.

However, Sudanese civilians continue to criticise the transitional government for failing to bring the alleged perpetrators of the massacre to account, with support for the transitional government being withdrawn.

Transitional government criticised for its inability to deliver justice

AP (9 March) highlighted the growing youth disillusion at the transitional government, with growing frustrations at the lack of justice for killed protesters.

30-year-old Al-amin Ali said the transitional government “is far from meeting the basic demands of the uprising — justice for previous crimes.” 19-year-old Youssef al-Sewahly said his support for the transitional government hinges on whether those responsible for violence on demonstrators are prosecuted, adding that “our trust in the military is zero, we do not expect anything from them.”

A video circulating Sudanese social media was a speech by the mother of Abdulsalam Kisha – a protester who was killed during the June 3 massacre. Kisha’s mother was responding to a request for a three-month extension made by Nabil Adib, the rights lawyer who is leading the government investigation into the June 3 massacre.

Kisha’s mother said: “Nabil Adib is the dirtiest human created by Allah. He is a dirty, unclean man. Today, he was supposed to give a statement, but he delayed it for three months. Why does he want a three month extension?” Kisha’s mother also labelled the chairman and deputy chairman of Sudan’s ruling sovereign council – Abdelfattah al-Burhan and Himedti respectively – “the dirtiest creations of Allah.”

Kisha’s mother then extended her criticisms to the civilian groups who organised the Sudan Uprising, and share power with the military in the transition government. “The Kezan [al-Bashir’s regime] are still in power,” she said. “The revolution got stolen. The revolutionaries need to be united,” she said.

“The Forces of Freedom and Change are dirtier than the Kezan. The Sudanese Professionals Association are dirtier than the Kezan. Hamdok is cold, because he has a foreign passport. He has not lived our life. They do not feel the pain of the revolutionaries who died” Kisha’s mother added.

Kisha’s mother concluded by saying: “all the martrys who died were young. I have to bring them justice – for my son and his friends. And I have to be on the streets, with the revolutionaries.” The crowd chanted: “Kisha’s mother, we are all Kisha.”

However, structural obstacles impede the prospects of justice for the killed protesters.

Obstacles to justice

The government’s inquiry into the June 3 massacre is flawed by an inability to quantify death toll figures or protect witnesses. The Sudanese legal system is also believed to lack independence, which poses a concern, as the RSF government militia – who are accused of conducting the massacre – launch legal action against their critics.

Inability to quantify the death toll – Amnesty International (March 10) said it is “flabbergasted” by the “widely divergent” protester death toll data provided by different Sudanese government agencies, calling for Sudanese authorities to “spare no effort” in verifying the “true extent of atrocities committed.

Witness protection not guaranteed – While Nabil Adib, the lawyer who leads the government investigation into the June 3 2019 massacre, has been labelled “the dirtiest creation of God” by the mother of a killed protester, structural obstacles impede Adib in his attempts to provide justice. Adib has conceded that his commission lacks the resources and capabilities to guarantee witness protection (AP, 9 March).

Sudanese legal limitations – Musad Mohamed Ali, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies, told Radio Dabanga (March 4) that Sudan has not had an independent, impartial and transparent judiciary for the past 30 years, with the judiciary lacking “practical” experience in international humanitarian law and human rights violations.

While Ali was speaking within the context of Sudanese legal limitations which render “out of the question” a trial in Sudanese courts for those wanted by the ICC for crimes committed in Darfur, the same criticisms can be applied to the practicality of Sudanese courts in bringing perpetrators of the June 3 massacre to justice.

RSF legal action – With the RSF widely blamed for the June 3 massacre, public pressure on the militia can be silenced by the possibility of legal action taken against those who accuse the RSF, who having filed four official complaints against its critics. Radio Dabanga (March 2) reported that the RSF is taking legal action against journalists of the independent El Jareeda newspaper after it published criticisms from senior figures in the Sudanese Communist Party and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North.

Mohammed el-Khateeb, the Communist Party Secretary-General, said the RSF is a militia that should not be allowed to join the Sudanese army. El Jareeda is also being sued after quoting Dr Mohamed Hashim, the deputy head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North, who reportedly told a symposium that the RSF “poses a danger to the revolution.”

To find justice for killed protesters, the solutions presented have included calls for an independent investigation, international sanctions, constitutional reforms and for Sudanese security forces to adopt a “new culture.”

Solutions

Independent investigation - Deprose Muchena, Amnesty International’s Director for East Africa, called on Sudan’s transitional authorities to hold “thorough, effective and independent investigations into all protester killings and other human rights violations.” Muchena called for all those found responsible, “including through command responsibility,” to be brought to justice through fair trials, “but without resorting to the death penalty” (Amnesty International, March 10).

International sanctions and constitutional reform - PHR called on on UN member states to sanction the Sudanese officials responsible for the human rights abuses and for Sudan’s civilian-military government to include human rights, rule of law and accountability protections in the nation’s new constitution (Guardian, March 5). Indeed, Taj Elsir Alhibr, Sudan’s Attorney General, called for relevant authorities to confirm constitutional rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression (Sudan Tribune, March 6).

New culture for security forces – Alhibr also called for Sudanese security forces to adopt a “new culture” to prevent the “brutal” crackdown against peaceful protesters. Alhibr suggested that the police depart from conventional methods of dealing with demonstrations under al-Bashir’s regime, as “peaceful demonstrations “are now a legitimate right” (Sudan Tribune, March 6).

However, just four days after the statements were reported, Sudanese police used tear gas to disperse demonstrations in the Blue Nile state (Radio Dabanga, March 10). On the same day that citizens across Sudan took to the streets in solidarity with Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok following a failed assassination attempt, protests in Ed Damazin faced violence as they protested frequent power cuts and water shortages. Six houses were torched in the process.