Judgment Reviews Law at Sudan
The legal and judicial landscape in Sudan has been severely impacted by the ongoing conflict that began in April 2023. While a formal legal system existed prior to the war, its current functioning is highly compromised, and any discussion of "judgment reviews" must be understood in this context.
Pre-Conflict Legal System
Before the outbreak of fighting, Sudan had a judicial hierarchy that included:
The Supreme Court: The highest judicial body and the court of final appeal and review for civil, criminal, and administrative matters. It also had the power to review death sentences.
Courts of Appeal: These courts heard appeals from lower courts.
Courts of First Instance: These were the initial courts where most cases were heard.
Constitutional Court: Responsible for interpreting the constitution and reviewing the constitutionality of laws.
The legal system was a mix of English common law, civil law principles, and Islamic law (Sharia), which served as a primary source of legislation, particularly in the northern states. The law provided for a right to appeal judgments from lower courts to higher ones, with the Supreme Court serving as the ultimate authority.
The Impact of the 2023 Conflict
The ongoing civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has caused a near-total collapse of state institutions, including the judiciary.
Destruction of Infrastructure: Court buildings and legal offices have been destroyed or are inaccessible due to fighting.
Disruption of Operations: Judicial proceedings have largely ceased in conflict zones. Judges and lawyers have been displaced, and the ability to file appeals or have judgments reviewed is severely limited.
Erosion of the Rule of Law: The conflict has been marked by widespread human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. In this environment, the authority of the formal legal system has been replaced by the law of the gun in many areas.
Absence of Legal Recourse: For the millions of displaced people and victims of violence, there is virtually no functioning mechanism to seek justice or have a legal judgment reviewed.
Transitional Justice and Accountability
In the absence of a functioning legal system, there has been an increased focus on the need for transitional justice and accountability for war crimes and other atrocities.
Calls for International Mechanisms: International bodies, human rights organizations, and local civil society groups have called for international mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable. This includes expanding the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which already has an active case against former president Omar al-Bashir for crimes in Darfur.
Challenges to a "Justice First" Approach: The political climate in Sudan has historically favored a "peace first" approach, which often prioritizes peace agreements over justice for victims. The current conflict and the culture of impunity have made it even more difficult to establish a credible and independent system for transitional justice.
International Scrutiny: International fact-finding missions have been established to investigate human rights violations, and their findings may eventually be used in future legal proceedings, but these are external to Sudan's own judicial system.
In conclusion, while Sudan's laws historically provided a clear process for the review of judgments, the current state of war has rendered this system largely non-operational. The focus for judgment and accountability has shifted from the domestic courts to the future possibility of transitional justice mechanisms and international legal proceedings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments