Port Sudan Detainees Strike Over Trial Delays, Rights Violations

At least 83 detainees in Port Sudan Central Prison, Red Sea state, commenced an indefinite hunger strike today, protesting what they describe as systematic obstruction and years of delays violating their constitutional and legal right to a fair and expeditious trial. These detainees, facing grave charges under articles 50 and 51 of the 1991 Criminal Act for allegedly collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), including undermining the constitutional order and waging war against the state, claim their constitutional and legal right to a fair and expeditious trial has been systematically violated. They have been held for nearly two years, with some not even referred to court, and attribute the "catastrophic crisis" to the fact that a single judge is responsible for all 83 cases, leading to repeated adjournments and lengthy gaps between hearings. The detainees have also sent a detailed memorandum to Sovereignty Council chairman Gen Abdelfattah El Burhan, outlining the "shocking conditions" within the prison.

This hunger strike highlights critical failures within Sudan's judicial system, particularly concerning due process, the right to a fair trial, and the proper administration of justice, especially in times of conflict. For legal practitioners, it underscores the severe challenges in upholding fundamental human rights and constitutional protections for detainees in Sudan. The allegations of prolonged pre-trial detention, lack of access to courts, and the overburdening of judicial resources (one judge for 83 capital cases) point to systemic issues that can lead to miscarriages of justice. The charges themselves, carrying penalties of life imprisonment or death, amplify the gravity of these procedural deficiencies. This situation also draws attention to the broader implications of the ongoing conflict on the rule of law and the ability of the justice system to function effectively and impartially.

The detainees' protest directly invokes their constitutional and legal rights, which in Sudan, despite the current political instability, are theoretically enshrined in various legal instruments. The 2005 Interim National Constitution (though largely superseded by subsequent constitutional declarations and the current de facto military rule) and international human rights conventions to which Sudan is a signatory, guarantee rights such as the right to a fair trial, expeditious proceedings, and protection against arbitrary detention. Specifically, the 1991 Criminal Act, under which they are charged (Articles 50 and 51), outlines severe penalties for offenses against the state, making the procedural safeguards even more critical. The principle that pre-trial detention should be an exceptional and temporary measure is a cornerstone of international human rights law and is typically reflected in national criminal procedure codes. The alleged "systematic obstruction" and "endless delays" directly contravene these principles, suggesting a breakdown in the application of the Criminal Procedure Act and other relevant laws governing detention and trial processes. The memorandum to the Sovereignty Council Chairman indicates an appeal to the highest de facto authority in the absence of a fully functioning civilian government and independent judiciary.

The key parties are the 83 detainees at Port Sudan Central Prison, who are the primary actors in the hunger strike. The Sudanese Sovereignty Council Chairman, Gen Abdelfattah El Burhan, is a key recipient of their memorandum. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are mentioned as the entity with whom the detainees are accused of collaborating. Radio Dabanga is the source reporting on this event. The unnamed single judge handling all 83 cases and the Port Sudan Central Prison administration are also implicitly involved.

Attorneys representing clients in Sudan, particularly those facing politically sensitive charges or detained during the ongoing conflict, must be acutely aware of the severe challenges within the judicial system, including potential for prolonged pre-trial detention, lack of judicial capacity, and procedural delays. They should meticulously document all instances of delayed hearings, lack of access to legal counsel, and poor prison conditions, as these can form the basis for appeals or international human rights interventions. Practitioners should also advise clients on the risks associated with the current legal environment, where constitutional rights may be difficult to enforce effectively. Monitoring the response of the Sovereignty Council and other authorities to this hunger strike will be crucial, as it may indicate the willingness or capacity of the de facto government to address these systemic judicial failings.