Despite promises made by Sudanese army leader and coup orchestrator Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan following the 2019 revolution that ousted Omar al-Bashir’s regime, less than a year passed before he took a decisive step toward losing legitimacy by toppling the civilian government of Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok in 2021. Al-Burhan then continued down the same path by igniting the April 2023 war, leaving both himself and his Islamist allies entirely devoid of legitimacy.Sudanese army leader and coup orchestrator Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan
In an analysis for the Global Peace Foundation, researcher Alex de Waal titled his piece, Al-Burhan: Illegitimate, Unpatriotic, Untrustworthy, and Not a Leader. De Waal argued that Al-Burhan’s seizure of power was a blatant violation of constitutional order, driven by selfish motives to protect military privileges and marked by a series of broken promises.
De Waal contends that Al-Burhan’s loss of legitimacy began with the military coup, which appeared to be a clear power grab in defiance of constitutional norms—an act that should have automatically triggered Sudan’s suspension from the African Union until the legitimate order was restored. Indeed, Sudan’s membership was promptly suspended, plunging the nation into regional isolation.
To maintain his compromised status, the general, an ally of the Islamic movement, devised a new formula: appointing loyalists who, by accepting his offers, demonstrated not only their willingness to be politically traded but also their limited political credibility. De Waal further remarked, “No one trusts that Al-Burhan would be anything other than a carbon copy of his deposed mentor, Omar Al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for three decades, leaving behind a desperate state inherited by the democratic revolution.”
In his prescient analysis, de Waal warned that a return to constitutional legitimacy would necessitate Al-Burhan’s resignation, as legally required when his term as head of the Sovereignty Council expired the same year Hamdok was ousted.
Al-Burhan’s coup was deemed unpatriotic, serving personal and factional interests while disregarding the immense cost borne by the Sudanese people. Unlike a national leader willing to make sacrifices for the country’s common good, Al-Burhan’s actions prioritized self-preservation.
When Hamdok attempted to reclaim the economy from military control, he faced fierce resistance. As de Waal predicted, “For the army, these necessary concessions begin with downsizing its inflated budget and dismantling its toxic economic influence, ending the officers’ grip on the most profitable sectors, and breaking the corruption networks entrenched over decades.”
Justice was a key demand from the revolutionaries who risked their lives during protests and sit-ins at military headquarters, and this was enshrined in the constitutional declaration. Yet, Al-Burhan’s generals evaded accountability for violations committed under Al-Bashir’s rule and the brutal crackdowns that followed the democratic uprising.
In a foresighted statement, de Waal concluded, “No decisive leadership has emerged in Sudan. Al-Burhan has shown himself to be hesitant and clumsy, a weak actor on a grand stage, incapable of playing his role convincingly.”
Zero Legitimacy
Two years after the Global Peace Foundation’s analysis, 2023 arrived with Al-Burhan igniting conflict, engulfing Sudan in chaos, and completely forfeiting his legitimacy—along with that of the Port Sudan authority and the Islamic movement. Meanwhile, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have aligned themselves with civilian forces and revolutionary demands.
In a series of televised statements, Abdelaziz Al-Hilu, leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North, affirmed that Al-Burhan lacked legitimacy since he had toppled the civilian government. He described the “Port Sudan authority” as incapable of fulfilling its duties and indifferent to the suffering of the people, even obstructing aid from reaching those in need.
Al-Hilu participated in the “Ta’sees” coalition talks, which culminated in an agreement to establish regions following a federal system, with a civilian leader from the SPLM-North assuming the roles of Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, according to Sudan Tribune sources.
Activist Abrar Mahjoub echoed these sentiments in a Facebook post, describing Al-Burhan’s legitimacy as “zero,” accusing Port Sudan forces and their Islamist allies of waging a war of starvation. She anticipated the deployment of international or African peacekeeping forces to monitor borders and prevent arms smuggling to them.
Mahjoub argued that Al-Burhan’s reliance on the Muslim Brotherhood and extremist groups had fractured the military’s unity. Regionally and internationally, whenever peace agreements were discussed, Al-Burhan resorted to familiar stalling tactics, indicating his lack of genuine intent to resolve Sudan’s crises.
ALSO READ: Justice or diversion? Inside Sudan’s controversial lawsuit against the UAE
A Civil State
In February, various Sudanese factions convened in Nairobi, Kenya, aiming to establish a founding charter, resulting in the formation of the Sudan Founding Alliance (Ta’sees). During the same meetings, the RSF presented a new constitution declaring Sudan a “secular, democratic, decentralized state based on the separation of religion from politics and equal citizenship.” The proposal garnered widespread civilian support.
According to Africa Confidential, the RSF enjoys regional support from Sudan’s neighboring states and seeks international backing based on its opposition to the Islamist resurgence led by Al-Burhan and remnants of Al-Bashir’s regime.
The Sudan Founding Alliance also includes several prominent independent figures from the former transitional government, such as former Sovereignty Council member Mohamed Hassan Al-Ta’ishi and former Justice Minister Nasreddin Abdul Bari.
*For more compelling coverage and in-depth analysis of political shifts across South Africa and the rest of the continent, stay tuned to NOWinSA — Stories Shaping Africa Today!
