31 Sudanese lawyers’ licences withdrawn: A struggle for legitimacy or the politicisation of justice?

Report by Abdelmoniem Madibu for Radio Dabanga

A decision by the Sudan Bar Association in Port Sudan to withdraw the practising licences of 31 lawyers has sparked widespread controversy within Sudan’s legal and human rights circles, raising serious questions about legality, due process and the independence of the legal profession amid the country’s ongoing conflict.

The decision, issued by the Lawyers’ Admissions Committee, bars the affected lawyers from practising before all courts and legal bodies. The committee justified its move by citing what it described as “serious violations” of the Legal Profession Act and the code of professional conduct. However, critics have questioned the legal basis of the decision, the procedures followed, and its broader implications for the rule of law in Sudan’s current exceptional circumstances.

The decision and its justification

The Admissions Committee — formed in Port Sudan following the outbreak of the 15 April war and accused by lawyers of being affiliated with the former regime overthrown by the December Revolution — said the decision was based on evidence that the affected lawyers had joined the Rapid Support Forces or were involved in political or armed organisations. It argued that such affiliations violate the ethics and honour of the legal profession and contradict its principles, including the defence of justice, the rule of law and human rights.

The committee claimed it relied on evidence and indicators demonstrating involvement in activities incompatible with professional standards, and said it had referred the lawyers’ details to the relevant judicial and administrative authorities for further action.

Claims of invalidity

The committee stated that it based its decision on Articles 25(1)(h), 25(2), 65 and 66 of the Legal Profession Act. However, Omar Sid Ahmed, a member of the Democratic Lawyers’ Alliance, said these provisions relate strictly to specific disciplinary procedures linked to professional practice and do not apply to political, intellectual or trade union activities, rendering the decision legally unfounded.

In a statement seen by Radio Dabanga, the Steering Committee of the Sudan Bar Association described the decision as null and void, arguing that it was issued by an unauthorised body that had unlawfully assumed the powers of the Disciplinary Council. It stressed that disciplinary sanctions may only be imposed by the Disciplinary Council, in accordance with the law.

The statement said the decision violated all fundamental procedures, noting that the lawyers concerned were neither notified nor given the opportunity to present a defence. It added that the committee relied on vague and general allegations and imposed the harshest possible penalty without observing the principle of proportionality. According to the statement, the alleged facts do not correspond to any provision of the Legal Profession Act, rendering the decision legally ineffective.

The Steering Committee further condemned the publication of lists naming the affected lawyers, describing this as unlawful and a violation of reputation and the presumption of innocence. It reaffirmed that it is the sole legitimate body authorised to manage the profession and represent lawyers under Constitutional Decree No. 1 of 2023 and relevant court rulings.

Lack of legal authority

Nafeesa Hajar, a member of the Darfur Bar Association, said the committee that issued the decision had already been formally dissolved and replaced by the Bar Association’s Steering Committee under earlier decisions. She noted that a legal challenge concerning the committee’s status remains pending before the competent court, further undermining the legality of its actions. She stressed that the power to withdraw practising licences rests exclusively with a legally constituted authority, which, she said, the issuing committee clearly lacks.

Abuse of power

Mohamed Salah, a member of Emergency Lawyers, said the Legal Profession Act of 1983, as amended in 2014, clearly defines the limited powers of the Admissions Committee, restricting licence withdrawal or suspension to specific, enumerated cases related solely to professional or disciplinary misconduct. He said the law requires strict procedures, including the filing of a complaint, a formal investigation, the right of defence, a reasoned decision, and avenues of appeal.

He stressed that the law does not permit the Admissions Committee to suspend licences arbitrarily or without due process. Any interpretation to the contrary, he said, constitutes an unlawful expansion of authority, a misapplication of the law and an abuse of power. In his view, the decision suffers from such fundamental defects of jurisdiction and procedure that it amounts to legal non-existence rather than mere invalidity.

Salah also questioned whether proper legal channels had been followed in notifying judicial bodies such as the judiciary, prosecution service or courts. He said that even if notification had occurred, it would not confer legality on a decision issued by an entity lacking legal standing.

Political motives alleged

Omar Sid Ahmed said the decision was issued by a body with no legal or legitimate basis, driven by political motives aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the Bar Association’s Steering Committee and silencing lawyers’ voices. He described the move as an attempt to fracture the legal profession during wartime, calling it a manifestation of political division and a clear partisan agenda.

He said the Legal Profession Act protects lawyers from being punished for their political or intellectual views, and described the situation as a deliberate political struggle to dismantle the unity of lawyers and strip legitimacy from the recognised bar leadership.

Nafeesa Hajar echoed these concerns, saying the issuing body is affiliated with the dissolved bar linked to the former regime, making its decisions devoid of legal effect. She described the move as vindictive and politically motivated, aimed at settling scores with lawyers opposed to the former regime. The Darfur Bar Association, she said, rejects the decision outright and will not recognise it.

Claims of political targeting

The legal sector of the Sudanese Congress Party described the decision as a direct political attack on revolutionary forces. In a statement seen by Radio Dabanga, it said the affected lawyers include members of the party’s legal sector and individuals affiliated with the Civil Democratic Alliance of Revolutionary Forces (Somoud). It argued that the decision reflects the nature of the current war and the dominance of former regime and Islamist elements over the Port Sudan authorities, using state institutions to eliminate political opponents.

The party affirmed its full solidarity with the affected lawyers and called on civil democratic forces, professional unions and human rights organisations to unite against what it described as attempts to undermine revolutionary forces and entrench war and authoritarianism.

Control over the justice system

Rehab El Mubarak, a member of Emergency Lawyers, said the body that issued the decision lacks both legal authority and legitimacy. She argued that the move seeks to strip legitimacy from the Bar Association’s Steering Committee while paving the way for the expansion of influence by Islamist-aligned groups within state institutions.

She warned that these efforts aim to impose control over the entire justice system — the judiciary, prosecution and legal profession — noting that similar patterns have already been documented within the judiciary and public prosecution.

Mohamed Salah added that the decision contains no specific professional reasons or substantiated facts that could constitute a legally recognised offence under the Legal Profession Act. He said references to political positions or public activity do not meet the legal threshold required to justify licence withdrawal, stressing the principle of legality: “no crime and no punishment without a clear legal provision”.

Rejection and resistance

Several lawyers who spoke to Radio Dabanga described the decision as a violation of the law by a body that claims to protect rights and uphold the rule of law. Omar Sid Ahmed said lawyers’ licences cannot legally be withdrawn without fair trials or judicial rulings, adding that the decision also contradicts the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which guarantee the independence of the profession.

Rehab El Mubarak, who is among those affected, said the decision represents a new chapter in a long-standing dispute with what she termed the “Islamist bar” dating back to 2018. She said previous disputes were pursued through legal and judicial channels, but that the opposing body has now resorted to irregular methods after failing to regain control of the Bar Association through lawful means.

Amer Abkar Osman, one of the lawyers affected, said the decision was issued by an illegitimate and dissolved bar association that was disbanded under constitutional decrees following the December Revolution. He said the former bar had represented the ousted regime and had exhausted its legal challenges up to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the legality of its continued existence.

“The decision has no legal value,” he said. “My colleagues and I will challenge it through all available legal means to reaffirm that this body lacks legitimacy and that its decisions have no legal effect whatsoever.”