In March and April 1985, the people of Sudan took to the streets
revolting against Nimeiry’s regime. One of the main demands of the intifada was the abolishment of what became known as the
"September 1983 laws", a criminal system based on Sharia.
Hundreds had been arbitrary killed, tortured and jailed as a
result of these laws. However, for the four-year “democratic period” that
followed the intifada, the
government failed to meet the demands of the masses and the "September laws" remained untouched.
The 1989 military coup led by Omar Al Bashir and engineered
by the National Islamic Front, set a precedent for further setbacks to the country’s
legal foundations. In 1991, new criminal procedural laws were introduced and approved in the years to follow. They are all based on a fundamental
interpretation of the Sharia.
The resistance never stopped. Campaigns were launched, and
Sudanese and international activists worked tirelessly to reveal the brutality
of the criminal and security systems in the country. Legal reform has always been one of the main demands of opposition groups. But most of these
campaigns only focused on one law or one article.
On 22 February 2015, two months before a controversial
election took place, Al Bashir approved new amendments to the country’s 1991
criminal laws, tackling three major areas: bribery and counterfeit money, apostasy and insulting religions, sexual harassment and rape.
These amendments have not been published/printed
in full yet, and activists and lawyers have struggled to obtain copies. However, as with other state documents, they were leaked to international actors before the
Sudanese people.
These are initial readings of some of the amendments. The articles were
obtained and translated into English by a Sudanese civil society organization, who remain anonymous for their own safety.
On apostasy and insulting religion: a
leap towards Wahhabism
Last year the case of Mariam Yahia,
a Sudanese woman who was sentenced to death for committing
apostasy, shook the entire world. Campaigns were launched in Sudan and abroad
calling for legal reform, specifically the abolishment of Article 126 of the
criminal code.
However, since the Sudanese government is determined to keep
the masses living in fear, they amended both Article 126 (apostasy) and Article
125 (insulting religions) to be even more brutal.
The new law not only continues to criminalise apostasy, but also redefines it to include anyone who questions the credibility
of the Quran, the Sahaba, or
the wives of the Prophet. Moreover, even apostates who 'repent' can face up to five years imprisonment.
Two new sections were added to the article on insulting religions.
Now, any non-Muslim who curses or “offends” Islam or the Prophet or the Sahaba, especially the four Caliphs,
can be charged. The punishment for insulting religions has increased from
six months to five years imprisonment.
This new amendment not only targets the rights of non-Muslims and renouncers,
but also encompasses Muslims with different ideological backgrounds that contradict
the government’s interpretation of Islam. Sufi Muslims, Shi’a, Islamic reformists, activists who challenge
political Islam and many other groups could be at risk of prosecution. People’s
basic right of freedom of expression and thought is under threat.
Rape and sexual harassment: no victory after all
Finally, the problematic Article 149 has been amended. The
original 1991 law confused rape and adultery, which meant that if a rape
victim failed to prove her case she could be punished for committing adultery (zina). The punishment was
100 lashes if she was unmarried and death by stoning if she was. The new
amendment expands the definition of rape and separates it from zina.
Human rights organizations have fought hard and long for this
victory. However, the new amendments raise doubts with regards to
achieving justice for survivors of rape. In an interview, Hikma Yagoub,
a human rights lawyer who runs a legal aid organization in Khartoum, said:
“The new definition will give victims and their lawyers the opportunity to achieve justice. However, it’s rather meaningless without
amending the evidence law of 1994, which is still in line with the old
definition of rape.”
Despite campaigns against stoning, the article on zina
and adultery is still in place. Women and men are still at risk of flogging and
death by stoning for having consensual sexual relationships, while punishment
for rape is no more than ten years.
Most importantly, this amended article is accompanied by a
new one on sexual harassment, which, according to the civil society organisation's translation, states:
“A person who commits sexual harassment is anyone who
carries out an act, a speech or behavior that is a temptation or an invitation
for someone else to practice illegitimate sex, or conducts horrendous or
inappropriate behavior of sexual nature that harms a person, psychologically,
or makes them feel unsafe. This person will be sentenced to a period of no more
than three years and lashing.”
This article couldn’t be more vague. This is common in most
of the legal provisions of Sharia law, as is the obsession with
controlling sexuality and restricting women’s presence in public
space. Words like “temptation” or “inappropriate acts” are often associated
with women’s presence in public space.
In an interview, Yosra Akasha, a human rights activist,
said:
“The article is not even clear on who the criminal is,
whether it is the harasser or the harassed. Quite often male harassers will defend
their actions by claiming that they were tempted by the victims’ presence,
clothing, or even way of speaking. The law has simply legalised these
misogynists’ arguments.”
It seems that the legislators are sending a message to women
to avoid seducing men, by obscuring themselves from public spaces. This is the price being
paid for not being punished, as a survivor of rape: the probability of
being accused of tempting predators still stands.
It’s safe to conclude that these amendments are not a response
to human rights campaigns or for the benefit of the Sudanese people, but rather
to satisfy future investors and financial backers, such as the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf monarchies.
The Sudanese government was one of Iran’s main Sunni alliances in the region, and has
also been accused of trafficking weapons to Hamas in Palestine on behalf of
Iran. The country has been facing critical financial crises after the secession
of South Sudan in 2011 and the government has been working tirelessly to relieve
itself from the US embargo. The main obstacle in Sudan restoring its diplomatic
relations was for it to detach itself from Iran, which seems to be the course
of action being implemented now.
Last
year, Iranian cultural centres started to be shut down and Iranian
diplomats were expelled. One month after the new amendment, the Sudanese
president flew to Saudi Arabia to take part in Operation Decisive Storm,
targeting the Houthis in Yemen.
Furthermore, this new amendment fits perfectly with this current shift in
relations, as it sends a clear message that Sudan is more Wahhabi than Mohamed ibn Abd
al-Wahhab himself.
These recent amendments provide even more reason for
rejection and concern. It’s high time for human rights activists to launch more
comprehensive campaigns against the entire legal system, calling for dignity
and equality for Sudanese men and women, rather than focusing on a single article
or law. We need new strategies, and more importantly, we need to stop cheering on
the amendments just because change has taken place.
