Sudan Power-Sharing Deal Finalized, African Union Envoy Says

Protesters celebrating in Khartoum, Sudan, on Saturday after reports that military and protest leaders had agreed on a constitutional declaration.CreditCreditAshraf Shazly/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

CAIRO — The African Union envoy to Sudan and protest leaders said on Saturday that the pro-democracy movement and the governing military council had finalized a power-sharing agreement announced last month^[1].

The envoy, Mohamed el-Hassan Lebatt, said they agreed on a constitutional declaration outlining the division of responsibilities for a three-year transition to elections. He did not provide further details or say when the agreement would be signed.

But Sudan’s state-run SUNA news agency quoted the protest leader Omar al-Dagir as saying the agreement would be signed on Sunday. Protest leaders also confirmed the development.

The document, which outlines the powers and the relationships between the branches of the transitional government, comes after weeks of protracted negotiations brokered by the African Union and neighboring Ethiopia amid sporadic bouts of violence in the capital, Khartoum, and other cities.

“I am announcing to the Sudanese, African and international public opinion that the two delegations have fully agreed on the constitutional declaration,” Mr. Lebatt told reporters on Saturday.

He said further meetings would be held to work out the technical details of the signing ceremony.

The long-awaited declaration deal prompted celebrations in Sudan, which has been plunged into months of crisis. “We’re victorious!” some people chanted while others sang the national anthem.

The main opposition coalition, the Forces of Freedom and Change, welcomed the agreement as a “first step with more to follow” and pledged to complete the journey to “freedom, peace and justice” in Sudan.

The military overthrew President Omar al-Bashir in April after months of mass protests against his three-decade authoritarian rule. Protesters who have demanded a rapid transition to civilian rule have been locked in tense negotiations with the military for weeks while holding mass demonstrations.

Two key points of contention had been the role of Sudan’s General Intelligence Service and the Rapid Support Forces, the country’s most powerful paramilitary group run by Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan. According to a draft of the declaration, the intelligence service will report to the cabinet and the sovereign council, the body that will rule the country in the transitional period, while the forces will fall under the general command of the armed forces.

Nine members of the Rapid Support Forces have been dismissed and detained in connection with the killing of protesters, including four schoolchildren, this past week. Last month, protest leaders accused the paramilitary group of opening fire on protesting high school students in El-Obeid, a city about 250 miles south of Khartoum. At least six were killed.

In June, security forces violently dispersed a sit-in by protesters outside the military headquarters in the capital, Khartoum, killing dozens of people and plunging the fragile transition into crisis.

On Thursday, at least four more protesters were shot dead in Sudan during another round of large-scale demonstrations, potentially escalating a tense, monthslong standoff between protesters and military leaders.

The two sides reached a preliminary agreement^[2] last month following pressure from the United States and its Arab allies, amid growing concerns the political crisis could ignite civil war. That deal provided for the establishment of a joint civilian-military sovereign council that would rule Sudan for a little over three years while elections are organized.

A military leader would head the 11-member council for the first 21 months, followed by a civilian leader for the next 18. There would also be a cabinet made up of technocrats chosen by the protesters, as well as a legislative council, the makeup of which would be decided within three months.

But the two sides remained divided on several issues, including whether military leaders would be immune from prosecution over recent violence against protesters. It was not immediately clear whether they had resolved that dispute.