Sovereignty or Life؟ Reflections on Malik Agar’s Statements and the Lost Humanity Amid Policies of

03:33 AM November, 19 2025

Sudanese Online
محمد عبدالله ابراهيم-الخرطوم-السودان
My Library
Short URL

Mohammed Abdallah

[email protected]



I had not intended to comment on what Mr. Malik Agar, Chairman of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) and Vice President of the Sovereignty Council, wrote on his Facebook page, were it not for a post by a comrade commenting on his statement. I know this comrade personally; he is one of those who can say one thing publicly while harboring its opposite in private. Hence, I found myself facing an ethical and intellectual imperative to respond.

The style used by this comrade is drenched in unqualified praise. He described what Agar wrote as an “important article,” enumerating his qualities of courage, bravery, and honesty, and lauding his unflinching truthfulness. Yet this old style of cloaking loyalty with praise, crafted solely to please leaders, has become exhausted and outdated in an era of openness and information flow. Its purpose is only to affirm the leader’s opinion and satisfy him, without daring to critique or highlight mistakes or points overlooked. This pattern was common within the SPLM and used by many to display loyalty and obedience, but in truth, it misleads the leaders themselves, especially those who make decisions based on hearsay.

If the comrade had truly sought fairness, he should have reminded Agar that his words are not merely those of the SPLM Chairman, but of the second-in-command of the state, representing the government. Therefore, his grave accusation against Tom Fletcher of complicity in genocide in Darfur is not a passing opinion, nor limited to one individual. It implicates the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the United Nations as a whole. If the government had any concerns or objections to Fletcher’s visit, it should have expressed them through official channels, delivering a clear and professional letter to OCHA and the UN, rather than issuing sweeping accusations on social media.

Secondly, Malik Agar today does not speak solely as Chairman of the SPLM but as a representative of the government, especially regarding public affairs. Thus, he speaks as the official voice of the de facto government in Port Sudan, the second-in-command of the state, as he himself has declared. His statements are far from mere personal opinions; they are explicit expressions of his government’s stance and responsibilities.

From this perspective, this response is directed not at Malik Agar the individual, but at the de facto government, whose vision and positions his words appear to reflect. Everyone knows that this government, now stationed in Port Sudan, is illegitimate, born of a coup, unrecognized by the African Union, and therefore lacking any international or regional legitimacy. It is allied with remnants of the defunct Islamist regime that ignited the war, failed to protect civilians, committed gross violations, and fled to Port Sudan, leaving citizens in Khartoum to face death and chaos alone.

This government cares less for the citizen than for securing its own survival. It relies on a falsified constitution, attempting to reshape the political and humanitarian landscape according to its narrow interests, disregarding the millions of Sudanese enduring war, hunger, and insecurity. Under these collapsed conditions, there is no legitimate government in Sudan, and no authority holds the right to speak on behalf of the Sudanese people. Any discussion of sovereignty or nationalism under this rubble is nothing but deceptive slogans that crumble before the plight of millions of civilians.

Tom Fletcher’s visit, as UN Under-Secretary-General and Humanitarian Coordinator, was no more than an attempt to assess the magnitude of the humanitarian disaster and evaluate urgent needs, a mission to save millions awaiting food, medicine, and shelter in a country overflowing with pain, gnawed by hunger, disease, and despair. Any narrative portraying this visit outside this context is mere cheap posturing. Sovereignty used to obstruct access to food and medicine, or any law or authority that impedes aid to the suffering, deserves neither respect nor recognition and must be held accountable. No one has the right to exploit the banner of “sovereignty” to delay or prevent the saving of lives. Humanity is the true sovereignty, and the right to life precedes all state laws and pretexts.

Any talk of “violating sovereignty” in the face of millions of suffering is empty rhetoric, wrapped in lies at the expense of the eternal right to life. Humanity surpasses politics, and the right to life is not obstructed by falsified laws or illegitimate authorities. Moral and humanitarian duty demands transcending anyone who stands in the way of rescue and assistance. In this context, invoking “sovereignty” becomes simultaneously absurd and tragic.

What Malik Agar said about the genocide in Darfur between 2003 and 2005 requires historical and factual correction. Violence and violations were not the sole domain of the RSF; they were a direct product of the policies of the ousted National Congress Party (NCP) regime, toppled by the people in the December 2019 revolution. It was the same regime that paved the way for and ignited the April 15, 2023 war.

Malik Agar knows better than anyone that the crimes committed in Darfur at that time were not the act of a single group; they are the legacy of the dissolved NCP regime and its security and military arms, a despotic approach that used “divide and rule” and war as instruments to subjugate communities, not only in Darfur but across Sudan, including Blue Nile, Nuba Mountains, and South Kordofan.

The former regime’s leaders, including Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the current army commander and Malik Agar’s superior today, were central architects of these policies, orchestrating arming and mobilization campaigns that tore apart the social fabric and unleashed waves of violence, destruction, and displacement. The RSF was merely a tool within a broader system designed bythe central authority at the time. Malik Agar knows these facts firsthand, through his long experience in armed struggle within the SPLM and his direct connection to the victims who suffered under these policies, particularly in South Sudan, Blue Nile, and South Kordofan.

The most painful irony today is that the regime Malik Agar allies with and shields is the same regime that committed massacres in Darfur, Kordofan, and Blue Nile, and whose leaders are still subject to ICC arrest warrants for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. These are facts Agar cannot ignore or bypass; he knows them with certainty.

If Malik Agar, as has been said, is indeed courageous and bold, the true test of this courage begins here .. from his stance on surrendering the former regime’s leaders wanted by international justice, and from his ability to confront the legacy of the regime he now supports. Courage is not rhetoric or polished statements; it is action that demonstrates consistency between principle and position, word and truth.

Thus, the real question arises: Does Agar possess the courage to demand the surrender of the former regime’s leaders to the ICC, or will he continue to practice the same double standards, where silence becomes complicity, and “neutrality” a cover for impunity؟

What Mr. Malik Agar says today appears to be nothing more than an attempt to whitewash a bloody history and polish the legacy of a criminal regime he now allies with, by shifting the moral and political burden onto others in a misleading and distorted manner. While we do not deny that the RSF committed grave crimes, no one disputes that, but reducing the entire tragedy to a single party falsifies the facts and attempts to erase that these crimes’ roots extend deep into the record of the regime that ignited the war, embraced the Janjaweed, and created the environment of violence from which all this destruction erupted.

The crimes of the NCP and its security and military apparatus were not isolated incidents; they are consecutive links in a long chain of systematic violations affecting all Sudanese—from Darfur to Blue Nile, from the Nuba Mountains to Khartoum .. and these crimes continue to this day, including igniting the April 15 war, killing civilians, displacing millions, obstructing humanitarian aid, and targeting aid convoys and workers. Every ceasefire or initiative to save civilians, including the latest proposed by the United States, was repeatedly thwarted by the same actors that Agar now seeks to politically and morally shield. Hence, blaming the RSF alone for the tragedy is an escape from the truth, an attempt to absolve crime partners who continue the war and deepen the catastrophe.

In this context, all the crimes Agar mentions, committed against the Sudanese people in this war, implicate him as a central partner. As the second-in-command of the state, he bears direct responsibility, including targeting relief convoys, killing aid workers, and even looting and selling aid from Port Sudan to Blue Nile. What he conveys in his statements about Fletcher’s visit is no more than a political justification for the crimes committed under his leadership and support.

The pressing question remains: Does Malik Agar remember his days in the SPLM struggle, and how humanitarian aid reached civilians in SPLM-controlled areas؟ Was that also complicity؟ Would he have dared to describe a humanitarian visit like Fletcher’s as a “violation of sovereignty” if he had not turned his back on the principles he once defended؟

Ultimately, the deeper and truer question is: Should national sovereignty be used as a pretext to obstruct the lives of citizens, or is humanity alone the true sovereignty, above any political slogan or authoritarian rhetoric؟

Tom Fletcher’s visit was purely an attempt to save millions of lives, and an opportunity to awaken the consciences of those who have forgotten or neglected that the human being is the purpose, and that the essence of every policy is to protect life, not trade in it. It is a reminder that no claim of legitimacy supersedes the pain of the hungry, no sovereignty provides an excuse before a child awaiting food or medicine, and no political speech has the right to stand between people and their right to life and survival.

Mr. Agar, you who govern in name, not in truth: humanity is greater than any office, the right to life is holier than any slogan, stronger than any alliance, and more precious than all that is called legitimacy today in Port Sudan. Know that any discourse on sovereignty or nationalism becomes meaningless before the faces of the hungry, sick, and displaced who await the mercy of humanity before any political speech.

In this world, humanity remains the golden principle, the right to life the highest law, and the living conscience the final arbiter. If we do not place this principle before our eyes, words .. no matter how official or political .. will remain empty echoes across the wasteland created by corrupt policies and distorted alliances.

The simple truth remains: national sovereignty cannot become a stone that crushes citizens’ chests, nor can it serve as a pretext to justify obstructing the lives of innocents. Humanity is the true sovereignty, and the moral and political duty of true leadership is to protect lives before protecting interests. History will not forgive those who chose complicity over solidarity, or hatred over mercy. Sudan today needs leaders who understand that humanity is above all else, and that the right to life is not a choice, but a sacred duty, a path to rebuilding the nation after years of war, destruction, and chaos.