Debate over exiled government splits Sudan’s Taqaddum coalition

ADDIS ABABA – A leadership crisis is brewing within the Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces, Sudan’s main civilian anti-war coalition, over a proposal to form a government-in-exile, threatening the bloc’s unity.

The alliance, also known as Taqaddum and led by former Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok, was formed after the outbreak of war in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). It aims to end the conflict and restore civilian rule.

The debate centers on whether to establish an alternative government outside Sudan to challenge the SAF-led transitional sovereign council in Port Sudan.

Some factions, primarily former Darfur rebel groups like the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement – Transitional Council (SLM-TC), argue this is necessary to counter the military’s claim to legitimacy.

They point to the SAF commander-in-chief’s international engagements, including addressing the UN General Assembly, as evidence of this assumed legitimacy, which they believe hinders peace efforts.

This proposal has been discussed at least three times, including meetings in Addis Ababa and Entebbe, Uganda, but has failed to gain consensus. The United States has also expressed concerns about the plan, fearing it could further fragment the country.

Opponents of the government-in-exile idea, including some within Taqaddum, worry it could deepen divisions within the civilian front and complicate diplomatic efforts to end the war.

Taqaddum’s official spokesperson, Bakri Al-Jack, stated on Thursday that the coalition does not seek to form a parallel government.

He said the proposal was discussed in December but lacked consensus and was referred to a political mechanism for further deliberation. He added that the coalition agreed to separate those advocating for an exiled government from those opposed.

However, Al-Hadi Idris, one of Taqaddum’s deputy heads, issued a counter-statement, rejecting Al-Jack’s remarks and asserting that no final decision has been made.

He accused some members of pushing their own agenda outside established procedures and emphasized that the issue remains under discussion.