ADDIS ABABA – Sudanese political and civil forces opposed to the war rejected army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s call for an internal political dialogue, saying Sudan needs a genuine peace process rather than what they described as a misleading dialogue held under the authority of one party to the war.
The position was issued in a joint document titled “The Peace Process We Want” after a two-day consultative meeting in Addis Ababa on August 22 and 23, bringing together anti-war forces not aligned with the warring parties.
Participants included groups affiliated with the Sudanese Declaration of Principles, the Popular Congress Party, the Umma Party, civil society organizations, women’s and youth networks, academics, writers, intellectuals and public figures.
The meeting discussed Sudan’s worsening humanitarian crisis, civilian protection, humanitarian access, developments on the ground, regional and international mediation efforts and Al-Burhan’s proposed “Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue.”
The groups said any credible peace process must begin with humanitarian measures and a cessation of hostilities, followed by security and political arrangements and a permanent ceasefire under an independent and agreed framework.
They argued that Al-Burhan’s proposed dialogue does not meet those conditions because it would be held inside areas controlled by one side of the war, under its protection and security authority.
According to the document, holding a “national dialogue” only in army-controlled areas would give political legitimacy to the de facto military divisions created by the war and risk turning Sudan’s battlefield fragmentation into a permanent political reality.
The signatories said they would reject and resist any process that contributes to dividing Sudan or excluding millions of Sudanese living or displaced outside areas controlled by one party.
They also said a dialogue launched by a belligerent party cannot be neutral, arguing that the side that controls the timing, location, conditions, agenda and preparatory committee would also control the direction of the process.
The document said no political process could be credible while fighting continues, drones strike, famine spreads, displacement increases and abuses continue across the country. It warned that separating political dialogue from ending the war and addressing the humanitarian catastrophe would strip the process of meaning.
The groups also accused Al-Burhan of seeking political legitimacy for military rule, saying his call for dialogue follows the path he has pursued since the October 25, 2021 military takeover.
They said any credible process must exclude the dissolved National Congress Party, the Islamist movement and their political fronts, accusing those forces of igniting and prolonging the war and seeking to return through arrangements similar to former President Omar al-Bashir’s “National Dialogue.”
The document proposed an integrated peace process built on three simultaneous tracks: a humanitarian track focused on civilian protection, aid access and the return of displaced people; a ceasefire track beginning with an immediate humanitarian truce and leading to a permanent ceasefire; and a political track addressing the roots of Sudan’s repeated civil wars.
The groups said the process should be accompanied by measures to open humanitarian corridors, release detainees, guarantee freedom of movement, allow the return of displaced people and refugees, restore health and education services across divided areas and lift restrictions on civil and political activity.
They said participation should reflect Sudan’s real political and social landscape, including anti-war forces not aligned with either side, forces aligned with the army and forces aligned with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), while ensuring fair representation for women, youth, community groups, displaced people, refugees and Sudanese abroad.
However, the document said participation by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF should be limited to the ceasefire and humanitarian tracks, not the political track, which it described as a civilian matter.
The proposed peace process should address key issues including the system of governance, religion and the state, identity and equal citizenship, dismantling the former regime’s structures, building a unified professional national army, justice and accountability, land rights, displaced people and refugees, reconstruction, economic recovery, health, education, the transitional period, constitutional principles, elections and the role of women, youth and people with disabilities in decision-making.
The groups said the process should produce binding outcomes, including a declaration of principles to end the war, a comprehensive final peace agreement, a transitional constitution, a clear transitional structure and a mechanism for choosing a civilian transitional authority.
On external mediation, the document said the Quad roadmap issued on September 12, 2025, represented the best reference for Sudan’s peace process because it prioritized ending the war, set a clear timeline and supported a civilian future without domination by armed forces or the return of the former regime.
The groups said they were ready to engage constructively with the Quint Mechanism, provided Sudanese ownership of decisions is guaranteed, prior consultations are held, the humanitarian, ceasefire and political tracks are linked, and the former ruling party and Islamist movement are excluded.
They also called for a unified mediation platform bringing together the Quad, Quint and Troika, warning that multiple uncoordinated tracks weaken pressure to stop the war and allow warring parties to exploit divisions among mediators.
The document ended with an appeal to Sudanese people inside and outside the country to reject the war, hate speech, incitement and political maneuvers based on facts imposed by military force.
The signatories said they would work with all Sudanese forces that share the goals of ending the war, protecting civilians and achieving civilian democratic transition. They also said they would present proposals to both the SAF and RSF, their allies, the UN Security Council and regional and international actors to support a genuine peace process.
