MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Sudan
Index
Trial in Tambura, western Al Istiwai State, with stolen
goods (honey in cans) and judges in foreground, accused on the
right
Courtesy Robert O. Collins
The Sudanese criminal code embodied elements of British law,
the penal code of British colonial India, and the Egyptian civil
code
(see The Legal System
, ch. 4). In 1977 Nimeiri formed a
committee, dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, to revise the
legal code according to the sharia (Islamic law). In September
1983, the Nimeiri government introduced a version of the sharia
prescribing harsh corporal punishments for such crimes as murder,
theft, drinking alcohol, prostitution, and adultery. These
"September Laws," sometimes known as hudud (sing.,
hadd, penalty prescribed by Islamic law) provided for
execution, flogging, amputation, and stoning as modes of
punishment for both Muslims and non-Muslims. During the final
twenty months of Nimeiri's rule, at least ninety persons
convicted of theft had their hands amputated. The military and
civil governments succeeding Nimeiri between 1985 and 1989
suspended the September Laws. Progress on a new Islamic penal
code to replace the September Laws was delayed by the legislature
pending a constitutional assembly that would include the SPLA.
Although flogging, consisting normally of forty lashes, was
limited to offenses involving sex or alcohol, it was often
inflicted summarily. In 1989 the RCC-NS extended flogging as a
punishment for a much wider range of offenses. Extreme
hudud sentences such as amputations were not handed down,
however, and many hudud sentences imposed under the Sadiq
al Mahdi government were converted to jail terms and fines.
In the regular criminal court system, extensive guarantees of
due process were prescribed for accused persons. These courts
consisted of a panel of three judges. The judicial process
involved a police or magistrate's investigation and an arrest
warrant preceding the arrest. Trials were held in public except
when the accused requested a closed trial. The accused had to be
brought before a court within forty-eight hours of arrest,
informed of the charges, and provided with access to an attorney
of the accused's choice. There were legal aid services for the
poor, but, because resources were limited, legal aid was
apportioned to those facing serious charges and those most in
need. Bail was permitted except in some capital cases. Defendants
had the right to speak, to present evidence on their own behalf,
and to appeal judgments through a series of courts from the
magistrate level to the High Court of Appeal.
Under the state of emergency imposed by the Sadiq al Mahdi
regime in 1987, the government had wide powers in areas declared
to be emergency zones to arrest and preventively detain for an
indefinite period anyone suspected of contravening emergency
regulations. Military personnel could not be arrested by civilian
authorities, nor was there provision for judicial review of
actions by the armed forces. The Sadiq al Mahdi government
declared emergency zones in the southern and western areas of the
country and used the detention powers on people suspected of
sympathy with the rebellion.
On seizing power in 1989, the RCC-NS declared a state of
emergency for the whole of Sudan and granted itself broad powers.
The government initially detained more than 300 people without
warrants, including many prominent political and academic
figures, journalists, alleged leftists, and trade unionists.
About sixty judges who petitioned against the government's action
were also detained. Many of the original detainees were released
within several months, but they were replaced by others. There
were an estimated 300 to 500 detainees at the close of 1990; some
reports claimed as many as 1,000 detainees.
After the 1989 coup, the regular civilian courts continued to
handle ordinary criminal offenses, including theft and some
capital crimes, although the court system was seriously
backlogged and the judiciary was less independent of the
executive than previously. After experimenting with various forms
of special courts, the RCC-NS established special security courts
in November 1989. These courts were formed by the military
governors of the regions and the commissioner of the national
capital. The courts had three-member panels of both military and
civilian judges. They tried persons accused of violating
constitutional decrees, emergency regulations, and some portions
of the criminal code, notably drug crimes and currency
violations. The new security courts did not extend normal
protections to the accused. Attorneys were permitted to sit with
defendants but were not permitted to address the courts.
Sentences imposed by the courts were to be carried out
immediately, with the exception that death penalties were to be
reviewed by the chief justice and the head of state. The special
security courts gained a reputation for harsh sentences. Two
defendants convicted of illegal possession of foreign currency
and another convicted of drug smuggling were executed and others
were sentenced to death for similar crimes, although the
sentences were not carried out.
In areas of the south affected by the war, normal judicial
procedures could not be applied and civil authorities were made
redundant by the application of the state of emergency. Units of
the armed forces and militias ruled by force of arms, and in many
cases the accused were summarily tried and punished, especially
for offenses against public order. In war-torn southern Kurdufan
the government authorized a system of justice administered by
village elders, and a similar system was reportedly in effect in
areas controlled by the SPLA.
Data as of June 1991
|
|