The Sudanese political scene is undergoing remarkable shifts as former regime leaders re-emerge, amid escalating armed conflict and a deepening national crisis. This has triggered heated debate about the direction of the coming stage and the prospect of the dissolved National Congress Party returning to power through both military and political channels.
After a prolonged absence from the public eye, Nafie Ali Nafie—a prominent figure in the dissolved National Congress Party—reappeared via an online symposium, launching a fierce attack on the civilian forces and their leader, Abdalla Hamdok, and rejecting calls to end the war. Nafie argued that discussing political settlements before what he called the “rebels” are defeated militarily is simply a tactic to preserve the Rapid Support Forces and revive past civilian alliances. He called for granting the army full authority over the country’s affairs, describing it as “Sudan’s safety valve.”
Nafie presented a rigid vision that rejects any return to civilian rule, insisting that only military resolution would guarantee stability, and declaring that Islam alone could safeguard Sudan. He accused the civilian forces of working to restore Hamdok’s group to power.
Simultaneously, former Foreign Minister Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail reemerged in the media, expressing deep regret over the deterioration of conditions in Sudan and warning that continued armed conflict threatens the very existence of the state. Ismail blamed foreign parties for fueling the crisis and empowering certain domestic factions—particularly the RSF—describing Sudan as an open stage for both regional and international interventions.
Ismail called for a serious internal dialogue to unify the Sudanese and end the war, warning against entertaining the idea of more than one national army, and affirming that supporting any force other than the national military amounted to “betraying the nation.”
Civilian Forces’ Reactions and Warnings
The comeback of former regime figures and their escalatory rhetoric provoked strong reactions from civilian and revolutionary groups. Khalid Omar Yousif, executive office member of the “Samood Alliance,” declared that Nafie’s statements clearly expose the National Congress Party’s aim to prolong the war as a means of regaining power. He emphasized that the revolution remains capable of confronting the old regime through political, diplomatic, media, and popular tools, as long as its ranks unite.
The Forces of Freedom and Change and other civil groups have repeatedly stated that a military path will plunge Sudan into a spiral of collapse and division, stressing that the only solution lies in stopping the war and returning to comprehensive negotiations and dialogue, while rejecting all forms of exclusion and upholding the popular will.
For his part, Fadallah Burma Nasir, head of the National Umma Party, blamed the Islamic movement for igniting the current conflict and accused it of seeking to restore power by force. He cautioned that such a strategy threatens the unity and safety of the country, and called for a comprehensive approach that combines political and military work, rooted in sincere internal dialogue and rejection of external interference.
The return of former regime leaders comes at a time when Sudan is experiencing economic and security collapse and a massive humanitarian displacement. Analysts argue that this comeback carries multiple messages, chiefly an attempt to exploit chaos to consolidate influence—or perhaps even pave the way for a new deal that would see the old regime return to the fore via military means.
This reality is reflected in a sharp polarization between two camps: one aiming to enforce its will through force and mobilization, and the other insisting on sustaining civilian momentum and preventing a return to authoritarian rule.
Today’s Sudanese scene is an open struggle over the identity and future of the state, where local and foreign agendas overlap, and the remnants of the former regime escalate efforts to regain control. In contrast, civilian forces maintain that the revolution is not over, and that peaceful resistance and national unity remain viable options to confront the dangers of a slide into military despotism and chaos.
