Full story
Opposition Rejects Burhan Dialogue
Sudanese opposition political and civil forces rejected a domestic dialogue initiative backed by Sovereignty Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and instead proposed a peace process combining humanitarian, security and political tracks.
“A group of Sudanese opposition political and civil forces has rejected a domestic dialogue initiative backed by Sovereignty Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.”
The position was announced after a two-day consultative meeting held in Addis Ababa on August 22–23, where participants adopted a joint position paper titled “The Peace Process We Want.”
The groups said a dialogue conducted from territory controlled by one of Sudan’s warring parties could not constitute a credible or inclusive peace process, and they argued the initiative risked reinforcing Sudan’s existing de facto territorial and political divisions.
The meeting brought together forces associated with the Sudanese Declaration of Principles, the Popular Congress Party, the Umma Party led by Mubarak al-Fadil, civil society organisations, women’s and youth networks, and independent public figures.
The broader context is that Sudan has been engulfed in conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) since April 2023, with repeated regional and international mediation initiatives failing to produce a lasting ceasefire or comprehensive political settlement.
“Not a Real Peace Process”
In Addis Ababa, the coalition said it would neither participate in Burhan’s process nor recognize its outcomes, describing the initiative as unilateral and organized in areas under the control of one side of the conflict and its security apparatus.
Radio Tamazuj quoted the groups’ position that they would not participate or recognize outcomes, while the Arab Weekly reported the coalition’s rejection as “not a real peace process.”
The groups argued that launching dialogue from areas controlled by one side could only reinforce Sudan’s wartime divisions and convert military realities into a political settlement, according to the joint position paper issued at the conclusion of consultations.
They proposed that humanitarian action, a permanent ceasefire and an exclusively civilian political process run as three parallel tracks under an agreed independent umbrella, with the two military factions restricted to humanitarian and security issues.
The Arab Weekly also reported the coalition’s view that any credible peace process must separate immediate humanitarian response and security negotiations from a political process dealing with the causes of the conflict and the future structure of the Sudanese state.
Tracks, Exclusions, and Mediation
The opposition coalition’s alternative roadmap centers on three parallel tracks: humanitarian assistance, a permanent ceasefire, and an exclusively civilian political process, with the political track addressing governance, equal citizenship, and transitional justice.
“The groups instead proposed an alternative peace roadmap built around three parallel tracks: humanitarian assistance, a permanent ceasefire and an exclusively civilian political process.”
Radio Tamazuj said the groups accused Burhan’s initiative of providing political cover for continued military rule following the Oct. 25, 2021 coup and creating a pathway for the return of figures and groups linked to former President Omar al-Bashir’s National Congress Party and the Islamic Movement.
The coalition also called for excluding the dissolved National Congress Party and affiliated groups from the political process, while endorsing the Quartet Roadmap issued on Sept. 12, 2025 as the clearest framework for ending the war and establishing a civilian-led political future.
In addition to endorsing the Quartet Roadmap, the groups said they were prepared to engage with the Quintet Mechanism provided Sudanese parties retained ownership of decisions and international mediation efforts were consolidated into a single process.
The stakes, as framed in the joint position paper, are whether negotiations can produce a civilian-led political future without legitimizing the status quo or deepening Sudan’s de facto division into rival zones of control.