Amendments to Sudan’s 1991 Criminal Act have sparked widespread controversy over the future of freedom of expression and journalistic work, following the inclusion of publication through electronic and media platforms under Article 51(A), which addresses the crime of waging war against the state.
The amendments to Article 51 provide for penalties of up to the death sentence or life imprisonment. Meanwhile, concerns are mounting that the changes could broaden the scope of legal prosecutions against journalists at a time when digital platforms have become one of the main channels for reporting on the war and documenting violations. This has raised questions about the scope of application of the amended provision and its implications for media publications and online activities.
The amendment coincided with a government decision to regulate online content. Prime Minister Kamil Idris issued a decision establishing the National Mechanism for Combating Information Technology Crimes, tasked with monitoring and following up on publications across media outlets and social media platforms, and taking legal action against content deemed to violate the law.
Rejection and Calls for Reversal
Meanwhile, the Sudanese Journalists Syndicate announced its outright rejection of the amendment to Article 51 and the Prime Minister’s decision to establish the National Mechanism for Combating Information Technology Crimes. It warned of the potential consequences of these measures for press freedom, freedom of expression, the prosecution of journalists, and citizens’ right to access information amid the ongoing war and restrictions imposed on journalistic work.
In a statement, the syndicate explained that including publication through electronic and media platforms under Article 51, which addresses acts affecting state security, expands the scope of criminalisation to cover publishing activities, investigative reporting and the expression of opinions, exposing individuals to penalties of up to the death sentence or life imprisonment.
The syndicate argued that incorporating electronic publication into a criminal provision carrying such severe penalties, without safeguards to protect journalistic work, could expose journalists to prosecution and impose a climate of self-censorship, while depriving citizens of their right to access information, particularly in the context of the war and widespread violations taking place across the country.
The syndicate also rejected the establishment of the National Mechanism for Combating Information Technology Crimes, warning against granting it powers to monitor media outlets and social media platforms or prosecute publishers under vague terms such as “harmful publication that undermines the security of the state and society.”
It stressed that combating cybercrime should not become a tool for monitoring journalists or subjecting media institutions to censorship. It also emphasised the need to guarantee the independence of media institutions and protect journalists from threats and prosecution arising from their professional work.
The syndicate called on human rights organisations, professional unions and international bodies concerned with press freedom to adopt a clear position on legislation and measures that threaten freedom of journalistic work.
Human Rights Objections
For its part, the human rights group Emergency Lawyers said in a statement that the addition made to Article 51 “represents a dangerous expansion of the scope of criminalisation.” The statement warned that the amendment opens the door to criminal prosecution of individuals based on what they publish through electronic and media platforms.
The group’s statement continued: “The danger lies in the possibility of using this provision to target journalists, activists and human rights defenders, and criminalising the publication or documentation of information relating to violations, or criticism of the authorities, under the pretext of waging war against the state. The new wording allows broader room for interpretation and selective application of criminal law, potentially turning peaceful expression, the sharing of information and the documentation of events into grounds for criminal prosecution. This would reinforce self-censorship and intimidation while undermining victims’ ability to make their voices heard and expose violations.”
The statement added: “These dangers are compounded by the fact that Article 51 is already being used in trials with political motivations, resulting in severe sentences of up to the death penalty and life imprisonment. Expanding its scope therefore poses a direct threat to public freedoms and independent documentation, and could become a tool for suppressing information and shielding perpetrators of violations from accountability.”
The group further noted that “this amendment comes amid a broader pattern of violations across the country, where accusations of collaboration with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and waging war against the state are being used as pretexts to prosecute and detain thousands of civilians, amid violations of the Criminal Procedure Act. This is compounded by the interference of the security cell in the work of the prosecution and judiciary, and its control over the justice system. These practices have resulted in thousands of people being held in prisons and various detention facilities, alongside the targeting of journalists, lawyers and activists, and the prosecution of women, with death sentences, life imprisonment and fines imposed on defendants in cases that lack fair-trial guarantees.”
The statement concluded that “the combination of expanding the scope of criminalisation to include media and electronic publications, the continuation of trials driven by political motives, and the absence of constitutional oversight, threatens to deepen repression and restrict public space. It also risks turning the instruments of justice into tools for settling political scores, intimidating society and silencing independent voices.”
Threats and Restrictions
In the same context, Sudanese lawyer Othman Saleh explained that the amendment to Article 51, which concerns waging war against the state, affected subsection (A). This subsection addresses acts of waging war through recruiting individuals, training them, providing them with weapons and military equipment, attempting to commit any of these acts, or supporting them in any form.
He added that including publication through electronic and media platforms within the scope of this provision is intended, in his assessment, to restrict freedom of publication and expression and impose further constraints on journalistic work.
