Rights Group Warns Against the Use of the Judiciary to Restrict Freedom of Expression in Sudan

The Central Human Rights Observatory has warned against the continued use of Sudan’s judicial and legal institutions to prosecute civilians and individuals expressing their opinions, as activists called for the launch of an initiative to challenge what they describe as unfair court rulings against civil society actors.

The observatory condemned the court ruling issued against pharmacist Ahmed Abdallah, widely known as “Shafa,” describing the verdict as “unjust.”

In a statement, the organization said the conviction was based on fabricated and politically motivated charges, arguing that his only offense was exercising his legitimate right to express his views and his humanitarian opposition to the continuation of the war in Sudan.

The observatory added that such practices constitute a blatant violation of international and regional human rights standards, calling on Sudanese judicial authorities not to allow the judiciary to be used as a tool for political retaliation and demanding the immediate release of Ahmed Shafa.

Meanwhile, activists announced plans to launch a public campaign calling for Ahmed Shafa’s release and the overturning of the court’s verdict.

One of the initiative’s organizers told Mashawir that the campaign would not be limited to Ahmed Shafa’s case but would mark the beginning of a broader effort to oppose what participants consider unfair judicial rulings against civil society actors.

The organizer argued that government authorities have increasingly used the judiciary to restrict freedom of expression and silence critical voices, adding that the initiative will officially announce its activities in the near future.

Last week, the Dongola Criminal Court in northern Sudan sentenced pharmacist Ahmed Shafa to two years and one month in prison, in addition to imposing a fine of two million Sudanese pounds, following months of legal proceedings that attracted significant public, media, and human rights attention.

The ruling followed an unusual judicial process during which the case file was withdrawn by the Attorney General before later being returned to the court. The proceedings also coincided with public statements by leaders of the Al-Baraa bin Malik Brigade, who commented on the case and issued explicit threats, while a heavy military presence was reported outside the courthouse. These developments have raised concerns among observers regarding the independence of the judicial process and whether it was adequately protected from external influence before the verdict was delivered.