The planned signing of a political accord intended to resolve the stalemate in Sudan between the military leadership and civilian authorities has been postponed again, marking the second delay within the span of a week. Reports from agencies in the region indicate that the agreement’s formalization was deferred once more as the day approached, underscoring the fragility of consensus among the negotiating blocs and the delicate nature of transitional arrangements in the country.
A spokesperson representing the civil alliance disclosed to a television outlet that the anticipated final political agreement, which had been scheduled for today, would not be signed as planned. The statement, relayed by Al-Hadas TV, highlighted the continued postponement and pointed to the ongoing process of reconciliation and dialogue as the underlying context for the delay. The official emphasized that the parties remained engaged in talks, but that enough progress had not been achieved to finalize the document at that juncture.
In explaining the postponement, the representative stressed that the main issue confronting the negotiators was the absence of a comprehensive accord on critical reforms. Specifically, attention has focused on the restructuring of security institutions and military structures, areas traditionally intertwined with concerns about power sharing and civilian oversight. The civil alliance indicated that while talks had advanced in some domains, negotiations over security sector reform and the framework for civil control over security mechanisms had yet to produce a durable, mutually acceptable agreement.
Formerly involved in communicating the process, a former official noted that the parties have chosen to delay the signing of the agreement that would establish a provisional civil authority. The postponement, the official explained, stems from the lack of consensus on proposals that would balance the influence and responsibilities of civilian administrators with the expectations and prerogatives of the military leadership during the transitional period.
Observers and participants in the discussions described the delay as a reflection of the broader political calculus at play. While there is broad recognition of the need for a clear timetable and a transition that respects civilian governance, agreeing on the precise modalities of reform, including the mechanisms for monitoring and accountability, remains a challenging task. The absence of a final accord at this stage is seen by many as a signal that the two sides are still negotiating the scope, pace, and instruments through which civilian oversight can be established without destabilizing the security environment or undermining state institutions that have long operated with military influence.
Earlier reporting from Reuters had noted that the overarching aim of the negotiations is to reposition the Sudanese army under civilian supervision and to articulate a framework in which civilian authorities hold ultimate responsibility for strategic security sector decisions. This objective sits at the heart of the transitional arrangements and has been a central point of contention throughout the talks. The current pause in the signing process serves as a barometer for how far the parties are willing to go in translating commitments on paper into enforceable, verifiable action on the ground. The road to a durable settlement remains uncertain, with many stakeholders emphasizing the need for compromises that can garner broad, long-term legitimacy from the Sudanese public and international partners alike.