The police of the Sudan
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X17726702 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The police of the Sudan:
Challenges of centralisation
and militarisation
Ammar Mohamed Elbagir Ibrahim
Police Headquarters, Social Insurance Fund for Police Forces,
Khartoum-Sudan
Abstract
The police force is one of the oldest institutions in modern Sudan. Since its establish-
ment, political instability and internal armed conflicts have beset the country. Security
problems and political instability have played a determining role in putting a centralised
and militarised model of policing. Depending on archive materials and other sources, this
article uses the historical approach to trace how centralised and military ideas have
affected the police structure, role and practice. The impact of these ideas has con-
tributed in establishing authoritarian model of policing rather than a professional one.
Restoring peace and stability is a fundamental factor in any long-term plan of police
reform.
Keywords
Police in Sudan, police in Africa, rule of law, Sudan security
Introduction
The police are a symbolic institution in Sudan; they represent both the law and the
prestige and power of the state. As in most African countries, police legal conduct and
practice in Sudan can tell us much about the nature of the state, especially regarding
issues related to the rule of law, human rights conditions and corruption (Francis 2012:
14). Police officers primarily define their job as ‘fighting crime’. (Cotterrell 1992: 277)
Corresponding author:
Ammar Mohamed Elbagir Ibrahim, Police Headquarters, Social Insurance Fund for Police Forces, St. No.53
Alamarat, PO Box 7346, Siteen Post Office, Postal code 11123, Khartoum-Sudan.
Emails: bagir@acvc.pro; bagir75@hotmail.com
The Police Journal:
Theory, Practice and Principles
2018, Vol. 91(3) 275–294
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032258X17726702
journals.sagepub.com/home/pjx
This definition posits that police are a legal institution which derives its legitimacy from
the law. Predicated on this theory, most international legal documents prefer to describe
the police as the law enforcement agency (UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement
Officials 1979). Accordingly, police functions and duties have to be in full compliance
with the rule of law (Wade, 1977: 23). At the same time, nobody can deny the nature of
the police as a coercive institution with a duty to maintain peace and order in society
(Bard 1971: 151–160). In this direction, the police are considered one expression of the
state’s ‘monopoly of legitimate physical coercion’ (Weber, 2000: 739). This duty
becomes problematic when the state falls into the swamp of violence, severe political
disputes or internal armed conflicts. In such situations the police are responsible for
taking effective measures to maintain peace and order. A civil model of policing will not
be adequate in encountering such serious challenges and therefore a quasi-military style
of policing is needed. The state itself will turn to manipulate police powers and legal
boundaries to ensure its survival, but this will be at the expense of police sensitivity to the
rule of law and human rights norms.
The police of the Sudan constitute a good example of this problem, as sinc e the
Sudanese state has come under pressure from internal armed conflicts and serious polit-
ical disputes, it has resorted to an authoritarian mode of policing which usually leads to
the development of a military style. Moreover, the success of this militarised style of
policing requires a central system of police administration that is capable of ensuring the
state’s control over police in the way that described as ‘to enforce political decisions
taken by political authorities’ (Potholm, 1969: 139).
The history of the police in Sudan could be summed up in this context as the
swinging between centralised/decentralised and civil/military styles, and thus reflects
an unstable and fragile state. Police officers and other staff tend to react to this situation
by fearing a loss of the legal character and independent identity of their institution.
This fear justifies their ambition to build a stronger and central police institution
capable of encountering and absorbing the significant and frequent political changes
at the centre of the state. However, police officers do not generally find themselves in
favour of the military style of policing, which prejudices their professional identity as a
civilian and bureaucratic service which is also ‘accountable and responsive to citizen
concerns’ (Baker, 2006: 25). They strongly avoid presenting their institution to the
public as a suppressive and blind tool in the hand of the political apparatus of the state
(Berridge, 2011a: 12), but at the same time they need to show their obedience and
support to the state’s general policies and the existing laws, just as in many African
countries the police are a mirror of the regime’s interests and political elite’s desire to
return power (Hills, 1996: 271).
This paper will analyse how the contemporary Sudanese state has swung between
two contradictory models of policing: the authoritarian model, which is capable of
maintaining peace and order, and the bureaucratic and civilian model, which is legally
sensitive to the principles of human rights and the protection of individual freedoms. It
also traces the impact of centralising and military ideas on these two models. It also
aims to study the response of the police as an institution to this volatile situation that
threatens its integrity and independence and seriously affects its legal status and
professional stability.
276 The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles 91(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial