Leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood and Their Role in the War in Sudan
The Muslim Brotherhood is banking on time and the continuation of the war to exert pressure on the displaced Sudanese people internally and externally, and to force the neighboring countries most affected by the war, as well as other countries around the world, to agree to participate in the negotiations and political settlements that follow, thereby allowing them to return to political activities after a ban of ten years.
Since the outbreak of fighting between the army and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan in mid-April, which resulted in more than 10,000 deaths and injuries and displaced approximately 3 million people, accusations against elements of the Muslim Brotherhood for instigating this war have been mounting. What is the nature of these accusations and what evidence supports them?
Jurists and observers have based these accusations on three pieces of evidence that, according to them, indicate the relationship of the Muslim Brotherhood elements with the war. These include the threats made by influential figures in the organization days before the outbreak of the fighting, the appearance of fighters from brigades affiliated with them on the battlefields, as well as the public appearance of some leadership figures of the organization in several cities in the eastern part of the country, urging the continuation of the war.
Multiple Evidence
Just days before the outbreak of fighting between the army and the Rapid Support Forces in the Sudanese capital Khartoum, the leaders of the organization intensified their efforts to sabotage the framework agreement signed between the civilian and military forces, with broad international and regional support, which provides for the transfer of power to civilians.
In a video published on social media, the organization’s leader Anas Omar threatened not to allow the adoption of the agreement, indicating that they would use all means to prevent it.
After his arrest by the Rapid Support Forces weeks after the outbreak of the fighting, Omar admitted in a recorded video that his party had worked to thwart the framework agreement project after rejecting it. He added, “We were responsible and supervising the mobilization of citizens and crowds in coordination with army commanders.”
About two weeks ago, leaders of the organization mourned on their official pages a number of people whom they said were fighting in battles and recognized them as members of a brigade called “Al-Buraa”, one of several jihadist brigades affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood who fought in the war in the South, which ended in 2011, such as the Popular Security, Student, and other brigades affiliated with the organization.
Explicit Accusations
According to Mohamed El-Feki Sulaiman, a former member of the Sovereignty Council, the public appearance of leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in several cities in Sudan to call for the continuation of the fighting confirms their involvement in igniting the war.
El-Feki emphasized the need to stop the activities of elements calling for war, warning of the danger of their use of state institutions and platforms.
In the same context, journalist Shawqi Abdel Azeem states that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood who ruled the country for 30 years have continued since their overthrow to work for their return to power through various means, but they sensed the real danger surrounding them after nearing the signing of the framework agreement, supported by many countries and regions, which stipulated their exclusion from any future political process, prompting some leaders of the organization to publicly issue statements indicating their intention to sabotage the agreement by force.
Abdel Azeem considers that the outbreak of war just hours before the potential signing of the agreement in April confirms the role played by elements of the organization in igniting the war.
He adds, “The movements of the elements of the Muslim Brotherhood regime confirm their interest in the war because they are the beneficiaries of obstructing the civilian transition; they have worked through their media tools to try to denigrate the image of political forces calling for the transition.”
Legal Confusion
The Prosecution Commission in the 1989 coup case, in which several members of the Muslim Brotherhood are being tried for their public appearances in various cities, expressed its surprise at the appearance of these individuals, including Ahmed Haroun, wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes related to human rights violations in the Darfur war that erupted in 2003.
The commission stated in a statement that the public appearance of these individuals and their incitement to war confirms that they “receive protection in many states of Sudan under the control of the army.”
El-Moez Hadarat, the spokesperson for the commission, stated that the Muslim Brotherhood members, who are supposed to be in prison, are moving freely and calling for non-negotiation, inciting to continue the war, believing that it will bring them back to power.
Clear Relationship
Political analyst Jameel Al-Fadel believes that the relationship between the elements of the Muslim Brotherhood and this war is no longer a hidden secret or mere suspicions or accusations. He pointed to documented conversations of several leaders of the group during numerous events preceding the war by days, which took on a belligerent tone, ringing the war drums without hesitation.
Al-Fadel stated that what reinforces these accusations are the confessions recorded by some leaders of the Islamic movement who were apprehended by the Rapid Support Forces, in which they confirmed the involvement of the organization in orchestrating the war.
He added, “The participation of the Al-Buraa brigade, which includes jihadist fighters of the Brotherhood in the war under the name of Special Action Forces, is compelling evidence not only of the Brotherhood‘s support for the war, but perhaps its orchestration as well.”
Al-Fadel further explained that there is another strong evidence resulting from the recent rounds of leaders of the organization who fled under the dust of battles from prison to the eastern states and their explicit call for rejecting the Jeddah negotiations, thus continuing the war.
Journalist Sadiq Mahisi agrees with Al-Fadel’s assessment and says that the confessions of the organization’s leader, Anas Omar, explained the war plan and identified the zero hour. Mahisi also cites the statement of the organization’s leader, Mohammed Al-Jazouli, who said that the war was planned by the leaders of the al-Bashir regime.
