Washington says neither of Sudan’s warring forces has the constitutional authority to govern. Yet ministries still operate, diplomats still represent the country, and armed groups control different parts of it. Who, then, is actually in charge?
By the Editorial Team of TLF
For a family trying to obtain medicine in Khartoum or cross a checkpoint in Darfur, the question of who governs Sudan has an immediate answer: the people holding power where they live. Washington’s latest statement asks a harder question. Does control of territory give those people the right to rule the country?
What Washington Said
On 22 September, US State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said that neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), nor their leaders, represented “legitimate, constitutional governance for Sudan.” Both, he said, ruled through force of arms. Washington called for a humanitarian truce followed by an inclusive political process and a transition to civilian government.
The statement was a rejection of the rival commanders’ claims to political legitimacy. It did not make Sudan’s existing institutions disappear.
Who Runs the State?
In the areas held by the army, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan heads the Transitional Sovereignty Council. Prime Minister Kamil Idris leads the administration appointed under that authority. Its officials operate ministries, deal with foreign governments and occupy Sudan’s seat at the United Nations.
That makes it the de facto national administration through which much official business is conducted. It does not settle the question Washington has raised: whether a political order rooted in the 2021 military takeover has a constitutional mandate from Sudan’s people.
The distinction matters. The United States can deal with Burhan’s administration on aid, diplomacy and a ceasefire while denying that Burhan or the army has earned the right to decide Sudan’s political future.
Who Controls the Rest?
Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, leads the RSF, which holds much of Darfur and has announced a rival governing authority with its allies. There, its power is real for civilians who must live under it. But the UN Security Council has rejected the establishment of that parallel authority, warning that it could deepen Sudan’s fragmentation.
Control also shifts as the war moves. A line on a map cannot fully describe who can keep a hospital open, permit an aid convoy through or protect a neighbourhood. Local organisations and volunteers have helped people survive where formal services have failed, without possessing the power to end the war.
So Who Governs Sudan?
The direct answer is that Sudan has an army-backed administration handling much of the state’s formal business, an RSF authority exercising power in territory it controls, and no civilian-led government with a nationwide democratic mandate. Those are different kinds of authority. They should not be confused.
Sudan’s foreign ministry has rejected Washington’s assessment and defended the country’s sovereignty and institutions. The dispute comes amid US efforts to secure a 90-day humanitarian truce. The army has objected to a ceasefire plan that, in its view, does not require the RSF to withdraw fully from the cities it occupies.
For civilians, the argument over legitimacy will matter most if it changes what happens on the ground: whether the guns fall silent, aid reaches people who need it, and Sudanese citizens gain a meaningful say in who governs them. Until then, the country remains divided between authorities that can exercise power and a political future its people have yet to choose.
Sources: US State Department statement, 22 September 2026; UN Security Council statement on a parallel authority; Reuters on the ceasefire dispute.
Comments
Post a Comment