|
Sudan
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The Sudanese criminal code embodied elements of British law,
the penal code of British colonial India, and the Egyptian civil
code (see The Legal System , ch. 4). In 1977 Nimeiri formed a
committee, dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, to revise the
legal code according to the sharia (Islamic law). In September
1983, the Nimeiri government introduced a version of the sharia
prescribing harsh corporal punishments for such crimes as murder,
theft, drinking alcohol, prostitution, and adultery. These "September
Laws," sometimes known as hudud (sing., hadd,
penalty prescribed by Islamic law) provided for execution, flogging,
amputation, and stoning as modes of punishment for both Muslims
and non-Muslims. During the final twenty months of Nimeiri's rule,
at least ninety persons convicted of theft had their hands amputated.
The military and civil governments succeeding Nimeiri between
1985 and 1989 suspended the September Laws. Progress on a new
Islamic penal code to replace the September Laws was delayed by
the legislature pending a constitutional assembly that would include
the SPLA. Although flogging, consisting normally of forty lashes,
was limited to offenses involving sex or alcohol, it was often
inflicted summarily. In 1989 the RCC-NS extended flogging as a
punishment for a much wider range of offenses. Extreme hudud
sentences such as amputations were not handed down, however, and
many hudud sentences imposed under the Sadiq al Mahdi
government were converted to jail terms and fines.
In the regular criminal court system, extensive guarantees of
due process were prescribed for accused persons. These courts
consisted of a panel of three judges. The judicial process involved
a police or magistrate's investigation and an arrest warrant preceding
the arrest. Trials were held in public except when the accused
requested a closed trial. The accused had to be brought before
a court within forty-eight hours of arrest, informed of the charges,
and provided with access to an attorney of the accused's choice.
There were legal aid services for the poor, but, because resources
were limited, legal aid was apportioned to those facing serious
charges and those most in need. Bail was permitted except in some
capital cases. Defendants had the right to speak, to present evidence
on their own behalf, and to appeal judgments through a series
of courts from the magistrate level to the High Court of Appeal.
Under the state of emergency imposed by the Sadiq al Mahdi regime
in 1987, the government had wide powers in areas declared to be
emergency zones to arrest and preventively detain for an indefinite
period anyone suspected of contravening emergency regulations.
Military personnel could not be arrested by civilian authorities,
nor was there provision for judicial review of actions by the
armed forces. The Sadiq al Mahdi government declared emergency
zones in the southern and western areas of the country and used
the detention powers on people suspected of sympathy with the
rebellion.
On seizing power in 1989, the RCC-NS declared a state of emergency
for the whole of Sudan and granted itself broad powers. The government
initially detained more than 300 people without warrants, including
many prominent political and academic figures, journalists, alleged
leftists, and trade unionists. About sixty judges who petitioned
against the government's action were also detained. Many of the
original detainees were released within several months, but they
were replaced by others. There were an estimated 300 to 500 detainees
at the close of 1990; some reports claimed as many as 1,000 detainees.
After the 1989 coup, the regular civilian courts continued to
handle ordinary criminal offenses, including theft and some capital
crimes, although the court system was seriously backlogged and
the judiciary was less independent of the executive than previously.
After experimenting with various forms of special courts, the
RCC-NS established special security courts in November 1989. These
courts were formed by the military governors of the regions and
the commissioner of the national capital. The courts had three-member
panels of both military and civilian judges. They tried persons
accused of violating constitutional decrees, emergency regulations,
and some portions of the criminal code, notably drug crimes and
currency violations. The new security courts did not extend normal
protections to the accused. Attorneys were permitted to sit with
defendants but were not permitted to address the courts. Sentences
imposed by the courts were to be carried out immediately, with
the exception that death penalties were to be reviewed by the
chief justice and the head of state. The special security courts
gained a reputation for harsh sentences. Two defendants convicted
of illegal possession of foreign currency and another convicted
of drug smuggling were executed and others were sentenced to death
for similar crimes, although the sentences were not carried out.
In areas of the south affected by the war, normal judicial procedures
could not be applied and civil authorities were made redundant
by the application of the state of emergency. Units of the armed
forces and militias ruled by force of arms, and in many cases
the accused were summarily tried and punished, especially for
offenses against public order. In war-torn southern Kurdufan the
government authorized a system of justice administered by village
elders, and a similar system was reportedly in effect in areas
controlled by the SPLA.
Data as of June 1991
|
