A public threat by a top SAF commander to overthrow any future elected civilian government has sparked legal and political outrage, reigniting fears that the military intends to block Sudan’s long-promised democratic transition.
Lieutenant General Yasir al-Atta, deputy to SAF chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, said in a speech on Friday that he would stage a coup against civilian authorities even if he were retired from service and they came to power through elections.
The remarks, widely shared inside Sudan, triggered a wave of condemnation from legal experts and political observers, who say they constitute an explicit declaration of intent to commit a crime against the state under Sudanese criminal and military law.
They argue the statement goes far beyond a political opinion and amounts to “an announced intention to commit a crime against the state,” displaying contempt for popular sovereignty and the chain of constitutional legitimacy that underpins any modern state.
According to Sudanese human rights lawyers, al-Atta’s comments violate more than ten provisions in domestic criminal and military codes and could, in theory, carry penalties up to and including the death sentence.
Constitutional order under threat
Othman al-Hadhra, a lawyer and member of the prosecution team in the 1989 coup case against ousted dictator Omar al-Bashir and several Islamist leaders, told Sky News Arabia that al-Atta’s words amount to a clear threat to dismantle any future civilian constitutional order.
“If there were functioning justice institutions in Sudan today, such a statement would require his immediate arrest and prosecution,” al-Hadhra said, adding that clear incitement to a coup is a crime under Sudanese law that can attract the harshest penalties.
International law specialist Ismail Ali notes that both domestic and international legal frameworks treat coups as the highest form of organised crime against the state.
He points to articles 21, 25, 26, 50 and 65 of Sudan’s criminal code, which explicitly criminalise any attempt to change the system of government by force and prescribe punishments of death or life imprisonment. Those provisions cover planning, organising, inciting or taking part in a conspiracy to topple the government – even if a coup is never actually carried out.
Ali also stresses that the Armed Forces Act is built on the principle that the SAF is not the owner of power but its guardian, and that it criminalises political activity, incitement and interference in civilian governance by members of the military.
“In countries that genuinely abide by the rule of law, such a statement alone would be enough to open an urgent criminal investigation,” he said. “It places the speaker in the dock facing the most serious charges that can be brought against anyone serving in the security forces.”
Long history of coups
Analysts say al-Atta’s threat fits a longstanding pattern of military interference in Sudanese politics. Since independence in 1956, the SAF has overthrown civilian governments five times, most recently when al-Burhan toppled Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s transitional administration in October 2021.
Hamdok’s government, formed after the April 2019 overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked regime that had ruled Sudan for 30 years, was itself the product of a civilian-military power-sharing deal that the SAF later dismantled.
For many observers, al-Atta’s statement confirms that the SAF no longer acts as a neutral national institution. They argue that any senior officer openly wading into partisan politics in this manner – particularly the third-ranking figure in the military hierarchy – would normally face swift disciplinary and legal action if existing laws were applied.
Those laws, they note, were designed to enforce strict military discipline and prevent the armed forces from turning into a platform for political score-settling or for dividing citizens into loyalists and opponents.
A “war on the revolution”
Civilian politicians link al-Atta’s comments directly to efforts to derail Sudan’s democratic transition after the fall of the Islamist regime in 2019. They also see them as further evidence that the current war was launched to block the framework agreement that was meant to restore civilian rule after the October 2021 coup.
Babiker Faisal, a leading figure in the “Sumud” (Steadfastness) civilian coalition, says the threat reflects how the military leadership views popular will.
“Al-Atta’s target is civilian rule, democracy and the choices of the people,” he said. “This is the same mindset as the Muslim Brotherhood – an authoritarian mentality that sees no problem in confiscating the people’s choice.”
Faisal warns that the general’s words should be treated as a wake-up call for all civilian forces. “They confirm that this war is a war against the revolution and against the civilian transition,” he said.
From national army to political actor
Al-Atta’s remarks have also reinforced the perception that the SAF is deeply entangled in partisan politics, particularly through its alignment with Islamist networks.
Journalist and political commentator Rasha Awad argues that his threat shows the military has effectively turned itself into “a political party rather than a professional national army”.
“An army funded from Sudan’s national wealth and taxpayers’ money must protect all Sudanese, regardless of their political, ethnic or regional affiliations,” she said. “But when army leaders launch verbal bombs against a specific segment of citizens they label as political enemies, that army can no longer claim to be national.”
Awad warns that such rhetoric carries grave political and security risks.
“When military leaders use state-funded force to suppress citizens, curtail their freedoms and smear political currents from the army’s own platforms, they themselves strip the institution of its national and professional character,” she said.
For many Sudanese, al-Atta’s open threat of another coup is less a surprise than a chilling confirmation: the cycle of military intervention that has haunted Sudan’s politics for decades is far from over, and the path toward genuine civilian rule remains under direct fire from within the SAF’s own senior ranks.
