Banned NCP proposes a post-war transition led by Sudanese army
March 7, 2025 (PORT SUDAN) – A newly revealed internal vision document from the dissolved National Congress Party (NCP) outlines a plan for Sudan’s future, prioritizing national unity and the army’s role in the post-conflict era.
The document, titled “Proposed Future Agenda for Today and the Day After,” obtained by Sudan Tribune, details the NCP’s ambition to establish constitutional legitimacy that would allow the army to receive a popular mandate to assume the presidency for an agreed-upon transitional period and launch a broad Sudanese political and social dialogue.
Framing the current conflict as “brutal, barbaric aggression” and a time for “defence and deterring aggression,” the NCP report stresses preliminary internal dialogues to achieve national unity and prevent foreign interference in Sudanese affairs.
The document expresses appreciation for other national initiatives, such as the “National Project” from the Democratic Bloc and a study by the “Interested Sudanese” group, suggesting engagement with various political actors.
The NCP vision proposes a return to the 2005 constitution as a basis for incorporating the Juba Peace Agreement through constitutional amendments. This echoes a previous internal NCP discussion in 2019, summarised in the document, which arose in response to popular protests against then-President Omer al-Bashir.
That “Conceptual Paper” from 2019 acknowledged the legitimacy of some protest grievances, but also cautioned against “professional politicians” and external powers seeking to exploit the situation.
The NCP now implicitly acknowledges the 2019 events as a “change that took place on April 11, 2019,” adding, “we reserve the right for each party to describe and name it.” The document defends the NCP’s actions in 2019, stating it prioritised the nation’s interest over the party’s to avoid bloodshed.
A key tenet of the NCP vision is excluding the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) from any future military or political role. The document stresses that RSF leaders should be held accountable and extends this to the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) and the “Tagadum” coalition, labelling them as the political wing of the RSF.
The NCP report analyses the ongoing conflict, characterising the April 15, 2023 war as an “international war that lacked a declaration,” orchestrated by foreign powers using the RSF as a proxy. It accuses the UAE of “sponsoring, coordinating planning, and supplying” the RSF, alleging a conspiracy involving international, regional, and local actors seeking to control Sudan, seize resources, and impose a foreign agenda.
The document links the war to perceived failures of the FFC-led transition, criticising the period as one of “complete alienation and kidnapping of the nation by foreigners.” It asserts that the FFC’s “framework agreement” preceded the war, threatening conflict if not accepted.
On governance, the NCP envisions a post-war Sudan guided by “proposed national foundations,” including that Sudan is large enough for all, no single group can shape the future alone, and the popular will via elections or referendums is paramount.
Until a comprehensive Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue can be held after the war, the Islamist party proposes a “state of necessity” under army leadership, responsible for sovereign affairs and supported by a government of “independent national competencies” focused on defence and restoring state functions.
After the war, the NCP advocates for a Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue inside Sudan, with the army as a neutral guarantor. Crucially, the vision proposes “constitutional legitimacy” for the army to assume the presidency through a popular referendum for an agreed period and tasks.
It also calls for electing a Constituent Assembly, suggesting proportional representation for broad political representation, tasked with shaping the constitution and political system.
The document, circulated within NCP circles, also says the party is undertaking “deep reviews of its experience in government” while downplaying internal leadership tensions as “limited.” It stresses foreign relations should be based on countries’ positions on the war.