Introduction
The Darfur Victims Support Organization (DVSO) closely monitors the status of public freedoms and fair trial guarantees in Sudan with deep concern, particularly in cases arising from the expression of opinion regarding the war and public affairs. In this context, the organization has documented information regarding the trial of pharmacist Dr. Ahmed Sulaiman Ahmed Al-Waqie, popularly known as Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie, before the El Obeid General Criminal Court in North Kordofan State. The trial concluded on Sunday, August 16, 2026, with his conviction under Article (51) of the Sudanese Penal Code of 1991 and Articles (19) and (24) of the Cybercrime Act of 2018, sentencing him to consecutive custodial penalties alongside the confiscation of his assets.
In this report, the organization relies on the testimony of lawyer Mr. Osman Saleh regarding the arrest and trial procedures and the circumstances preceding them, including the search of the defendant’s mobile phone and the subsequent opening of a criminal case based on private content expressing his opinion on the war and the necessity of stopping it. Based on the available information, these facts raise serious questions regarding freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the legality of search procedures, and the proportionality between the act attributed to the accused and the sentences handed down.
Presentation of Facts
According to the testimony of lawyer Osman Saleh, Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie owns an oil press in the city of El Obeid. In February 2026, a team from the tax authority arrived at the oil press premises to discuss tax obligations for the years 2023 and 2024—a period that witnessed widespread production shutdowns and disruptions due to the war.
During the discussion, an individual who was not part of the tax team intervened, leading to a heated argument between him and Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie. According to the testimony, it later became clear that this individual belonged to the General Intelligence Service (GIS) – Economic Security Department. Following this, a GIS force led by an officer holding the rank of Major was summoned, and Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie was arrested.
The testimony indicates that the tax dispute was not itself the basis of the subsequent criminal report. Rather, after the accused was arrested, his mobile phone was searched, and a conversation was found in which he expressed his view on the war and called for the necessity of ending it. On February 24, 2026, a criminal case was opened against him under Articles (26, 50, 51, and 65) of the Penal Code of 1991 before he was referred to trial.
On August 16, 2026, the El Obeid General Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Ayman Abdel Karim, issued its ruling convicting Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie under Article (51) of the Penal Code of 1991 and Articles (19) and (24) of the Cybercrime Act of 2018. According to information obtained by the organization, the court sentenced him to three years in prison from the date of his arrest for violating Article (51), along with the confiscation of his money, two years in prison under Article (19) of the Cybercrime Act, and an additional year under Article (24), with the prison sentences to be served consecutively.
The lawyer also reported that when assessing the sentence, the court noted that it took into consideration evidence establishing that the convict had previously provided cash and in-kind support to the Sudanese Armed Forces, considering this as a mitigating factor.
Legal Framework and Human Rights Classification
This case raises a series of important legal and human rights issues. Article (51) of the Sudanese Penal Code of 1991 falls under crimes against the state; thus, its application to expressions regarding the necessity of stopping the war requires strictly proving the legal elements of the crime, rather than relying merely on the presence of a critical opinion or political stance. Furthermore, the Sudanese Cybercrime Act of 2018 remains in force and was amended in 2020—a law that has drawn human rights criticism due to the breadth of its provisions and their potential impact on freedom of expression.
Crucially, freedom of opinion and expression is a right guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sudan acceded on March 18, 1986. This right may only be restricted by limitations provided by law that are necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose. Additionally, Sudan has been a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights since 1986, which imposes regional obligations to protect fundamental rights and freedoms.
Based on the available facts, merely calling for an end to the war or expressing an opinion about it should not in itself lead to criminal liability unless the expression is coupled with an act or discourse that satisfies the specific elements of a legally defined crime, such as direct incitement to violence or active participation in a criminalized activity. Therefore, imposing cumulative sentences totaling several years of imprisonment, in addition to the confiscation of assets, raises serious questions regarding the principle of proportionality and the consistency of the ruling with the protection of freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the search of the mobile phone raises a distinct issue regarding the right to privacy, as well as the legality and procedural safeguards of search operations. If the search was conducted without a judicial warrant or outside the rules outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the admissibility of the evidence extracted from the phone becomes subject to serious legal dispute—particularly if that evidence formed the primary foundation of the criminal prosecution.
At the same time, the organization emphasizes that evaluating the final legal integrity of the ruling remains under the jurisdiction of the competent court of appeal, and describing the trial as “unfair” requires examining the complete case file, including investigation records, search warrants (if any), prosecution evidence, defense arguments, and written judicial reasoning. However, the facts conveyed by the defendant’s lawyer justify, in the organization’s view, the demand for an urgent and independent judicial review of the ruling and the preceding procedures.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The Darfur Victims Support Organization (DVSO) considers that the case of Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie raises serious concerns regarding the use of provisions on crimes against the state and cybercrime to prosecute peaceful expression related to the war and public affairs, in addition to concerns related to the legality of phone searches and the proportionality between the attributed facts and the sentences issued.
The organization stresses that protecting national security does not conflict with respecting the rule of law and fundamental rights, and that the exceptional circumstances facing the country must not be turned into a justification for criminalizing peaceful opinion or undermining fair trial guarantees.
Accordingly, the Darfur Victims Support Organization (DVSO) demands the following:
- An urgent review of the sentence before an independent and impartial appellate authority, examining whether the legal elements of the crimes for which Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie was convicted were actually met.
- Verification of the legality of the mobile phone search and the procedures that led to obtaining the conversations used as evidence in the case.
- The release of Dr. Ahmed Al-Waqie if sufficient legal evidence is lacking to prove he committed a criminal act beyond the mere peaceful expression of opinion.
- Ensuring respect for freedom of opinion and expression, the right to privacy, and fair trial guarantees for all defendants without discrimination.
- Reviewing the application of Cybercrime Act provisions and articles related to crimes against the state to prevent their vague use against journalists, activists, and citizens for their peaceful opinions.
- Calling on judicial authorities to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and providing the defense with all necessary guarantees and procedures to challenge evidence and rulings.
The Darfur Victims Support Organization (DVSO) confirms its commitment to continue monitoring and documenting cases related to freedom of expression and conflict-related trials, working to promote the rule of law and guarantee the right of all Sudanese people to justice and a fair trial.
