General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of Sudan’s Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), has announced a proposal for a national dialogue aimed at resolving the country’s protracted internal conflict, offering temporary immunity and legal protections to participants. While the initiative seeks to broaden the political base of negotiations, al-Burhan explicitly excluded Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, the leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), from returning to any political or administrative role.
The move represents a strategic attempt by the SAF to create a pathway for political reconciliation that bypasses the RSF leadership, potentially signaling a shift in the military’s approach to ending the violence that has displaced millions and devastated the nation’s infrastructure.
The Proposal for National Dialogue
In a public address, General al-Burhan outlined a framework for a national dialogue designed to bring together a diverse array of stakeholders to discuss the future governance and stability of Sudan. Central to this proposal is the offer of temporary immunity and legal safeguards for those who choose to engage in the process.
These protections are intended to shield participants from prosecution for actions taken during the period of unrest, provided they commit to the dialogue process. By lowering the legal stakes, the SAF aims to incentivize political figures, regional leaders, and potentially defecting military commanders to enter negotiations without the immediate fear of judicial retribution.
However, the invitation is not universal. Al-Burhan stated clearly that Hemedti, the commander of the RSF, is barred from returning to the political or administrative fold. This distinction creates a bifurcated path: one of reconciliation for those willing to operate within the SAF-led framework, and one of permanent exclusion for the RSF’s top leadership.
Why It Matters
The offer of immunity is a high-stakes political gamble. For years, the conflict between the SAF and the RSF has been characterized by a “winner-take-all” mentality, where both sides have viewed the total defeat of the opponent as the only viable exit strategy. By introducing legal protections, al-Burhan is attempting to break this deadlock by offering a “middle way” for those who are not inextricably tied to Hemedti.
This strategy is significant because it targets the internal cohesion of the RSF. The RSF is not a monolithic entity; it is composed of various tribal militias and opportunistic commanders whose loyalty to Hemedti is often contingent on the RSF’s ability to provide security and power. By offering a legal exit ramp, the SAF is attempting to peel away these allies, effectively hollowing out the RSF from within.
Furthermore, the exclusion of Hemedti serves as a public declaration that the SAF no longer views him as a legitimate political partner. This hardline stance is designed to delegitimize Hemedti’s claims to leadership and frame him as an obstacle to national peace rather than a stakeholder in it.
Background and Context
The rivalry between al-Burhan and Hemedti is rooted in a complex history of shifting alliances. Once partners in the 2021 coup that ousted Sudan’s transitional civilian government, the two generals eventually clashed over the integration of the RSF into the regular army. This power struggle escalated into full-scale war in April 2023, turning cities like Khartoum into battlezones and triggering one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
The RSF has historically operated as a paramilitary force with significant autonomy, often acting as a “praetorian guard” for the state while maintaining its own financial networks, including gold mining. The SAF, representing the traditional military establishment, has struggled to contain the RSF’s expansion and its influence over various regions of the country.
International efforts to broker a ceasefire, including the Jeddah talks, have repeatedly stalled due to the mutual distrust between the two leaders. The current proposal for a national dialogue comes at a time when neither side has achieved a decisive military victory, suggesting that the SAF is recognizing the limits of a purely kinetic solution to the conflict.
Analysis: The Strategy of Selective Reconciliation
The SAF’s current approach can be categorized as “selective reconciliation.” By combining an olive branch (immunity) with a sword (the exclusion of Hemedti), al-Burhan is attempting to redefine the terms of the conflict.
From a strategic perspective, the immunity offer functions as a psychological operation. It sends a message to RSF subordinates and allied political factions that there is a life after Hemedti. In a conflict where war crimes and systemic violence have been widespread, the fear of future prosecution is a powerful motivator. By removing that fear, the SAF creates a tangible incentive for defection.
However, this strategy carries inherent risks. First, the offer of immunity may be viewed as an admission of the SAF’s own involvement in actions that would otherwise be prosecutable, potentially undermining its claim to be the legitimate protector of the law. Second, by explicitly barring Hemedti, al-Burhan may be closing the door on a negotiated settlement that the RSF leadership would actually accept. If Hemedti perceives that there is no path to survival other than total victory or total defeat, he may be more inclined to continue the fighting regardless of the SAF’s offers to his subordinates.
Ultimately, this move is less about a genuine desire for inclusive peace and more about a calculated effort to isolate the RSF leadership and consolidate SAF authority under the guise of a national dialogue.
What to Watch Next
The success of this initiative will depend on several key factors in the coming months:
1. RSF Response: Whether Hemedti attempts to counter this offer by providing his own guarantees to his commanders or if the RSF leadership reacts with purges to prevent defections.
2. Stakeholder Uptake: Whether significant political blocs or regional leaders actually accept the invitation to the dialogue, or if they view the “temporary” nature of the immunity as too unreliable to risk.
3. International Reaction: Whether global powers and regional mediators support this selective approach or push for a more inclusive process that includes the RSF leadership to ensure a sustainable ceasefire.
4. Field Dynamics: Whether the offer of immunity translates into actual battlefield defections or a reduction in RSF operational capacity.
Conclusion
General al-Burhan’s proposal marks a pivotal moment in the Sudanese conflict. By offering immunity to the many while denying it to the one, the SAF is attempting to pivot from a war of attrition to a war of political attrition. While the move may weaken the RSF’s internal structure, it simultaneously reinforces the exclusionary nature of the current power struggle. As Sudan continues to grapple with instability, the tension between the need for broad reconciliation and the desire for the total removal of a rival remains the central obstacle to lasting peace.
Sources:
Al Jazeera News (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/15/sudans-al-burhan-pledges-immunity-for-dialogue-rules-out-hemedti-return?traffic_source=rss)
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Al Jazeera News — source
