The decision, announced Thursday following a ministerial-level meeting in the Ethiopian capital, underscores a fundamental question facing the 55-member pan-African body: When a founding member state descends into military dictatorship and devastating civil war, under what conditions should it be welcomed back into the fold?
Sudan suspension, imposed in October 2021 after military leaders toppled a civilian-led transitional government, was meant to be temporary. The AU made its position clear: restore civilian rule, and membership would follow. Nearly five years later, that condition remains unfulfilled, even as Sudan grapples with what United Nations officials describe as the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe.
The stakes extend far beyond diplomatic protocol. Sudan isolation comes at a moment when coordinated continental support is critically needed. Since fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in April 2023, an estimated 150,000 people have died, though exact figures remain contested. More than 12 million have been displaced, creating one of history’s largest displacement crises.
The case for reinstatement
Sudan government argues that circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant reconsideration. Salem emphasized that Khartoum has taken concrete steps toward establishing civilian participation in governance, pointing to the appointment of Prime Minister Kamil Idris in December 2025 and the presentation of a National Peace Initiative calling for immediate ceasefire, civilian protection and unrestricted humanitarian access.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, who chaired the Peace and Security Council session, echoed this position. Egypt and Algeria have led diplomatic efforts to end the suspension, arguing that continued isolation undermines the AU ability to influence events on the ground and weakens Sudan internationally recognised government against the RSF.
“Ending the suspension of Sudan membership would benefit Africa,” Salem told the council, stressing his country role as a founding AU member and its strategic importance in safeguarding the continent from what he termed “various threats, particularly foreign armed interference.”
There is logic to this argument. Sudan occupies a crucial position between sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, with Red Sea coastline providing strategic maritime access. Its stability directly impacts neighbouring countries already hosting millions of Sudanese refugees.
Moreover, Sudan exclusion from AU deliberations means the continental body is making critical decisions about peace and security in the Horn of Africa without input from a key regional player. This raises questions about the practical effectiveness of punitive suspension in achieving stated goals.
The legitimacy question
Yet the case against reinstatement is equally compelling, rooted in the AU own stated principles and the realities on the ground in Sudan.
The African Union suspended Sudan precisely because military leaders violated fundamental democratic norms by overthrowing the civilian government of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. That government had been steering Sudan toward elections following the 2019 ouster of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir. The October 2021 coup, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Transitional Sovereignty Council, reversed that democratic trajectory.
The AU condition for lifting the suspension was straightforward: restore effective civilian-led transitional authority. By appointing Idris, a technocrat with no independent political base, the military-dominated government has created a facade of civilian participation while retaining ultimate control. This is precisely the kind of superficial compliance that undermines the AU credibility.
The Sudanese Civil Democratic Alliance of Revolutionary Forces, known as Sumud and led by former Prime Minister Hamdok, argues that the core reason for suspension — absence of legitimate civilian government — remains unchanged. In statements ahead of the AU summit, Sumud representatives emphasized that Sudan continues under military rule masquerading as transitional governance.
“The main reason for the suspension of Sudan membership still exists, which is due to the absence of a legitimate government and the continuation of the coup against legitimacy,” said Dr Bakri El Jak, Sumud official spokesman.
This is not merely procedural hair-splitting. The legitimacy question sits at the heart of Sudan ongoing conflict and prospects for peace. Al-Burhan and the SAF claim to represent Sudan legitimate government. The RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, has established what it calls a parallel government and signed its own constitution in February and March 2025, seeking international recognition.
Multiple armed groups operate across Sudan territory, each claiming varying degrees of authority. The absence of broadly recognised legitimate civilian leadership makes negotiated settlement nearly impossible.
The humanitarian imperative
While diplomats debate membership criteria, ordinary Sudanese face catastrophe. United Nations officials documented at least 3,384 civilian deaths in the first half of 2025 alone — nearly 80% of all civilian casualties recorded for the entire previous year. The actual toll is certainly higher, as conflict zones remain largely inaccessible to monitors and many deaths go unreported.
The humanitarian situation has deteriorated to levels not seen in Africa for decades. Approximately 24.6 million people face acute food insecurity. A cholera outbreak has killed more than 500 people and continues spreading. Famine has been declared in parts of North Darfur, particularly around the besieged city of El Fasher, where the RSF has constructed earthen walls to tighten its blockade.
Both warring parties have systematically attacked civilian infrastructure including hospitals, markets and water sources. In April 2025, an assault on Zamzam displacement camp killed nine medical workers in what appeared to be deliberate targeting of healthcare personnel.
Sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war. Ethnic violence, particularly against non-Arab communities in Darfur by RSF forces descended from the Janjaweed militia responsible for the early 2000s genocide, has reached levels that UN investigators describe as possible crimes against humanity.
Some argue that Sudan AU membership should be restored precisely because of this humanitarian emergency, enabling more effective continental coordination of relief efforts and peace initiatives. This pragmatic view holds that punitive isolation, however principled, serves no one when millions face starvation and violence.
The counter-argument is equally powerful: Legitimising military rule by restoring membership without genuine civilian governance rewards the actors whose power struggle created the humanitarian catastrophe and signals to other African militaries that coups need only wait out temporary suspensions.
The Peace and Security Council closing statement attempted to thread this needle. It reaffirmed commitment to Sudan sovereignty and territorial integrity while expressing grave concern over the conflict humanitarian toll. The council welcomed Idris peace initiative while simultaneously calling for restoration of democratically elected civilian-led government in line with AU decisions.
Critically, the council also reiterated its firm rejection of the RSF so-called parallel government, calling on all member states and partners not to recognise it. This position effectively backs al-Burhan government as the internationally recognised authority while still withholding full AU membership.
A question of core principles
The debate over Sudan AU membership ultimately reflects broader tensions within the African Union between pragmatic engagement and principled adherence to democratic norms.
The AU has suspended member states nine times since adopting its zero-tolerance policy toward unconstitutional changes of government in 2000, achieving mixed results. Some countries eventually restored civilian rule and were readmitted, while others remain in prolonged stalemates.
Sudan case is particularly complex because the country faces simultaneous and interlinked crises: military dictatorship, civil war, humanitarian catastrophe and regional instability. Each problem compounds the others. Military rule prevents political settlement of the conflict. The conflict drives humanitarian disaster. Humanitarian disaster creates regional refugee flows and instability. Regional instability provides opportunities for external interference that fuels the conflict.
Breaking this cycle requires addressing root causes, not just symptoms. Restoring AU membership without genuine civilian governance addresses symptoms — Sudan isolation — while ignoring the root cause of military usurpation of democratic transition.
The Peace and Security Council decision to maintain suspension reflects this analysis, however difficult the immediate consequences. It preserves the AU institutional commitment to democratic governance as a prerequisite for full continental participation. It maintains pressure on Sudan military leadership to take meaningful steps toward civilian rule, not merely cosmetic appointments.
Most importantly, it avoids the moral hazard of rewarding coup leaders with international legitimacy simply because they have successfully consolidated military control and installed compliant civilian figureheads.
This does not mean Sudan should be abandoned. The AU has renewed commitment to field missions and stakeholder engagement. International partners must maintain humanitarian access. Diplomatic pressure for ceasefire must intensify.
But membership in the African Union, with the legitimacy and influence it conveys, should not be granted until Sudan government meets the fundamental condition set four years ago: effective restoration of civilian-led democratic transition.
The Sudanese people deserve both humanitarian relief and political legitimacy. They deserve a government that represents their interests, not military factions fighting for power and wealth. Until Sudan leaders demonstrate genuine commitment to civilian rule, the African Union decision to maintain suspension remains the principled position.
The question is not whether Sudan should eventually rejoin the AU. It must. The question is whether the continental body will maintain commitment to democratic governance, or whether military strongmen can simply wait out suspensions while populations suffer.
For now, the African Union has chosen principle over pragmatism. Whether that choice ultimately serves the Sudanese people well will depend on whether it creates sufficient pressure for genuine political change — or whether it simply prolongs their isolation as conflict and humanitarian disaster continue unabated.
