As broader peace efforts have faltered, the international community has increasingly focused on the capacity of local communities in Darfur to regulate conflict in their midst. This report examines the traditional justice system in Darfur and points to challenges facing traditional authorities, as well as how the system has adapted and evolved during the years of violent conflict.

peaceworks

Summary

  • The violence in Darfur is simultaneously a crisis of governance and a problem of law and order.
  • The Native Administration is a century-old and evolutive system of traditional leaders that underpins the traditional justice sector.
  • Traditional justice and statutory law are and have long been intertwined, but the terms of the exchange have changed.
  • The Native Administration has been compromised, disempowered, and delegitimized.
  • Many courts have been shut down by either the government or the rebels.
  • The war has made it harder for traditional mechanisms to resolve disputes across tribal lines.
  • Affiliation to tribe and party are necessary for both survival and success.
  • As broader peace efforts have faltered, interest has increased in the capacity of local communities to regulate conflict in their midst.
  • Darfurians believe that the first step in addressing a conflict should be a mediation and that the government should be the last resort.
  • Traditional justice mechanisms are evolving rather than disappearing.
  • Judiya is the main reconciliation and justice mechanism.
  • The ajawid are elders or notables from a family, clan, or tribe not involved in the dispute. Government officials and judicial officers can serve. Neutrality is key.
  • The principle of judiya is that all sides agree to abide by the recommendations before hear­ing them. If one party is dissatisfied, the ajawid may decide to review their decisions.
  • Reconciliation is a central component of judiya and involves buy-in from both sides.
  • The chief element in acknowledging responsibility is collective payment of compensation.
  • Darfurians favor judiya over the courts in part because it is faster and in part because it is more free of governmental interference.
  • Darfurians want  the government to endorse and support reconciliation, but not to vet or control it.

About the Report

The violence that has raged in Darfur for a decade is both a crisis of governance and a problem of law and order. As broader peace efforts have faltered, interest has increased in the capacity of local communities in Darfur to regulate conflict in their midst. All hope that traditional leaders, working within the framework of traditional justice, can be more successful in restoring some semblance of normalcy and security to Darfur. This report outlines the background to the conflict and the challenges in resolving it.

About the Author

Victor Tanner has worked with war-affected populations in Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans, both as an aid worker and a researcher, for more than twenty years. He first lived and worked in Darfur in 1988. Since 2002, he has conducted field research on local social and political dynamics in the Darfur conflict, visiting many parts of Darfur and eastern Chad as well. He speaks Sudanese Arabic. Jérôme Tubiana is an independent researcher specializing in Darfur, Sudan, and Chad, where he has worked as a consultant for various humanitarian organizations and research institutions, International Crisis Group, the Small Arms Survey, USIP, USAID, and AU-UN institutions. He is the author or coauthor of various articles, studies, and books, notably Chroniques du Darfour (2010). He holds a doctorate in African studies.

Related Publications

Dissecting Sudan’s Coup

Dissecting Sudan’s Coup

Wednesday, October 27, 2021

By: Manal Taha;  Joseph Tucker

On October 25, Sudan’s military detained the country’s prime minister and key civilian leaders, dissolved the government and declared a state of emergency. The coup, which has put in doubt Sudan’s transition to democracy, quickly prompted protests in the streets of the capital Khartoum and other cities. Some protesters were killed after being fired on by security forces and calls for mass protests on October 30 are growing. USIP’s Joseph Tucker and Manal Taha analyze what the latest developments in Sudan mean for the country and consider the options for the United States to respond to this crisis.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & PreventionDemocracy & Governance

What Does Sudan’s New Cabinet Mean for its Transition?

What Does Sudan’s New Cabinet Mean for its Transition?

Monday, February 8, 2021

By: Joseph Tucker

The announcement on February 8 of a new Cabinet in Khartoum—the product of a peace accord signed by Sudan’s transitional government with several armed groups in October 2020 through a deal brokered by South Sudan—offers hope that the broader inclusion of political leaders can help address Sudan’s pressing challenges and create peace dividends. Unfortunately, the lengthy process of selecting new Cabinet members revealed additional fractures among both signatories to the peace deal and civilian political elements that seemingly offer competing visions for the transition and beyond.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & Governance

How Art Helped Propel Sudan’s Revolution

How Art Helped Propel Sudan’s Revolution

Thursday, November 12, 2020

By: Elizabeth Murray

During Sudan’s 2019 revolution—as people mobilized across the country with tactics including sit-ins, marches, boycotts, and strikes—artists helped capture the country’s discontent and solidify protesters’ resolve. In particular, artists became an integral part of the months-long sit-in at the military headquarters in Khartoum, which was known as the heart of the revolution until it was violently dispersed by paramilitary forces on June 3, 2019. This immense expression of creativity was both a result of loosening restrictions on freedom of expression and, at the same time, a catalyst for further change.

Type: Blog

Nonviolent Action

View All Publications