The recent decision by Sudanese authorities to review and potentially reduce the public sector workforce raises profound legal, economic, and human rights concerns, particularly in the context of the ongoing armed conflict and humanitarian crisis in Sudan. The decision, if implemented, could have devastating consequences for thousands of workers and their families while further weakening already fragile state institutions.
On 14 May 2026, information circulated through alternative media platforms indicating that Sudan’s Ministry of Human Development and Social Welfare had issued Decision No. 22/2026. The decision reportedly followed Directive No. 4 issued by the Prime Minister on 16 April 2026, instructing the Ministry to conduct a census of government employees who had reached voluntary retirement age and to develop recommendations aimed at reducing the size of the public workforce.
According to the leaked information, a seven-member committee was established to oversee the process. The committee reportedly includes representatives from the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Finance, the Civil Service Bureau, and the General Authority for Wages and Social Insurance. The committee was granted broad powers to access state employee records and consult any individuals deemed necessary to fulfil its mandate.
However, serious questions arise regarding the composition, transparency, and mandate of this committee. Three individuals were reportedly appointed directly by the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Human Resources, and the Graduate Employment Agency, without any publicly available explanation of the criteria for their selection. Equally concerning is the vague language authorizing the committee to consult or recruit “whomever it deems appropriate,” granting it broad discretionary powers without sufficient oversight or accountability mechanisms.
Risks of Forced Workforce Reduction
Although the decision is framed as a review of employees eligible for voluntary retirement, available information suggests that its implementation may extend far beyond voluntary retirement procedures. In practice, it could amount to a large-scale restructuring of the civil service, including the elimination of positions and indirect pressure on employees to leave their jobs.
Leaked figures indicate that Sudan currently employs approximately 94,687 public sector workers, with nearly 57,253employees reportedly targeted for review under the proposed measures. If implemented, the decision could affect nearly 60 percent of the state workforce. The social consequences would likely be severe. Assuming an average household size of four dependents per employee, the decision could directly affect the livelihoods of more than 286,000 people. At a time when Sudan is already experiencing one of the world’s largest displacement crises, further economic destabilization could deepen poverty, insecurity, and social fragmentation.
Voluntary retirement is fundamentally an individual right exercised freely by employees. Any attempt to pressure workers into accepting early retirement packages or restructuring measures under conditions of war, displacement, and economic collapse risks violating both domestic legal protections and international labour standards.
War, displacement, and institutional fragility
The timing of the decision is particularly alarming. Sudan remains engulfed in an armed conflict that began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. The war has displaced millions of civilians internally and across borders, destroyed public infrastructure, and severely disrupted government institutions and essential services.
In this context, pursuing large-scale public sector restructuring raises fundamental concerns regarding legality, feasibility, and legitimacy. Institutional reform processes, particularly those affecting employment rights and public administration, require a stable political and constitutional environment, functioning oversight institutions, and meaningful public participation. None of these conditions currently exists in Sudan.
The conflict has also resulted in widespread destruction and loss of administrative records, including employee files and civil service documentation. Reports indicate that authorities have requested employees to resubmit basic personal information. This raises additional concerns regarding data verification, procedural safeguards, and the accuracy of the information upon which such consequential decisions may be based.
Moreover, Sudan’s judicial and labour institutions remain severely weakened. Questions, therefore, arise regarding the availability of legal remedies for employees who may wish to challenge arbitrary dismissals, forced retirement, or discriminatory restructuring measures.
Digital transformation must not become a tool for exclusion
Authorities have increasingly promoted “digital transformation” as part of broader public sector reform efforts. While modernization of public services can be beneficial, digitalization cannot serve as a justification for reducing employment or excluding vulnerable populations from accessing state services.
Sudan continues to suffer major telecommunications disruptions caused by the ongoing war. In many areas, mobile networks, internet access, and electricity remain unreliable or entirely unavailable. Under these circumstances, rapid digital transformation risks deepening inequality and marginalization rather than improving accessibility.
The experience of students sitting for the Sudanese Certificate examinations outside areas controlled by the military, as well as disruptions affecting banking and currency exchange systems, demonstrates how digital and administrative systems can become inaccessible during conflict. Any reform strategy that fails to account for these realities risks exacerbating existing inequalities and denying essential services to large segments of the population.
Human rights and international legal obligations
The proposed restructuring raises significant concerns under international human rights and labour law. Sudan remains bound by obligations arising from instruments including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the African Union African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and conventions of the International Labour Organization. These frameworks protect the rights to work, social security, dignity, equality, and protection from arbitrary interference with livelihoods. Even during states of emergency or armed conflict, governments retain obligations to respect and protect fundamental human rights. Implementing measures that reduce job security or pressure workers into accepting financial compensation in exchange for losing employment may amount to coercive practices, especially in the current context of widespread economic hardship and humanitarian vulnerability.
Economic concerns and long-term institutional costs
From an economic perspective, the proposed measures appear both short-sighted and potentially unsustainable. Sudan’s economic collapse is primarily driven by the ongoing war, military expenditure, destruction of infrastructure, and disruptions to productive sectors. Addressing the crisis, therefore, requires ending the conflict and rebuilding state institutions rather than downsizing the public workforce.
Public institutions will play a central role in post-war recovery, reconstruction, and service delivery. Reducing the civil service during wartime risks weakening the state’s future capacity to rehabilitate infrastructure, restore public services, and respond to humanitarian needs. Leaked figures regarding retirement compensation packages further raise concerns about financial feasibility. Reports suggest that some proposed benefit packages for employees between the ages of 50 and 54 may amount to extraordinarily high sums in Sudanese pounds. If accurate, the cumulative financial burden of implementing such measures could be immense and potentially exceed the state’s capacity under current economic conditions.
Rather than pursuing measures that could trigger mass unemployment and institutional collapse, authorities should focus on sustainable economic reforms, accountability in the management of natural resources, and policies aimed at preserving livelihoods and public services.
Conclusion
The reported exclusion of independent unions and professional associations from discussions surrounding the decision raises additional concerns regarding transparency and public participation. Meaningful institutional reform requires broad consultation with workers, unions, civil society organizations, and affected communities. Relying primarily on retirement age as a criterion for restructuring disregards experience, institutional memory, and the country’s urgent need for skilled personnel capable of supporting future recovery efforts. At a time when Sudan faces unprecedented humanitarian, political, and economic challenges, measures that threaten the livelihoods of tens of thousands of workers risk aggravating instability rather than contributing to reform.
Authorities should therefore immediately suspend implementation of the proposed measures and prioritize efforts to end the armed conflict, restore constitutional governance, and create conditions necessary for genuine institutional reform grounded in transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights.
By: Mohamed Badawi
Director Monitoring and Documentation Programme, ACJPS