Sudan’s arbitration framework has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Today, the legal regime is primarily governed by the Arbitration Act of 2016, which replaced an earlier 2005 Act, and applies to both domestic and international disputes.
While the 2016 Act draws on elements of the UNCITRAL Model Law, it also retains features influenced by Egyptian arbitration law and local practices. This hybrid approach means that although the law aims to provide a clear, efficient process, some provisions still reflect older legal concepts that may need further reform.
A major issue within Sudan’s arbitration system is the enforcement of arbitral awards.
In theory, the Act is designed to ensure that awards are binding and enforceable, but in practice, local courts sometimes intervene. Judicial challenges typically arise on grounds of public policy—often citing Islamic jurisprudence or moral considerations. Such interventions can lead to delays or even refusal to enforce foreign awards, despite Sudan’s formal accession to international conventions like the New York Convention in 2018. The gap between the law on the books and its practical application remains a concern for both local businesses and international investors.
Judicial Oversight and Party Autonomy
Another ongoing debate is the balance between judicial oversight and the principle of party autonomy. Sudanese courts, while intended to play a supervisory role, sometimes review arbitral awards more extensively than is typical in jurisdictions that strictly adhere to the “minimal interference” approach of the UNCITRAL Model Law. This has led to criticisms that the courts are stepping into the arena of arbitration, potentially undermining the efficiency and finality that arbitration is meant to provide.
Impact on International Commercial Disputes
For sectors such as oil, mining, infrastructure, and other major investments, a reliable and predictable arbitration process is critical. Sudan’s efforts to update its arbitration law are seen as essential for creating a more investor-friendly environment. However, issues such as a narrow definition of “international arbitration,” limited judicial review of arbitral awards, and the complex interplay between international law and domestic public policy still pose significant challenges.
Future Reforms
Legal experts and stakeholders in Sudan continue to call for further reforms. These include refining the definitions within the Act, ensuring a clearer separation between domestic and international arbitration proceedings, and reducing the scope of judicial intervention, especially on public policy grounds. The ultimate goal is to enhance both the efficiency and predictability of the arbitration process, thereby boosting investor confidence and promoting economic development.
In summary, while the Arbitration Act of 2016 represents a significant step toward modernizing Sudan’s dispute resolution system, its full potential is yet to be realized. Ongoing efforts to align domestic practices with international standards—and to address issues such as award enforcement and judicial review—are critical for the continued development of arbitration in Sudan.