FFC Central Council denies reported bilateral settlement with the military
The Forces of Freedom and Change (FCC) came out to clarify its position regarding its leaders being near to agreeing on a settlement with the military council.
Khartoum: Ala’a Musa
The FFC Central Council called the ongoing rumors of a bilateral settlement with the military component “unfounded.”
The Freedom and Change coalition explained in a press conference on Monday that what it had actually done was that it had formed an indirect liaison committee to communicate with the military council to find a solution to the political crisis, after the military component approved the transitional constitution documented drafted of the Sudanese Bar Association, which stipulated the handover of power to civilians.
The FFC Central stressed that the transitional period and elections will not exceed 24 months, and stressed that both the President of the Sovereignty Council and the Prime Minister will be among the forces of the revolution.
It pointed out that the political solution includes a plan for unification of the armed forces and reforming state security.
The forces announced their commitment to the Juba Peace Agreement, and confirmed that the review would take place with the parties to the agreement, and said that the cabinet will be entirely civilian, led by a civilian prime minister and a legislative council that enjoys wide participation.
The FFC indicated that the signatories to the political declaration and the transitional constitution of the steering committee of the Sudanese Bar Association will be a party to the political solution.
It stressed that an acceptable political solution requires accountability for the killers of civilians, as well as dismantling the remaining assets and power left by the annihilated Omar al-Bashir regime and the recovery of public funds.
A well-informed source revealed to AlTaghyeer that the Forces Freedom and Change coalition was to hand over its response to the military’s comments in a day or two.
The source, who preferred to be nameless, said that the military component had already handed Freedom and Change its remarks regarding the constitutional framework, highlighting points it had reservations about.
The coalition responded in writing to the disputed points and included their vision of a partnership-run security institutions, and defense decisions based on the agreed upon policies.
The source revealed that the military component did not agree to the civilian leadership of military institutions, and indicated that the two sides were seeking to hold more consultations on partnership-based leadership of the regular agencies.
The source did not deny the existence of differences within the Forces of Freedom and Change, confirming some of what had been circulating in local news regarding the matter.