The Public Prosecution provokes controversy with decisions

The Dean of Police (M) Omar Muhammad Othman wrote an article entitled “The Public Prosecution Fees”, saying: The decision issued by the Minister of Finance, which imposed fees on some of the public prosecutors’ work and procedures, sparked widespread controversy in the legal and popular circles, a decision that was taken upon the recommendation of the Attorney General. Although most of the opinions that dealt with the decision came severely, this requires standing before this decision with careful reading.

Initially, it is important to recall that the Public Prosecution Law of 2015 has granted the Public Prosecution Authority to impose fees on some services, and these fees were considered one of its financial resources, provided that this is done according to specific procedures and controls. Thus, the last decision is not a foundation for the imposition of fees, but rather an act of existing validity for ten years. This is one of the aspects of our palaces as legal, as we often come late, and it would be preferable if a lawsuit was filed before the Constitutional Court to challenge the unconstitutionality of imposing fees on the actions and procedures of the Public Prosecution.

With the recognition that the decision, according to the applicable law, is correct unless it is ruled by its unconstitutionality, this late activation raises deep questions about its timing and legal and social dimensions.

The Public Prosecution, by virtue of its central position in the criminal justice system, should be fully funded by the state that guarantees its independence and effectiveness, not turning into a direction of a revenue nature that relies on fees imposed on citizens. Justice is not a commercial service, but rather an invaluable sovereign commitment. Many thinkers and jurists have alerted to the danger of turning justice into a financial burden on the citizen. The famous British judge, Lord Denning, says:

“Justice Must Be Accessible to everyone. There can be no price tag on the right to be Heard.”

“Justice should be available to everyone. It is not possible to put a price on the right to listen to one.”

The imposition of fees on the services of the Public Prosecution – even if it is based on a legal text – may be understood as setting a price for justice and affecting the principle of equality in reaching it, especially in light of the current economic conditions. French thinker Montesquieu had previously said in his book the spirit of laws:

“Liberty Cannot Be Establised with a fair and free Judicial System.”

“Freedom cannot be established without a just and free judicial system.”

We understand the difficult economic conditions that the country is going through in light of the weak government revenues, and yet, the state is binding on the constitutional principles – to fund justice institutions, without transferring this burden to citizens. Financial narrowing of the litigants is a real obstacle to justice, and it weakens popular confidence in the institutions of the judicial state, and it is a dangerous issue at the institutional and societal levels.

In conclusion, and despite the legal cover of this decision, we see that the financing of the Public Prosecution should be from the responsibility of the state, not by exhausting the citizen with additional fees. Resorting to the citizen’s pocket to finance public institutions is an easy solution that is not based on strategic thinking or a comprehensive vision of state management. The state is not managed by reactions or through temporary solutions that address the deficit at the expense of the citizen, but rather a comprehensive college vision. The Sudanese people have been patient a lot, and they bear what others cannot tolerate, even though his country is rich in resources. There is no excuse that justifies the state by failing to manage these resources to the citizen. Some decisions, unfortunately, carry only “Shell Sea Say”, given the popular discontent and a feeling that justice has become in return. I am not a specialist in the economy, but I doubt that the expected annual return of these fees is equivalent to the size of the anger and rejection that I raised, whether among legal or public people.

In order for the foregoing, it is necessary to review this decision, as the review is a responsible practice within the framework of rational governance, and a means to correct the path to take into account the public interest and the principles of justice. From this standpoint, we appeal to the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance to review this decision in light of the legal, social and economic consequences of it, and the state holds its full responsibilities towards the Public Prosecution’s budget, to preserve its role in serving justice.

Dean of Police (M)

Omar Muhammad Othman

June 1, 2025 AD