The Truth’s Perspective | Ibrahim Shaglawi The Intelligence Service and Her Majesty

The First Sudanese Media Professionals Forum in Khartoum, which concluded its activities on Thursday, sparked widespread debate between reforming the profession and rearranging the relationship between the media and authority. The meetings with state leaders, particularly the Director of the Intelligence Service, clearly expressed this debate: security protects against what may threaten society, while journalism reveals what society ought to know.

Between the duty of protection and the right to know begin the boundaries of authority over information, and the boundaries of the responsibility of “Her Majesty,” according to the European definition that later described it as the Fourth Estate.

The idea of the forum deserves commendation, but it is important that it not remain a ceremonial occasion. What is needed are regular meetings that allow for frank criticism, strengthen professionalism, and rebuild trust, rather than gatherings for exchanging compliments or passing messages in one direction.

 Sudan after the war needs institutions that complement rather than mirror one another, security that protects without guardianship, media that exercises its right to criticize without hostility, and a mature relationship in which differences in functions become a source of strength rather than an entry point to confrontation.

President Al-Burhan’s remarks set the state’s general political framework regarding the Sudanese dialogue and democratic transition, elections, and adherence to sovereignty and national constants. The Prime Minister, in his address, outlined the themes of the recovery phase, from peace and reconstruction to national healing, civil service reform, and combating corruption.

 As for Mofadal, he approached the area where security meets society, the media, and the economy. This is precisely where the question that concerns us begins: How do we move from a relationship governed by security necessity to one governed by institutionalism?

The intelligence service in the state we want is not an adversary of the press, nor is the press an adversary of it. The former monitors what threatens society, while the latter reveals what the government may not see.

The danger begins when political security expands at the expense of national security, or when press freedom turns into disorder that causes it to lose its responsibility toward the state.

Therefore, a distinction must be made between three things that are often confused by some: national security, political security, and the security of authority. The first concerns the survival, unity, and sovereignty of the state and the safety of its society; the second concerns the struggle for power and the balance of forces; and the third concerns protecting the ruler or government from criticism. A mature state protects its national security, but it must not regard every political criticism as a security threat.

At the same time, press freedom is not a gateway to weakening the state. There is information whose publication may reveal military movements, endanger people’s lives, or harm a security operation, and these are matters with their own professional considerations.

But this differs from using security as a pretext to conceal failure or protect an official from accountability. Secrecy protects what must remain secret, but it should not become a curtain that conceals what society has the right to know.

The war has also revealed that state security is not built by force alone, but by protecting public opinion from misinformation, while the media remains part of society’s ability to withstand and understand events. Therefore, the common interest between the intelligence service and the press does not lie in identical roles, but in their integration: security protects the state, while the media protects society’s awareness from misinformation, and through differences in functions, the national role is completed.

What was striking in the remarks of the Director of the Intelligence Service was his reference to the rupture that afflicted the social fabric as a result of the repercussions of the war, and what prompted a decision to elevate the Community Security Department into an authority. This is a positive step that reflects a shift toward treating the social threat as a priority requiring urgent attention.

Here, the role of the media must emerge as part of this response, as an institution capable of addressing public awareness, protecting society, and resisting hate speech.

The debate over the names of those who attended and those who were absent should not be escalated, nor can the role of the General Union of Sudanese Journalists be ignored as the legitimate professional body.

 But the important question remains: Did the invitation encompass the entire professional base, or was it marked by selection and discrimination whose criteria were not clear? A forum carrying the name “Sudanese Media Professionals” and opening the discussion about a new phase of transition should have been broader and included all media professionals, with only those prevented by circumstances being excluded. What is required in such forums is fairness of participation and transparency of selection, even if through an open announcement.

Therefore, the success of the Media Professionals Forum should not be measured by the number of speeches delivered, nor by the size of the official presence, but by whether it is capable of establishing a new relationship between the state and the press. A relationship that is based neither on mutual suspicion, nor subordination, nor confrontation, but on a simple principle: the state protects the nation, the media protects the citizen’s right to the truth, and both are subject to the law.

According to #The_Truths_Perspective, the intelligence service and Her Majesty are not adversaries, but neither are they one party in the equation. Security without governing boundaries becomes guardianship, while media without responsibility becomes chaos, and both harm the state.

Therefore, what comes after this forum is more important than the forum itself: either we establish a relationship governed by institutions and the law, or we reproduce a relationship of personalities, selection, and containment. The intelligence service is the security of the state, and the press is its eye; the former protects, and the latter monitors.

When each side knows its boundaries, the outcome becomes protection for the state rather than a threat to it, and the media becomes a partner in building, neither subordinate to authority nor an adversary of the nation.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.

Saturday, September 12, 2026

Shglawi55@gmail.com