The Truth Behind the Headlines | Dr. Ibrahim Shaqlawi The State Confronts Its Erratic Decisions

The cost-of-living crisis in the country has revealed that rising prices have become a test of the state’s ability to manage the economy and protect people’s livelihoods. When purchasing power declines, food prices rise, and fuel and transportation crises worsen, questions about the government’s responsibility become part of the search for a way out, alongside the demand for an explanation of the crisis. The war explains some of these imbalances, but it does not absolve state institutions of their duty to anticipate, plan, and correct policies.

In our previous article, “Rising Prices: A Market Crisis or a State Crisis?”, we examined the paradox of vegetable prices in Wadi Halfa, where some Egyptian products appeared considerably cheaper than their local counterparts. We raised questions about production costs, levies, distribution imbalances, and the government’s responsibility to protect consumers.

This raises doubts about the soundness of the import ban in light of its effects on the market and citizens’ livelihoods, and whether it achieved its objectives or whether its consequences necessitated a review at the highest level of the state. President Abdel Fattah al-Burhan directed the lifting of the import ban on a number of goods and the exemption of flour, rice, legumes, cooking oils, vegetables, and fruits from customs duties, while allowing traders to resume imports, following a summons to the ministers of finance and trade in response to the cost-of-living crisis. Finance Minister Dr. Jibril Ibrahim confirmed that the measures aim to ease the burden on consumers while taking into account the protection of local producers.

According to Al-Sudani newspaper, importers have begun moving food shipments from Egypt toward the Sudanese border, while traders have reported losses incurred as containers and shipments remained stranded for months following the decision to ban approximately 46 commodities in April 2026. An economic expert noted that the restrictions contributed to limiting supplies and increasing pressure on markets amid declining domestic production.

Protecting the national currency and encouraging local production were among the justifications for the ban. These are legitimate objectives, but the soundness of an objective does not guarantee the soundness of the means. When domestic production fails to meet market demand, restricting imports without providing alternatives reduces supply, raises prices, creates opportunities for monopolies and smuggling, and weakens trade. Thus, a policy intended to protect the economy may become an additional burden on consumers, producers, and importers.

Lifting the ban is therefore a step toward correcting the course, but its impact depends on the speed of implementation, the smooth movement of shipments, the regulation of transportation and distribution costs, and the curbing of monopolistic practices. Customs exemptions alone do not guarantee lower prices unless their benefits reach consumers. The crisis also calls for addressing the situation of stranded containers, examining the losses suffered by importers according to clear criteria, and restoring confidence in the stability of government policies.

However, the crisis extends beyond food to fuel and transportation, as students and workers face difficulties getting to schools and workplaces and returning home. When daily mobility becomes a struggle, economic imbalances spill over into education, production, public safety, and social stability. The Khartoum State Government should therefore assess the options for continuing classes in light of fuel shortages and the lack of safe transportation, while prioritizing students’ safety.

The core of the problem lies in the lack of integration between economic and social policies. Producers cannot be protected by creating scarcity, nor can opening the door to imports serve as a sustainable alternative to production. What is needed, therefore, is an economic emergency plan that prioritizes food, fuel, and transportation; reviews fees and levies; monitors prices and commodity costs; publishes regular supply data; and links urgent interventions to a program supporting agriculture, industry, energy, and transportation.

Food security cannot be built solely on trucks arriving from abroad; it must rest on domestic production capable of competing and meeting the needs of the market and citizens.

At the government level, the recurrence of crises, followed by interventions to address them only after they have worsened, raises questions about impact assessments, coordination among ministries, the assignment of responsibilities, and accountability. The state is not measured by its ability to issue decisions and reverse them, but by its ability to anticipate their consequences and review them before citizens pay the price. This requires stable institutions and clearly defined mandates.

In our previous article, we asked: “The Cost of Living: Is It a Market Crisis or a State Crisis?” Today, the state’s confrontation with its erratic decisions reveals that the two questions are interconnected. The market does not operate independently of the policies that regulate it, and citizens cannot bear the cost of recurring mistakes that are addressed only through delayed interventions. Protection is achieved by empowering production, regulating markets, and safeguarding people’s livelihoods.

The state, according to #TheTruthBehindTheHeadlines, is measured by the consistency of its decisions, because citizens pay the price of policy confusion with their food, their dignity, and their trust in governing institutions. When bread, fuel, and transportation become daily tests of government effectiveness, economic reform—and perhaps the government’s departure—becomes a condition for preserving citizens’ dignity, social stability, and the country’s future.

Wishing you continued well-being and good health.

Saturday, 24 October 2026

Shglawi55@gmail.com