); googletag.cmd.push(function() { onDvtagReady(function () { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-3341368-3'); }); }); }

Summary

An operation carried out by Palestinian gunmen affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine inside Khartoum caused a crisis for the Sudanese government. On one hand, the Popular Front leadership tried to pressure the Khartoum government to release its members or reduce their sentences, while on the other hand, the British government and the families of the Western victims pressured Sudan to issue deterrent sentences.

Towards the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, the Sudanese capital Khartoum witnessed several violent incidents that shook Sudanese society and worsened the already deteriorating economic and political conditions due to the civil war in the south. These incidents also caused Sudan's foreign relations with Western countries to decline, inflicting severe political damage.

Simultaneously on May 15, 1988, Palestinian fighters from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Abu Nidal group) attacked the Acropole Hotel and the Sudanese Club in Khartoum. Police reported that Westerners appeared to be the targets of simultaneous attacks with grenades and machine guns on a crowded hotel and an exclusive club frequented by Britons, resulting in at least 7 deaths and 21 injuries.

Other sources said that two Palestinians wearing Sudanese jalabiyas entered the Sudanese Club, carrying a Kalashnikov rifle, a pistol, and several grenades, and began firing randomly and throwing grenades indiscriminately, killing a Sudanese worker at the club.

A third Palestinian headed to the reception area of the Acropole Hotel, also wearing a Sudanese jalabiya and carrying a bag containing an explosive device with a tennis racket protruding from one side in a successful attempt at camouflage. He went directly to the hotel restaurant on the second floor and threw the bag into the middle of the hall, causing a violent explosion that killed Ibrahim Abdel Hamid Mohammed, a high-ranking Sudanese military officer, and a British family of four: employees Chris and Claire Rolf and their two children aged between 1 and 3 years. Among the dead was a 'European' woman married to a Sudanese citizen. The wounded included Americans, Dutch, Canadians, Swedes, and Britons.

The trial and investigation phases of the Palestinian defendants took a long time, and the Sudanese government was perplexed. On one hand, the leadership of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine tried to pressure the Khartoum government to release its five members or reduce their sentences. On the other hand, the British government and the families of the Western victims pressured Sudan to issue severe deterrent sentences. However, the victims' families in Britain rejected the verdict of retribution or execution for the accused.

Retribution or Blood Money

A secret cable sent by the British Embassy in Khartoum on February 27, 1990, to its headquarters in London indicates that the Chief Justice of Sudan (Jalal Ali Lutfi) informed the US Embassy that neither the court nor the government had made a decision regarding the fate of the convicts by that time. The cable's author doubted the Chief Justice's intentions, believing the account might be a deliberate attempt to explain the slowness of the legal process in Sudan. The cable stated:

"My colleague in the United States gave me a confidential copy of notes made by the Sudanese Supreme Court President Lutfi (former defense lawyer for the Acropole bombers) to his staff on February 20 (Lutfi will visit the United States at the expense of the US Embassy here)."

"Lutfi said that neither the court nor the government had made a decision on the fate of the convicted terrorists. He claimed to understand that the Sudanese government was still stalling and was in no hurry to obtain the opinions of the Rocket family, saying that the case is complicated because of a defect in the penal code, which stipulates that there is no option but retribution or payment of blood money. He said Sudan's courts are divided on whether prison sentences can be imposed for offending society in such cases. He expressed his belief that the weight of authority would support such an interpretation, but the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this point."

Political Verdict

Lutfi also said that the Sudanese government was under pressure from Palestinian sources. About a month earlier, many 'friends' of the Palestinian fighters arrived in Khartoum from Libya, offering large sums of money for their release. He had met with unidentified visitors in his room. They were polite and surrounded by Sudanese security personnel. After they explained their mission, he replied that their request must remain subject to a decision still under review, and that compensation must be given to the victims' families.

"Lutfi confirmed that the final solution to the case, although officially within the judiciary's remit, would ultimately be a political verdict. He added that unfortunately, there are no good political options for the government: hanging is opposed by the victims' families and would lead to retaliation by extremist Palestinians. A prison sentence would generate relentless pressure for a pardon, lead to potential attacks on Sudanese, and possibly target prisons. On the other hand, releasing the accused undermines justice and prevents the punishment of criminals, while also angering the international community."

After Palestinian parties moved to win the satisfaction of the victims' families by paying blood money (financial compensation), they appear to have sought to reach the families of the British victims, which caused panic and concern in the British government over the consequences of the Palestinian parties knowing the addresses of the victims' families. Therefore, the British Foreign Office sent a short cable on January 12, 1990, warning its ambassador and instructing him to prevent the parties from contacting the victims' families.

"We were appalled by the idea that Palestinian parties might seek to persuade British families to accept blood money (compensation). Such methods could lead to intimidation and threats. I would be grateful if you would speak to the Sudanese authorities, explaining that the relatives of the British victims have submitted their statements regarding the verdict and have requested guarantees that their addresses will not be disclosed. We have alerted the families."

Slowness of Proceedings

"... My legal advisor told me this morning, February 27, that one of the Court of Appeal members told him that he was unable to speak to the president of the court because the court had not received statements from the victims' families in the United Kingdom."

"We know from previous Foreign Office correspondence that the papers had reached them, and in fact at that time the Foreign Office said that the papers had been passed to the Attorney General's office. It also appears from our legal advisor's comments on the hearing held on January 3 that at least some documents had already reached the Attorney General's office. We must suspect this pretext."