Lina Yaqoub between professionalism and national betrayal: a decision that shakes press freedom in Sudan ..! – #other dimension – ✍️ Musab birr
The decision of the Sudanese authorities to withdraw the license from the director of the office “Al -Arabiya” and “Al -hadath”, Lina Yaqoub, restored the discussion on the limits of media freedom in a country that lives in political crises, a civil war and serious social divisions. The decision was not simply an administrative procedure, but rather transformed into a major political and social event which reflects the size of the mobilization and the counter-mobilization towards the decisions of the authorities, even if they came with logical justifications in a homeland which testifies to the ugliest and most dirty applications of the sixth generation wars.
First: using the media in political conflict
Since the start of the war and the deterioration of the political situation, the media have become a key player to form public opinion and formulate stories. The decision to withdraw the license sends the sign that the transitional government or security services wish to control media speech and reduce the margin before “abuses” or “disclose secrets”. This message affects all local and foreign correspondents and makes them more careful and perhaps less daring to cover thorny problems.
However, on the other hand, the decision led to the increase in world interest in Jacob’s work, and to a large sympathy of the media, which weakened the “dissuasive message” that the authorities wanted to deliver. Thus, the direct political impact was double: internal deterrence but negative external propaganda.
Second: polarization within Sudanese society
The decision deepened the polarization in the first place between the various political and social currents. A team considers that Jacob is the victim of the violation of press freedom, and that the withdrawal of his license is a sign of the “return of security adhesion”, which is supported by a wide range of chaos victims who accompanied war and at the start of the transition period. Another team believes that it has exceeded the professional and that the publication of sensitive information on the place of the former president is a “national betrayal” or at least “carelessness”.
This division was clearly obvious on social networks, because the question turned into a debate on the definition of patriotism and professionalism, which reflects the crisis of deep confidence in state institutions on the one hand and in the media on the other.
Third: the impact of the decision on the image of Sudan outside
Diplomatic, the decision has aroused criticism of international human and media rights organizations, which is the freedom of the press an indication of democratic transformation. At a time when Sudan seeks to improve its international relations and attract human and economic support, such decisions can send negative references to donors and partners, and weaken the government’s report from its respect for rights and freedoms.
Historically, many countries that impose media restrictions in times of crisis are more difficult to restore the confidence of international media and external public. Consequently, the cost of the decision may not appear immediately, but it accumulates in the form of a reputation for deterioration and an unstable image.
Fourth: the impact of decision on collective conscience and political culture
In a society that sees its way to a democratic civil status, such decisions have a great symbolism. It can push the media to more auto-refont, which limits the role of the media in the revelation of corruption and violations. On the other hand, it can create a stronger civil or professional resistance, because press unions and civil society institutions unite to defend press freedom.
These corresponding waves – fear against resistance – constitute the political culture of the future. Each restriction decision today is written in collective memory, and later becomes a political problem that the opposition uses during national elections or dialogues.
Fifth: between professionalism and national betrayal – redefine concepts
The case revealed a fog in the definition of “patriotism” and “betrayal” in the context of the media. Does patriotism mean protecting the image of the state even to the detriment of transparency? Or does that mean revealing what’s going on behind the scenes to know the real people? This controversy itself is a sign of the vitality of society, but it is also proof of the fragility of national consensus.
After the last:
In the end, the decision to withdraw a license for Lina Jacob beyond the limits of being a personal or administrative question, to become a mirror of the political and social division in Sudan, and a real test of the extent of respect for the authority for the freedom of the press. In the long term, the impact of the decision will not be measured by the number of days in which Jacob has been prevented from working, but rather from the extent of the ability of Sudan to restore confidence between the State, the media and the public, and to redefine patriotism in a way which is consistent with the rule of law and transmission. And the media seeking to tell the truth. If the objective is to build a homeland of law and transparency, then press freedom must be part of the solution, not a victim of crises. Sudan is today in front of a crossroads: either to protect the right of its citizens to know or to establish the gap policy and to lose the confidence of its people and the world … and we continue if there is a rest in the rest of the Almighty God.
He doesn’t have it without God
God is enough for us and yes, the agent
Oh my God, do not throw us with our sins that are not afraid of you, and are not mercy of us, oh mockery
# Another Musab Birr dimension
Sunday (September 21, 2025 AD)
Musapbrear@gmail.com
