Abstract

Objectives: The research aims to elucidate the legal nature of the Head of State's decision in ratifying a law and to discuss the implications of objecting to a law. After discussing the constitutional texts and comparing them. Methods: The study adopted a comparative analytical approach, whereby the researcher clarified the core concepts related to the subject of the study (the Head of State, the ratification of laws, and the right of objection) and examined the constraints imposed on the powers of the Head of State in ratifying laws under the Sudanese constitutional experience, comparing them with selected regional and international experiences. Results: The study arrived at a set of findings, most notably that the decision of the Head of State to ratify legislation and exercise the right of objection is legislative in nature. It also found that the absence of the legislative authority during the post-2019 period contributed to the expansion of the powers of the Sovereignty Council, enabling it to combine both the authority to enact legislation and the authority to ratify it. Conclusions: One of the most important recommendations at the end of the research is the expedited formation of a legislative council through appointment, if it is not possible to hold legislative elections under the current circumstances the Sudanese state is undergoing.