Foreign investment in Sudan's pharmaceutical market looks, on paper, like a straightforward regulatory checklist: register the product, secure the licence, ship the goods. Most foreign manufacturers and distributors approach it exactly that way — and it is precisely that assumption that costs them a launch window. Sudan's Medicines and Poisons Act of 2009 does not open with a product-level filing process. It opens with a company-level gateway, and the statute does not tell you how long the regulator has to walk you through it. Capital gets committed, dossiers get prepared, and then the clock investors expected simply never starts ticking on the terms they planned for.

That gap between what the Act says and how it is actually administered is where deals stall — and where the right counsel earns its fee before a single product application is even filed.

What Foreign Investment in Sudan's Pharmaceutical Sector Actually Requires

Under Article 18 of the Act, no medicine, pharmaceutical preparation, medical device or cosmetic may be imported into Sudan from a company based outside the country unless that company is first entered on the register maintained by the National Council for Medicines and Poisons. This is not a product registration. It is a threshold, company-level listing — and Article 19 sets out exactly what the Council expects to see before it grants it: proof that the applicant is the actual manufacturer and not merely a packager, proof that its products are lawfully marketed in the country of origin under the same formulation and specification, a full account of its branch structure and each branch's function, a list of the products it manufactures, and its incorporation date and the countries where it is already registered.

Only once that company-level listing is in place does product registration under Article 16 become available, running for a five-year term under Article 20 that lapses automatically — not on notice, automatically — if it is not renewed in time.

Nowhere in the Act does the legislature bind the Council to a decision-making timeline. Article 17 gives the Council the right to refuse registration, with written reasons, but sets no clock on how long it may take to decide either way. For investors used to jurisdictions with statutory response deadlines, this is the single most consequential silence in the Act — because it means the registration timeline is a matter of Council practice, not statutory entitlement, and it has to be planned for as such.

This matters commercially because Sudan is not a marginal or theoretical market. According to Sudan's Ministry of Health, as reported in 2022, more than 90% of all medicines used in the country were imported, and by 2023 the Council had already licensed 153 companies to manufacture, import or supply pharmaceutical products domestically. This is an open, active, import-dependent market — the barrier is not access, it is planning around an entry process whose timing is discretionary rather than fixed.

Navigating that discretion is not a matter of reading the Act correctly once. It is a matter of understanding, article by article, how Sudan's regulator behaves in practice — and SCLO has already walked this exact gateway for a foreign pharmaceutical acquirer at real scale. SCLO acted for Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, the London-listed pharmaceutical group, on its acquisition of Elie Pharmaceuticals, one of the largest pharmaceutical factories in Sudan — structuring the wholly foreign-owned Sudanese acquisition vehicle, running due diligence on foreign capital registration with the Central Bank, advising on the transfer of the target's trademarks, and handling the compliance requirements of the National Council for Medicines and Poisons itself, the same regulator and the same Article 18 gateway discussed above. SCLO has also been continuously ranked by Chambers Global since 2013 and published Sudan's Merger Control chapter for LexisNexis. That is not a credential listed for its own sake — it is direct evidence that the statutory gateway a foreign pharmaceutical investor faces under Article 18 has already been walked, successfully, for a company operating at exactly this scale.

The Honest Limitation Worth Planning For

It would be misleading to present Sudan's registration framework as a smooth mechanism simply waiting to be understood correctly. A 2024 peer-reviewed study surveying Sudanese regulatory-affairs pharmacists examined the measures the National Medicines and Poisons Board imposes to control medicine pricing under its Article 6(1) mandate — and found that those measures have, in practice, produced weaker affordability outcomes rather than better ones. A separate peer-reviewed pricing study reached a similarly uncomfortable conclusion: the retail price of eleven of twelve originator medicines in Sudan matched or exceeded their listed British National Formulary prices, and medicines distributed through Central Medical Supplies carried a markup of roughly double their landed cost. The regulator's stated intent and its administrative outcome do not reliably align. For a foreign investor, the practical implication is not to avoid the market — it is to build compliance and pricing strategy around a regulator whose implementation record diverges from its own stated design, and to treat that gap as an ongoing monitoring obligation rather than a one-off filing risk.

Where Sudan's Framework Diverges From Its Regional Peers

Kenya's Pharmacy and Poisons Act (Cap. 244) is the closest comparable African common-law framework, and the contrast is instructive. Kenya requires a foreign applicant to disclose and file a formal local representative agreement as part of registration — a codified mechanism for how a foreign manufacturer's on-the-ground presence is structured. Sudan's Act imposes no equivalent requirement; the Article 18 company-listing threshold covers the manufacturer's own status but says nothing about how a foreign entity should structure local representation, leaving that question to be resolved by Council practice rather than statute.

The more significant divergence is around parallel imports. Kenya's subsidiary registration rules expressly define and permit parallel importation of patented drugs under its Industrial Property Act — giving distributors and originators a codified answer to a question that matters directly to pricing and supply-chain structuring. Sudan's Act is silent on parallel imports entirely, as it is on data exclusivity for registration dossiers more broadly. For deal structuring, this means a distribution or licensing agreement drafted for the Kenyan market cannot simply be replicated for Sudan — the statutory scaffolding that would normally answer these questions in a codified regime does not exist here, and it has to be built into the contract itself.

The Reconstruction Opportunity Behind the Numbers

Before the current conflict, local manufacturing supplied roughly 30% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs, produced by around 27 companies concentrated in the Khartoum area — against a market that still imported the overwhelming majority of what it consumed. That capacity has been further eroded by the war's disruption to manufacturing and supply chains. The picture once Sudan's legal and regulatory framework is correctly navigated looks materially different: an import-dependent market of this scale, paired with a codified — if imperfectly administered — registration pathway already in active use by 153 licensed companies, is exactly the kind of structural gap that rewards investors who move early and correctly. Sudan business law and Sudan investment law are not static bodies of rules frozen by the current conflict; they are the framework the eventual reconstruction of the pharmaceutical supply chain will be built on, and Sudan reconstruction will require exactly the kind of registered, compliant manufacturing and distribution capacity the Act already provides a route to establish. SCLO's role is the bridge between that statutory framework as written and how it will actually need to be navigated to capture the opportunity — for clients doing business in Sudan today and for those positioning for what comes after.

Talk to SCLO Before You File

If you are evaluating foreign investment in Sudan's pharmaceutical sector, the registration timeline you plan around should come from counsel who has navigated Sudan's legal framework in practice, not from the statute alone. Contact SCLO to structure your entry before your first filing goes in.

‍

‍