A Practical Legal Guide for International Law Firms and Foreign Investors

Why Article 33 Matters for Foreign Investment in Sudan

Foreign companies considering foreign investment in Sudan often underestimate a decisive legal requirement: the obligation to establish a registered legal presence before conducting business.

Under Article 33 of the Sudanese Companies Act 2015, any company incorporated outside Sudan must register a Sudanese branch if it intends to carry out business activities or execute contracts within the country. This requirement is neither procedural nor optional. It is a foundational rule governing market entry, regulatory compliance, and legal enforceability.

For international law firms advising multinational clients, and for foreign investors assessing regulatory risk, Article 33 represents one of the most commercially significant provisions of the Sudanese Companies Act 2015.

What Article 33 of the Sudanese Companies Act 2015 Requires in Practice

Article 33 establishes a clear and structured rule: a foreign company may not conduct business in Sudan unless it registers a branch with the Sudanese Commercial Registrar.

In practical terms, this means that the foreign company does not lose its foreign legal identity, nor is it required to incorporate a Sudanese subsidiary. Instead, the law permits the establishment of a registered branch that operates as an extension of the parent company, subject to Sudanese regulatory oversight.

The branch may be registered either to carry out general business activities falling within the parent company’s objects, or for the execution of a specific contractor project, a structure commonly used in infrastructure, construction, energy, and donor-funded projects. This flexibility is a defining feature of the Sudanese Companies Act 2015 and one that is particularly relevant to foreign investment in Sudan.

How Sudan’s Approach Compares with International Practice

From a comparative legal perspective, Article 33 aligns Sudan with widely accepted international standards. Jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Kenya, and many EU and common-law countries similarly require foreign companies to register an overseas branch or equivalent legal presence before commencing local operations.

What distinguishes Sudan, however, is the pragmatic flexibility embedded in the Sudanese Companies Act 2015. Unlike some jurisdictions that impose minimum capital thresholds, mandatory local shareholding, or complex licensing layers, Sudan allows foreign companies to register branches without capitalisation requirements and, where appropriate, on a project-specific basis.

For multinational companies and foreign investors pursuing phased entry strategies or operating in higher-risk markets, this approach reduces upfront exposure while preserving legal certainty. In the context of foreign investment in Sudan, this positions the Sudanese framework as more commercially accommodating than its reputation might suggest.

What Article 33 Means for Foreign Investors and International Counsel

For foreign investors, Article 33 of the Sudanese Companies Act 2015 enables structured, legally compliant market entry while limiting long-term commitments. A registered branch facilitates lawful operations, improves access to local banking arrangements, enhances contractual enforceability, and provides clarity on tax and regulatory obligations.

For international law firms, Article 33 is a critical advisory touchpoint. It directly informs market-entry structuring, cross-border transaction planning, regulatory compliance strategies, and the execution of public-sector or donor-funded contracts. In advisory terms, failure to address this provision at an early stage can expose clients to avoidable operational and legal risks.

In practical advisory work, Article 33 is therefore not a technical footnote but a strategic legal consideration in any serious discussion of foreign investment in Sudan.

The Economic Signal Behind Article 33

The legislative intent behind Article 33 of the Sudanese Companies Act 2015 extends beyond corporate formality. It reflects a policy choice to attract foreign capital while maintaining regulatory oversight, without imposing excessive localisation requirements at the entry stage.

In emerging and post-conflict economies, this model is widely recognised as a tool for encouraging foreign direct investment, supporting reconstruction and infrastructure development, and facilitating international partnerships. For policymakers, it signals openness. For investors, it signals predictability. For international lawyers, it signals a jurisdiction that is legally navigable with the right local expertise.

‍