Too many Sudanese officials inspired by Egypt have become delirious and are now salivating for the Benishangul region. Their logic is flawed from inception.
According to them Ethiopia refusal to accept Nile Sharing treaties on grounds that they are "colonial" means that Ethiopia should also forfeit colonial treaty that gives Ethiopia the Benishangul region.
There have been at least 6 major treaties signed concerning the Nile:
1891,1902,1906,1925,1929,1959.
Ethiopia was only involved in and signed the 1902 Treaty with Britain. Whether the other Nile Sharing treaty was colonial or not is a mute point, Ethiopia was never a part of it.
1891,1902,1906,1925,1929,1959.
Ethiopia was only involved in and signed the 1902 Treaty with Britain. Whether the other Nile Sharing treaty was colonial or not is a mute point, Ethiopia was never a part of it.
With the same excellent power of reasoning, Ethiopia with upper riparian countries can sign a Nile sharing treaty in the absence of Egypt and Sudan where Egypt and Sudan receive 0% of the water. But lets take a close look at the 1902 treaty.
The 1902 treaty had 5 articles where the first article set the boundary between Sudan and Ethiopia and the third article restricted how Ethiopia would use the Nile. Let see article III in detail.
There is of course a glaring difference where the Amharic version states that Ethiopia can only build on the Nile after having consulted only Britain, whereas the English version says Britain and Sudan. 
As noted by Edward Ullendorff , article IV of the treaty was only effective as long as Sudan was a colony of Britain. So, this treaty is effectively Null and Void.
So was Benishangul a gift from Britain? No. This treaty (article I) set the boundary of Sudan with Ethiopia that favored SUDAN not Ethiopia. It is to be recalled that the Mahdist had already stolen large lands from Ethiopia even up to Gonder.
It was brave our brave kings like King Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam and King Yohannes IV that were constantly pushing the Mahdist back. If the current borders that Menelik signed are not acceptable we can always go back to what we had 1879
Or from 1892, personally I'm for 1879 borders where Sudan will have to give up their whole south-eastern region.
Last but not least article IV says Sudan leased 400 hectares of land to be returned when the Brits leave Sudan. Have they returned this land?
All in all, this line of reasoning from Sudan will not gain them any land from Ethiopia but might cost them land all the way to Er Roseires.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
