Elham Asaad Buaras
Sudan has accused the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of complicity in genocide before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Emirati military and logistical support has fuelled atrocities committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Darfur.
Presenting its oral arguments in The Hague on April 10, Sudan argued that the mass violence targeting the non-Arab Masalit community in West Darfur would not be possible without assistance from the UAE, which Khartoum says is in breach of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. Sudan’s Acting Justice Minister, Muawia Osman, told the court that the “ongoing genocide would not be possible without the complicity of the UAE, including the shipment of arms to the RSF.” He said the direct logistical and financial support provided by the UAE, particularly through Chad, was the primary driving force behind the atrocities now taking place, including killings, mass rapes, forced displacement, and widespread looting.
The Sudanese legal team pointed to the use of heavy and sophisticated weapons by the RSF, allegedly transported through Amdjarass airport in Chad via Abu Dhabi. They claimed that a field hospital constructed nearby under the banner of the UAE Red Crescent was, in reality, a covert military supply hub. When the International Committee of the Red Cross attempted to inspect the facility, access was denied due to unspecified “security reasons.”
Eirik Bjorge, a professor of law representing Sudan, argued that there is no doubt the Masalit people are currently being subjected to genocide, and that there is substantial evidence the UAE is not only failing to prevent it but is actively complicit. He further claimed that foreign mercenaries, including Colombians recruited by UAE-linked firms, had been deployed to support the RSF.
These allegations are set against the backdrop of a devastating civil war, which erupted in April 2023 between Sudan’s national army and the RSF. The conflict has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and displaced more than 12 million people. West Darfur has become the epicentre of ethnically targeted violence, with the Masalit community suffering some of the most severe atrocities.
An independent inquiry conducted by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in 2024 concluded that there was “clear and convincing evidence” the RSF, and its allied militias had committed, and continued to commit, acts of genocide against the Masalit.
The UAE has firmly rejected Sudan’s accusations. In its response to the court, Emirati officials labelled the case a “cynical and baseless PR stunt.” Reem Ketait, representing the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told judges that since the start of the war, the UAE had not provided arms or related material to either of the warring parties. She said the idea that the UAE was driving the conflict in Sudan “could not be further from the truth,” asserting that its field hospitals in Chad and South Sudan were set up purely to aid civilians fleeing violence.
UAE officials further argued that Sudan was misusing international legal institutions to attack the Emirati state. UAE Ambassador to the Netherlands, Ameirah Alhefeiti, echoed this stance, telling the court that Sudan was “using the ICJ as a political tool” rather than to alleviate suffering on the ground.
The UAE also challenged the court’s jurisdiction. Although it is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, it made a reservation upon accession in 2005 to Article Nine, which governs the ICJ’s authority to adjudicate disputes under the treaty. UAE legal representatives argued that this reservation excludes the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.
Sudan’s legal team disputed that position, arguing that the UAE’s reservation was too ambiguously worded to shield it from legal scrutiny. International arbitration expert Samuel Wordsworth contended that the reservation was incompatible with the purpose and object of the Genocide Convention, and that such a critical mechanism for genocide prevention could not be invalidated by an unclear and evasively drafted clause.
While the legal debate plays out in court, Sudan’s allegations have drawn significant attention from international human rights groups, many of which have raised serious concerns over the UAE’s role in the conflict.
In November 2024, Amnesty International revealed that French-made Galix defence systems were found mounted on UAE-manufactured armoured vehicles used by the RSF in Sudan. Although these systems were lawfully exported to the UAE, Amnesty warned that their deployment in Darfur could breach the UN arms embargo, calling for more robust enforcement to prevent illegal transfers to conflict zones.
Human Rights Watch has extensively documented RSF-led atrocities in Darfur, including ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity targeting the Masalit. While the organisation has not directly accused the UAE of complicity, it has pointed to the RSF’s reliance on foreign military and financial assistance—assistance which Sudan contends has come from the Emirates.
Genocide Watch has gone further, explicitly accusing the UAE of supplying arms and troops to the RSF and enabling genocidal violence. It has also criticised the UAE for allegedly disguising military support as humanitarian relief efforts.
The Washington Centre for Human Rights has published a detailed report outlining war crimes committed in Sudan, including sexual violence and ethnic cleansing. The report implicates the UAE in facilitating these abuses through military and logistical backing for the RSF.
Meanwhile, the Darfur Union in the UK has condemned what it describes as Emirati sponsorship of the RSF. It has labelled the militia a terrorist organisation and called for international action against those aiding its operations, including the UAE.
In response to the mounting scrutiny, Sudan is seeking a series of provisional measures from the ICJ. It has requested that the court order the UAE to halt all material and logistical support to the RSF, to take effective steps to prevent further killings and harm to the Masalit people, to stop imposing conditions intended to destroy the group, and to ensure that any armed groups it supports are not inciting genocide.
Sudan is also asking the court to require the UAE to report regularly on compliance with these obligations. While many legal experts suggest the UAE’s reservation to Article Nine may limit the ICJ’s ability to hear the case, Sudan’s move has successfully elevated the matter to the international stage and brought renewed focus to the atrocities unfolding in Darfur.
A decision from the ICJ on whether it will accept jurisdiction and issue provisional measures is expected within the coming weeks. Should the court proceed, it could impose an injunction requiring the UAE to act in line with its obligations under international law.
Photo: Sudan is urging judges at the International Court of Justice to compel the UAE to cease its alleged support for the RSF.
(Credit: EPA File Photo, Creative Commons)
Sport news available online
