In a historic and highly charged development, Sudan has officially accused the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of playing a significant role in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Darfur. According to statements submitted by Sudanese representatives, the UAE is allegedly serving as the “driving force” behind what they describe as a modern-day genocide. The charges center on the claim that the UAE has provided substantial support—both militarily and financially—to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of committing atrocities in the western region of Sudan.
This legal move places the conflict in Darfur under a new international spotlight and escalates the geopolitical stakes in the Horn of Africa and the wider Arab world. It also signals a dramatic shift in Sudan’s approach to international justice and accountability, as Khartoum seeks to galvanize international pressure and reshape the narrative around the devastating war that has torn through its territories for nearly a year.
Sudan ; A Shocking Turn at The Hague
The Sudanese legal team delivered their arguments at The Hague, presenting a damning portrait of the UAE’s alleged involvement in arming and funding the RSF. These forces, formerly an offshoot of the notorious Janjaweed militias from the early 2000s, have been accused of ethnically targeted violence, mass killings, forced displacements, and sexual violence across Darfur.
The Sudanese submission to the World Court was not subtle. It directly named the UAE as a chief facilitator of war crimes and crimes against humanity, asserting that the Gulf nation’s military assistance has fueled a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing, particularly targeting African communities in the Darfur region. According to Sudan, this support has allowed the RSF to gain superiority in weaponry, logistics, and battlefield dominance—resulting in the near-total destruction of cities like El Geneina.
The Core of the Allegation: Genocide
The Sudanese case is centered on violations of the Genocide Convention, to which both Sudan and the UAE are signatories. The claim is that the UAE’s alleged actions—or its support of those committing atrocities—amount to complicity in genocide. This legal framing is crucial because it moves the matter beyond civil conflict or proxy warfare and into the realm of international criminal responsibility.
The Genocide Convention obligates signatories not just to avoid committing genocide but also to prevent and punish it. Sudan’s legal team argues that by supporting a force like the RSF, which has a clear and violent track record, the UAE has crossed a line from passive ally to active enabler. If proven, the implications could be far-reaching—not only legally but also diplomatically, potentially leading to sanctions, isolation, or further legal proceedings.
UAE’s Response: Denial and Diplomacy
The UAE, for its part, has categorically denied the allegations. Emirati officials have stated that their country’s involvement in Sudan has been purely humanitarian, focusing on delivering aid, supporting ceasefire negotiations, and maintaining stability in the region. They have dismissed Sudan’s accusations as politically motivated, labeling them an attempt to deflect attention from Sudan’s own internal failures and longstanding issues of military infighting.
UAE diplomats also argue that Sudan’s internal war is deeply rooted in power struggles between rival factions of the military, including the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), rather than foreign interference. According to this perspective, blaming an external actor is not only legally tenuous but strategically designed to attract global sympathy and aid.
Darfur: A Region in Ruins
The humanitarian crisis in Darfur has intensified since the outbreak of the wider Sudanese conflict in April 2023, when a power struggle erupted between the SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commonly known as Hemeti. The once-fragile peace has disintegrated into a full-blown civil war, with Darfur once again emerging as a flashpoint of ethnically charged violence.
Reports from international human rights organizations and UN agencies describe a region in total collapse. Thousands have been killed, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced—many fleeing into neighboring Chad. Entire towns have been razed, hospitals destroyed, and aid convoys blocked. The RSF, in particular, has been accused of mass executions and targeting civilian populations based on ethnic identity, especially members of the Masalit community.
A Broader Geopolitical Tangle
Sudan’s legal maneuver also brings into focus the broader power dynamics at play in the Red Sea and Gulf regions. Over the past few years, countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have deepened their involvement in African affairs—economically, diplomatically, and in some cases, militarily. These involvements are often justified as efforts to maintain regional stability or counter rival influences, such as those of Turkey, Qatar, or even Russia.
By accusing the UAE, Sudan is not just seeking justice; it is challenging a powerful regional order. It calls into question the role of wealthy Gulf nations in African conflicts and invites deeper scrutiny of where their military and financial support flows—and to what end. This accusation could strain Sudan’s relations with other Gulf states as well, particularly those who see such allegations as destabilizing or diplomatically embarrassing.
The Role of the International Court of Justice
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. While it has no enforcement arm of its own, its rulings carry significant moral and legal weight. Countries found in violation of international law at the ICJ may face sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and damage to their international reputations. Moreover, the ICJ’s findings can be used as a foundation for other judicial mechanisms, including cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which tries individuals for war crimes and genocide.
It is important to note that the ICJ will not deliver a verdict immediately. The process is long, often taking years to move from preliminary hearings to full judgments. However, Sudan’s decision to file such a case is already a powerful diplomatic statement. It signals a readiness to escalate its internal conflict to a global platform and to leverage the court of international opinion in pursuit of political and legal accountability.
What’s Next for Sudan and the UAE?
Sudan’s decision to publicly accuse the UAE at such a high level may have multiple consequences. On the one hand, it could attract greater international attention to the atrocities in Darfur and pressure foreign actors to cease any suspected support for warring factions. On the other hand, it could alienate powerful regional allies and complicate Sudan’s already fragile diplomatic landscape.
For the UAE, the challenge lies in managing its international reputation as a progressive, modern nation committed to peace and innovation, while facing allegations of deep entanglement in a brutal conflict. How it responds—not only in court but on the diplomatic stage—may define its role in African geopolitics for years to come.
Conclusion: A Historic Legal Gamble
Sudan’s case against the UAE is as dramatic as it is unprecedented. By naming a powerful Gulf nation in a genocide case at the ICJ, Sudan is betting on global solidarity, legal justice, and the power of international institutions to deliver accountability. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the Darfur crisis has now been elevated to a new level of international urgency, and the world is watching closely.
Do follow Uae stories for more Updates
