Sudan accuses UAE of fueling genocide in Darfur at ICJ hearing

Khartoum takes the UAE to the International Court of Justice over alleged support for RSF atrocities in Darfur.

Delegates from the United Arab Emirates and Sudan stand at the start of a hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on April 10, 2025. Photo by Remko de Waal/AFP

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

In a powerful and emotionally charged session at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday, Sudan accused the UAE of fueling genocide in Darfur, alleging that the Gulf state’s military and logistical support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has played a central role in the ongoing atrocities in the region. The hearing marks a historic escalation in Sudan's diplomatic campaign to bring international attention—and accountability—to what it claims is a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Sudan accuses UAE of fueling genocide in Darfur at ICJ hearing was central to the day’s proceedings, repeated both in legal arguments and in statements from Sudanese officials who demanded justice for the suffering of the Masalit community.

Sudan’s acting justice minister, Muawia Osman, opened the proceedings with a damning address that placed the United Arab Emirates at the heart of what he called “a calculated and systemic effort to annihilate the Masalit people.” He argued that without Emirati financial and logistical backing, the RSF would not have had the means to carry out its campaign of violence that has included mass killings, rape, and forced displacement.

The roots of the conflict and Sudan’s bold legal challenge

The civil war in Sudan reignited in 2023 when tensions between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF exploded into open combat. As both groups battled for control, civilians—particularly in the Darfur region—became the primary victims. Darfur, which has endured waves of violence since the early 2000s, again descended into chaos.

What sets this phase of the conflict apart, Sudan's representatives argued, is the alleged external support that has allowed the RSF to sustain its brutal campaign. Sudan’s case at the ICJ hinges on what it described as “a deliberate pattern of assistance” from the UAE to the RSF, including the shipment of arms and provision of military intelligence.

“The UAE’s role is not peripheral—it is pivotal,” Osman told the judges in The Hague. “This ongoing genocide would not be possible without the complicity of the UAE, including the shipment of arms to the RSF.”

UAE’s denial and criticism of the proceedings

The UAE has flatly denied Sudan’s accusations. In previous statements, Emirati officials have described the case as “political theatre” and an attempt by Khartoum to shift blame from its own internal failures to control the conflict. They argue that the ICJ is being misused for political purposes and that Sudan’s claims are not grounded in verifiable evidence.

According to a UAE spokesperson, “This is a tragic distraction from the efforts underway by regional and international actors to bring an end to the suffering in Sudan.” The UAE has also emphasized its humanitarian efforts in the region, including aid deliveries and refugee support, insisting it has never provided weapons or strategic support to any armed group.

However, Sudan insists that its claims are backed by intelligence and eyewitness accounts, pointing to intercepted shipments, satellite imagery, and testimony from survivors who allege the use of advanced weaponry previously unseen in the conflict.

The Masalit community and allegations of ethnic targeting

At the heart of Sudan’s case is the fate of the Masalit community, a non-Arab ethnic group that has suffered disproportionately in the Darfur conflict. Sudan accuses the RSF, and by extension the UAE, of enabling a systematic campaign of violence specifically aimed at this group.

Photos, video evidence, and witness testimonies submitted to the court show burned villages, mass graves, and the brutal aftermath of attacks. Sudanese lawyers highlighted patterns of violence that mirror previous genocidal campaigns, drawing parallels with the atrocities committed in Rwanda and Bosnia.

“This is not simply a civil war,” said a member of Sudan’s legal team. “This is a campaign of extermination, and the Masalit people are its target.”

What Sudan hopes to achieve through the ICJ

By bringing the case before the ICJ, Sudan hopes to do more than name and shame. The country is requesting that the court issue urgent measures to compel the UAE to cease all forms of support for the RSF and to cooperate with international investigators looking into war crimes and human rights violations.

Sudan also seeks broader recognition from the international community that the events in Darfur constitute genocide—a designation that would have significant legal and diplomatic consequences.

Legal analysts say the case could break new ground in international law by expanding the interpretation of state complicity in genocide, especially when that support is indirect or conducted through proxy groups.

International reaction and what’s next

The ICJ hearing has drawn widespread global attention, with human rights organizations, diplomats, and journalists closely watching the proceedings. Reactions from the international community have so far been cautious. While many Western governments have condemned the violence in Sudan, few have commented directly on the UAE’s alleged role.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both issued statements urging the ICJ to take Sudan’s claims seriously and called for a full investigation into external support for armed groups operating in Darfur.

The next phase of the case will involve a response from the UAE, followed by a series of hearings and evidence presentations. Legal experts expect the process to unfold over many months, if not years, before any final ruling is made.

The broader implications for international justice

If the ICJ ultimately finds the UAE complicit in genocide, it would represent a landmark moment in international justice. Not only would it reinforce the notion that states can be held accountable for indirectly fueling atrocities, but it could also reshape how future conflicts are scrutinized by courts and institutions.

The outcome may also influence how regional powers engage in proxy conflicts, potentially making them more cautious in offering logistical or financial backing to armed groups.

A message from Sudan to the world

As the session concluded on Thursday, Muawia Osman offered a closing statement that echoed beyond the court’s chambers: “We are here not only for justice but to ensure that no state, however wealthy or powerful, can assist in genocide and walk away without accountability.”

Sudan accuses UAE of fueling genocide in Darfur at ICJ hearing, but beyond the courtroom, the world must now grapple with the moral and legal questions that arise when foreign support escalates internal conflicts into humanitarian catastrophes.

The road to justice in Darfur is long, but for many Sudanese, Thursday marked the first step in telling their truth on the world stage.