Inside The Hague: Sudan’s contentious legal offensive
Inside the halls of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, public hearings commenced Thursday on a contentious case filed by Sudan’s military-led government—headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan—against the United Arab Emirates.
Sudan accuses the UAE of backing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the civil war that has gripped the country since April 2023 and holds it responsible for grave violations, including allegations of genocide in Darfur.
But the legal move unfolds against the backdrop of the Sudanese army’s own well-documented record of abuses, raising questions over the underlying intent: Is Khartoum seeking genuine justice, or attempting to shift blame and divert attention from a spiraling humanitarian crisis?
Internal reproach: the former Justice Minister speaks
The lawsuit has ignited fierce criticism within Sudan itself. Former Justice Minister Nasredeen Abdulbari was quick to denounce the army’s claims against the UAE as “brazen hypocrisy.”
“How can an institution whose hands are stained with the blood of Sudanese citizens over decades claim to defend human rights?” he asked. “This lawsuit is a political maneuver devoid of moral legitimacy, driven by a military with a record steeped in wartime atrocities.”
His comments reflect a stark divide within Sudan, where many view the case as an effort by the army to recast public perception in its favor—while evading its own culpability in what the United Nations has described as an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. As of March 2025, the UN reported that 30 million Sudanese are facing hunger, with 15 million internally and externally displaced.
Allegations amid evidentiary gaps
The army filed its case in March 2025, alleging that the UAE violated the Genocide Convention by supplying arms to the RSF. But legal experts and observers have pointed to the absence of substantive evidence—and to the military’s own tarnished human rights record.
A report by Human Rights Watch, published in early April 2025, documented the army’s use of indiscriminate shelling and barrel bombs in various parts of Sudan—attacks that caused numerous civilian deaths.
“These weapons have killed dozens of people, including children, and left survivors with severe burn injuries causing long-term harm,” said Nyagoah Tut Pur, South Sudan researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The government should immediately stop using indiscriminate incendiary weapons on communities, facilitate safe aid access, and the UN should urgently deploy peacekeepers to the affected areas.”
The Sudanese army’s history further undermines its position: in 2017, the United Nations accused it of deploying chemical weapons in Darfur. In 2015, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2206, explicitly condemning the army for crimes against civilians.
These precedents have led many observers to question the credibility of the military’s self-portrayal as a defender of justice.
The UAE responds: “a misuse of the court”
The UAE firmly rejected the allegations, describing the lawsuit as a deliberate attempt at misinformation.
“Sudan’s allegations are misleading and wholly unfounded… these legal proceedings have no bearing on the UAE’s obligations under the Genocide Convention,”
— Reem Ketait, Deputy Assistant Minister for Political Affairs
She continued:
“The Sudanese army is exploiting the court to put forward false accusations in an attempt to evade its own responsibility,” adding that the lawsuit seeks to “bypass the principle of state consent,” a cornerstone of international law.
Ameirah Al-Hefeiti, the UAE’s ambassador to the Netherlands, added:
“The Sudanese army faces two choices: cooperate with international efforts to end the catastrophe, or continue lamenting. The facts are clear and cannot be manipulated.”
The UAE underscored its commitment to the Sudanese people, citing:
- $600 million in humanitarian aid since April 2023
- Field hospitals in Chad and South Sudan
- $4 billion in support prior to the war
- Its role in brokering the Juba Peace Agreement in 2020
- A military cooperation pact requested by Al-Burhan in July 2020
Legal fragility: a case on unsteady ground
The case suffers from significant legal deficiencies, chief among them the lack of hard evidence. The allegations rely on claims such as the discovery of weapons allegedly of Emirati origin—but as observers note, these weapons are widely available on regional black markets.
Others argue that Emirati passports could have been stolen or lost—not proof of official support—rendering the case “evidentially weak.”
The lawsuit’s shifting characterization of the alleged support—sometimes described as “direct,” at other times “indirect”—betrays a lack of legal consistency that further undermines its credibility.
Furthermore, analysts suggest the lawsuit’s underlying goal is to internationalize the domestic conflict in an effort to shore up the army’s faltering position.
ALSO READ: Sudan: a comparison of the warring parties’ positions on peace initiatives
International censure and sanctions
The Sudanese military faces mounting international condemnation. In January 2025, the United States imposed sanctions on the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, accusing him of:
“War crimes, including the use of starvation and obstruction of humanitarian aid.”
Al-Burhan has also been criticised for rejecting multiple peace efforts, including the 2024 Geneva round.
A trial beyond the courtroom
This lawsuit reflects a political struggle that extends far beyond legal boundaries. With a history of human rights violations, Sudan’s army is attempting to reposition the conflict as an international legal issue. The UAE, meanwhile, insists it has no role in the war and continues to advocate for a political solution.
With 150,000 dead, close to 12 million displaced and more than 30.4 million people – over half of Sudan’s population – requiring urgent assistance, according to latest United Nations figures, the Court now faces the formidable task of separating legal substance from political spectacle in a war that threatens the very survival of the Sudanese state.
