Sudan’s De Facto Authorities’ Case against the United Arab Emirates: The Hypocrisy of a Genocidal Institution
By Nasredeen Abdulbari
On March 5, 2025, the de facto authorities of Sudan filed an application against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that the UAE violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention by providing sustained military and financial support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). In the case, Sudan—de facto represented on the international stage by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) or state institutions it illegitimately controls—claims that this support facilitated a campaign of genocide against the Masalit ethnic group in West Darfur. The UAE dismissed the filing as a publicity stunt and announced it would seek the immediate dismissal of the case, stating that the allegations “lack any legal or factual basis,” according to a statement from an Emirati official sent to Reuters. While the case marks a notable invocation of international legal mechanisms, it is riddled with legal, political, and moral contradictions. Beyond the likely insurmountable jurisdictional hurdles, the case exposes the deeply cynical attempt by the SAF to rehabilitate its image by masquerading as a defender of human rights. The very institution that has presided over seven decades of mass killings, ethnic cleansing, genocides, and state-sanctioned terror now seeks to recast itself as a custodian of international law—a transformation that is both grotesque and politically motivated. A Case Laden with Contradictions Sudan’s de facto authorities’ application to the ICJ is significant in that it ostensibly seeks to engage an international legal mechanism rather than resort to the use of force—regardless of its military capabilities—as a means of addressing disputes in international relations. However, the identity of the applicant—an illegitimate military regime dominated by the SAF—renders the case morally bankrupt. It is difficult to imagine a more egregious example of hypocrisy: a genocidal institution invoking the Genocide Convention to advance its own political objectives. This is the same SAF that orchestrated or facilitated genocides and mass atrocities in South Sudan, Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile. It is the same institution that receives drones and other forms of military support from Iran and other countries and carries out atrocities in Darfur and other parts of Sudan. The same institution and state that dismissed international human rights mechanisms as biased and politicized now seek refuge in the very international legal order they have long despised and defied. The irony is staggering, and the political motivations are conspicuous. The Legal Basis: Unprecedented but Weak Sudan’s de facto authorities’ application rests on the accusation that the UAE knowingly and materially supported a genocidal campaign by the RSF against the Masalit people. The allegations include the provision of weapons, ammunition, drones, and financial transfers routed through intermediaries—even after credible documentation of atrocities had emerged. Sudan’s de facto authorities claim that such support constitutes a breach of the UAE’s obligations under the Genocide Convention, particularly its duty not to aid or abet the commission of genocide. To bolster its case, Sudan’s illegitimate military authorities have submitted a range of evidence, including reports from international human rights organizations detailing atrocities by the RSF; satellite imagery documenting scorched-earth tactics and village destruction in Darfur; and witness testimonies describing targeted killings and ethnically motivated violence. Sudan’s de facto authorities have also requested the indication of provisional measures, urging the Court to order the UAE to halt all support to the RSF, protect civilians—especially the Masalit—and preserve evidence of the alleged crimes.
