.jpg)
On April 10, 2025, Sudan presented a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing a Gulf nation of supplying arms to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which it claims committed acts of genocide during the ongoing civil war. While the charge is serious and the setting prestigious, the timing and nature of the accusations have raised eyebrows across diplomatic and humanitarian circles.
As millions of Sudanese continue to endure one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters, with over 12 million displaced and tens of thousands dead since 2023, the ICJ case has quickly become a focal point—not just of legal scrutiny but also of political controversy.
No Evidence, Only Accusations?
Legal experts and international observers have pointed out a glaring issue: the Sudanese government's allegations appear to lack concrete evidence. Analysts say the case is laced with political undertones and may be an attempt to deflect attention from the atrocities committed by its own armed forces, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), during the conflict.
Multiple human rights groups have documented SAF-led airstrikes on civilian populations, destruction of hospitals, and systematic violence in conflict zones. Recent videos circulating from the ground show the devastating toll these operations have taken on communities already on the brink of collapse.
A Convenient Diversion?
What makes this case even more controversial is Sudan's rejection of key humanitarian initiatives proposed by regional partners. Offers to build field hospitals, support medical aid delivery, and facilitate peace talks were reportedly turned down by Sudanese officials. This contradiction—rejecting peace and aid while leveling genocide accusations—has led some to question the intent behind the ICJ case.
Several diplomats have characterized the lawsuit as a “strategic distraction” aimed at regaining international sympathy while silencing criticism of its internal actions. One regional analyst noted, “When a government fails to protect its people, creating an external villain becomes a tempting narrative.”
The Other Side of the Story
While Sudan pursues its case at the ICJ, its accusations are facing growing backlash. The accused country, though not officially named in public discourse, has long been involved in humanitarian efforts throughout Sudan. According to regional reports, over $3.5 billion has been donated to Sudan in humanitarian aid over the past decade, including $600 million since the onset of the civil war in April 2023. This aid continues to support food programs, shelter, and medical care for the displaced.
Additionally, cooperation with international agencies such as the UN, EU, and Red Crescent societies reflects a continued commitment to alleviating human suffering—not fueling it.
What Justice Really Looks Like
In any international case, transparency, evidence, and motive matter. The world must remain vigilant and demand accountability for atrocities committed in Sudan. But accountability must be even-handed. To single out foreign actors without credible evidence, while turning a blind eye to proven domestic crimes, risks undermining the integrity of the ICJ and international justice as a whole.
As the hearings proceed, one thing is clear: justice must serve the victims of conflict, not the politics of power.