Report: SPT

On Thursday, April 10, the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, hosted the opening session of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hear a case brought by Sudan’s current military-led government and backed by Islamists, and operating out of Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast—against the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The lawsuit accuses the UAE of complicity in the mid-June 2023 attacks on El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, two months after the outbreak of conflict in Sudan. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the attacks left thousands dead and displaced hundreds of thousands. A contemporaneous statement by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Sudan attributed the violence to Arab militias and armed men wearing Rapid Support Forces (RSF) uniforms.

The Port Sudan government alleges that Abu Dhabi provided support to the RSF, which it accuses of committing acts of genocide against the Masalit ethnic group in West Darfur. Port Sudan argues that this constitutes a violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, particularly Article II (which defines acts of genocide) and Article IX (which permits member states to refer disputes over the Convention’s interpretation or application to the ICJ). The UAE, however, entered a reservation to Article IX when it signed and ratified the Convention in 2005.

Court Session:

In the first public hearing, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates presented their legal arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Sudan’s Minister of Justice, Moawia Osman, delivered his country’s oral pleadings, accusing the UAE of complicity in genocide and urging the court to impose provisional measures against it. He demanded that the UAE submit a detailed report within one month of the ICJ’s ruling, outlining steps taken to comply, followed by periodic updates every six months.

In response, Reem Ketait, Deputy Assistant Minister for Political Affairs at the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called on the court to dismiss Sudan’s request entirely and remove the case from its docket. She denounced the application as a “blatant misuse of a respected international institution,” arguing that it lacked both legal merit and factual basis. Ketait further dismissed the government of Sudan accusations as “at best, misleading—and at worst, pure fabrication”.

Ethical Contradiction:

A striking paradox highlighted by numerous Sudanese politicians we interviewed reveals an ironic reality: The Sudanese complainant (the current military and government) belongs to the same political and military apparatus of the former Islamist regime, which stands accused of committing atrocities against civilians. This same entity, currently sought by international justice on charges of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, now presents itself not as a suspect, but as a plaintiff and representative of victims.

It is noteworthy that the current ruling authority in Port Sudan is supported by elements previously accused of war crimes and widespread violations. These are the same forces that previously relied on the Rapid Support Forces to secure their authority and enabled their expansion.

Prominent Sudanese lawyer Moez Hadra, former official spokesperson for the prosecution in the trial of deposed President Omar al-Bashir – a case that was suspended after the October 25, 2021 coup against the civilian transitional government led by Abdalla Hamdok – told us: “The de facto rulers in Port Sudan, whom we now see in The Hague accusing the UAE of genocide, are the very same individuals providing protection to those who committed war crimes and genocide in Darfur, and are currently obstructing international justice by refusing to extradite wanted individuals for trial in The Hague”.

Contempt for International Justice:

At the end of last January, Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, renewed his demand for Port Sudan authorities to surrender former President Omar al-Bashir, former Defense Minister Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein, and former Interior Minister Ahmed Mohamed Haroun. Arrest warrants had been issued against them in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2012 for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur.

However, Sudanese authorities have consistently responded to ICC requests with delay, obstruction, and repeated contempt. Al-Fatih Tayfour, appointed to the position of Attorney General by the ruling authority in Port Sudan, stated to media: “We have domestic justice, and there is no justification for resorting to external justice instead of our national one”. In the same context, Ambassador Al-Harith Idriss , Sudan’s representative to the United Nations, told journalists: “We cannot comply with the ICC Prosecutor’s requests because the required information and evidence was destroyed by the Rapid Support Forces during the war.”

The Sudanese government’s refusal to cooperate with the ICC constitutes a violation of UN Security Council resolutions that referred the case to the Court and subsequently led to the issuance of arrest warrants for the accused.

Conclusion:

A number of Sudanese lawyers and international legal experts agreed that, based on an analysis of the facts presented in the case filed by the Sudanese government, the claim is procedurally flawed, weak, and lacks the material evidence and legal foundations required.

Moiz Hadra stated: “Genocide is not proven by wishful thinking. There is no direct or indirect legal evidence indicating that the United Arab Emirates committed or was complicit in acts of genocide in Sudan”.

Michael Becker, an international law expert and Assistant Professor of International and Human Rights Law at Trinity College Dublin, wrote in an article published on Opinio Juris —the first and most prominent global blog dedicated to informed discussion of international law among academics, practitioners, and legal professionals —:” the ICJ can be expected to conclude that it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute.”