Death sentences for RSF leaders: justice served or political leverage?

Death sentences handed down by a court in Port Sudan against senior leaders of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have reignited debate over whether Sudan’s wartime judiciary is delivering justice or serving political ends. As reported by Radio Dabanga on Sunday, the Anti-Terrorism and Crimes Against the State Court issued sentences of death by hanging against RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan ‘Hemedti’ Dagalo, his deputy Abdelrahim, and 14 others, in the case of the attack on El Geneina and the murder of Governor Khamees Abakar in June 2023.

The list of those convicted included El Qouni, Abdelrahman Juma, El Tijani Karshoum, Idris, and Abdelmoneim El Rabee, along with a number of community leaders, including Abdelrahman Masar Asil.

The court convicted the defendants of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes against persons and property, and the use of prohibited weapons. The ruling also ordered Interpol to arrest the defendants.

The court also issued an immediate order to confiscate all funds and assets of the Rapid Support Forces militia and its affiliated companies in favor of the Sudanese government.

The verdict was based on the testimonies of 15 survivors and the Sultan of the Masalit, as well as multiple pieces of evidence, indicating

A legal expert has described the rulings by the Anti-Terrorism Court as political, arguing that they are more likely to become bargaining chips in future negotiations than instruments of accountability. Meanwhile, senior figures in the RSF and the Tasis Government have questioned the court’s legitimacy altogether.

On Sunday, the Anti-Terrorism and Crimes Against the State Court sentenced the RSF commander, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeti, his deputy Abdulrahim Dagalo and 14 others to death by hanging over the attack on El Geneina and the killing of the West Darfur governor, Khamis Abakar.

‘Overtly political language’

Speaking to Radio Dabanga, the lawyer and legal expert Osman Saleh said the verdicts were political in nature and were being used as leverage in negotiations.

At the same time, he stressed that RSF commanders bear responsibility for many of the violations committed by the force under the principle of command responsibility. But, he argued, both RSF and army leaders should face trial before courts that meet the standards of fairness, independence and due process.

Saleh said he was struck by the court’s use of overtly political language, noting that deceased RSF leaders had been described as “the perished” rather than by neutral legal terminology.

He argued that the ruling echoed earlier politically charged judgments, including a previous death sentence imposed on the current deputy chairman of Sudan’s Sovereignty Council, which he said ultimately lost its legal and political weight.

Saleh also predicted that judgments issued by courts aligned with the Tasis Government against Sudanese Armed Forces leaders, including Gen Abdelfattah El Burhan, would be similarly political.

He reiterated that commanders from both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces should be prosecuted, but only before courts that are genuinely independent, impartial and free from interference by the executive.

While acknowledging the responsibility of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, Abdelrahim Dagalo and other RSF leaders for abuses committed through the chain of command, Saleh insisted that accountability must be delivered through a credible judicial process.

He argued that Sudan’s judiciary had become an instrument of the executive, undermining the separation of powers and stripping the courts of their independence and neutrality.

‘A collapse of the justice system’

El Basha Tabiq, the Tasis Government’s oil minister, said the Port Sudan court’s ruling reflected what he described as the collapse of Sudan’s judicial institutions.

In a post on Facebook, he said the verdicts sought to distort the facts in pursuit of specific political objectives, while deepening divisions and eroding confidence in state institutions.

He argued that the judiciary had lost both its independence and impartiality, becoming a tool for settling political scores and reinforcing predetermined positions.

According to Tabiq, the judgments were based not on established facts or credible legal evidence, but on allegations and information whose accuracy and reliability remained open to serious question.

He accused those presenting that evidence of being the very people responsible for planning the events, creating the conditions that led to them and fuelling the conflict itself.

He described the proceedings as an attempt to mislead public opinion, divert attention from those truly responsible and promote a one-sided narrative designed to exonerate the real perpetrators while condemning their political opponents.

Mockery and rejection

Lt Gen Abdulrahman Juma, the RSF commander in Central Darfur and one of those sentenced to death, dismissed the ruling with scorn, saying the court answered to what he called an illegitimate coup authority and that its judgments carried no legal standing.

He said the tribal conflict in El Geneina predated the RSF and had no connection with the force.

Juma also challenged the legitimacy of the Port Sudan court, describing the proceedings as being driven by “dictation” rather than justice. He accused the authorities in Port Sudan of supporting parties to the conflict and called for both Gen Abdelfattah El Burhan and the former president Omar Al-Bashir to be put on trial.