Africa-Press. The first criminal complaint of its kind against members of the Rapid Support Forces has opened a new avenue in the pursuit of those accused of committing war crimes in Sudan. Legal experts describe this step as potentially a significant turning point in the file of justice and accountability, encouraging victims of the ongoing conflict, which has lasted for more than three years, to seek recourse in foreign courts in Africa, Europe, and America to hold those involved in serious violations accountable.
This legal move came after 12 individuals, victims of the Sudanese war, filed a criminal complaint with the judicial authorities in Kenya against members of the Rapid Support Forces, marking a legal precedent outside Sudan since the outbreak of the war between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces in April 2023.
Observers believe that the importance of this step lies not only in its legal nature but also in its political and human rights symbolism, reflecting the transition of victims from documenting violations and making moral demands for justice to practical litigation through the tools of international humanitarian law and transnational criminal jurisdiction.
Why Kenya?
The victims’ choice to turn to the Kenyan judiciary raises questions about why Nairobi was selected to file the first criminal lawsuit of this type. However, legal experts point out that the Kenyan judicial system has a legal framework that allows for the consideration of crimes related to international humanitarian law.
In this context, Sudanese lawyer and assistant secretary-general of the Arab Lawyers Union, Tarek Abdel Fattah, explains that Kenya has incorporated the principle of international criminal jurisdiction into its national legislation, granting its courts the authority to consider war crimes and crimes against humanity, even if they did not occur on its territory.
Abdel Fattah states that Sudan itself amended its criminal law in 2015 regarding war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, theoretically allowing Sudanese judicial institutions to consider such crimes. However, the circumstances of war and the complexities of the political reality make resorting to foreign courts an increasingly important option for victims.
This type of case is legally known as the principle of “universal jurisdiction,” which allows certain countries to prosecute individuals accused of serious violations of international law, even if the crimes were committed outside their borders and the victims or defendants do not hold their nationality.
A Precedent That May Expand Internationally
Legal experts believe that the case filed in Kenya may be just the beginning of a broader path of international lawsuits against parties involved in the war in Sudan, particularly in European and American countries that have laws allowing for the prosecution of international criminals.
According to Abdel Fattah, international law does not require that the crime occurred in the country where the case is being heard, citing several international precedents that have seen trials outside the conflict zone.
In Europe, several countries have used the principle of universal jurisdiction to pursue individuals accused of committing violations in Syria, Iraq, and Rwanda. Countries like Germany and France have witnessed trials of former security officials accused of committing torture and crimes against humanity.
The legal expert also pointed to cases heard in American courts, such as those related to international terrorism, emphasizing that Western judicial systems have become more prepared to receive lawsuits concerning serious violations, especially when there is documented testimony and legal evidence along with support networks from human rights organizations.
Observers believe that what happened in Kenya may encourage human rights organizations and international law firms to adopt cases of Sudanese war victims, contributing to narrowing the space for impunity and creating legal pressure on those accused of violations by limiting their international movements or exposing them to the risk of legal pursuit when traveling.
Complaints Expanding Outside Sudan
The legal move in Nairobi was not the only one in recent weeks, as other legal steps have targeted the internationalization of the violations file in Sudan.
At the beginning of last week, Sudanese lawyers and legal advisors submitted a complaint to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Banjul against six countries and regional entities, accusing them of being involved in fueling the war and contributing to the human rights violations committed during the conflict.
The complainants stated that they represent war victims, asserting that the violations against civilians, including killings, forced displacement, and widespread destruction of property, amount to completed crimes that require international accountability.
Sudanese lawyers Mohamed Al-Zein and Al-Tayeb Abdel Jalil stated after submitting the complaint that what has occurred in Sudan cannot be reduced to numbers or media reports but represents a humanitarian tragedy that requires genuine legal accountability, affirming their determination to continue pursuing those responsible for the crimes and their accomplices in various international judicial forums.
Initial Trials Inside Sudan
Alongside external efforts, Sudanese judicial authorities began opening legal files related to war violations last year.
In April 2025, the Terrorism and Crimes Against the State Court initiated the first absentia trials against 16 leaders of the Rapid Support Forces in the case of the assassination of the former governor of West Darfur, Khamees Abkar.
Abkar was killed in the city of Geneina shortly after his arrest, before videos emerged showing his body being dragged, sparking widespread local and international condemnation.
The list of defendants in the case includes the leader of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, and his deputy, Abdel Rahim Daglo, along with other field commanders and administrators.
However, these trials face significant challenges, primarily the absence of the defendants and the inability of Sudanese authorities to execute arrest warrants, in addition to the political and institutional divisions imposed by the war.
What Does the Kenyan Complaint Include?
The case filed in Kenya is based on a complaint submitted by the Global Legal Initiative and the African Center for Justice and Peace Studies through a Kenyan law firm to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Nairobi.
The complaint calls for an official investigation against ten members of the Rapid Support Forces, some of whom are believed to have connections to Kenya or a presence within its territory, an important factor that gives the case a practical dimension for potential legal pursuit.
The allegations relate to crimes committed in Khartoum and its surroundings during the period from April 2023 to March 2025, a time when the Rapid Support Forces exerted extensive control over large parts of the Sudanese capital.
According to the complaint file, the victims were subjected to violations described as extremely brutal, including detention in inhumane conditions, deprivation of food, drinking water, and medical care, as well as physical and psychological torture.
The testimonies also included allegations of beating, burning, electric shock, suffocation, and sexual violations, including rape and sexual slavery, as well as forcing some detainees to transport corpses from detention sites.
If the complaint is accepted and an official investigation is opened, the case could lead to the issuance of summons or arrest warrants against the suspects and potentially open the door for broader international judicial cooperation.
Between Justice and Political Reality
Despite the importance of these legal moves, experts believe that transforming lawsuits into actual convictions remains a complex and lengthy process, requiring strong evidence and documented testimonies, as well as cooperation from multiple governments and countries.
Armed conflicts often create environments where it is difficult to gather evidence or protect witnesses, which means that many cases can take years before reaching final judgments.
Additionally, political considerations remain a significant factor in the outcomes of international justice, as regional and international interests may intersect with judicial accountability paths.
Nevertheless, human rights activists consider that merely initiating legal pursuits outside Sudan represents a significant shift in the equation of impunity, especially amid increasing accusations of committing war crimes and widespread violations against civilians since the outbreak of the conflict.
While the outcomes of the Kenyan complaint remain uncertain, it may represent the beginning of a new path that makes parties to the Sudanese war more susceptible to international accountability and opens the door for victims of the conflict to use international courts as a tool to seek justice after years of violence and violations.
