Extrajudicial Killings in Sudan’s War (The Events in Al-Jazira State)
Mohamed Badawi
The social media footage of extrajudicial killings in Al-Jazira State, following the army’s recapture of the region more than a year after its withdrawal from Wad Madani, represents yet another chapter in a long history of massacres in Sudan—none of which have seen accountability or justice for victims since the countrys independence.
These violations are not new, but their timing places them in the digital era, where perpetrators on all sides document their own crimes. This documentation serves as the first step in exposing perpetrators, preserving records for future justice efforts, and reinforcing the international legal principle of universal jurisdiction. This principle enables the arrest and prosecution of perpetrators in countries that recognize it, aiming to combat impunity and ensure absolute criminal accountability.
Extrajudicial killings and other forms of brutal, escalating violations have become a common pattern tied to the control of Sudan’s warring parties over urban areas.
From Wad Madani in Al-Jazira to El Geneina in West Darfur, the same pattern emerges—targeting civilians for ethnic reasons, leading to collective punishment rather than directing violence at the opposing military force. As a result, military gains or territorial recapture cannot be considered victories, even symbolically, if they come at the cost of civilian lives. Armies and armed movements are fundamentally meant to protect people or fight for their rights. Any force that diverges from this path takes on the characteristics of militias and mercenaries.
Extrajudicial killings constitute crimes under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The Sudanese army issued a statement on the recent violations in Al-Jazira, claiming they were committed by individuals rather than the institution itself. However, I disagree with this notion. Military personnel, from commanders to lower ranks, cannot claim ignorance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which mandate the protection of the wounded, prisoners, and civilians—measures intended to mitigate the horrors of war and uphold the ethics of armed conflict. The army’s statement must be followed by concrete steps, including investigations, accountability, medical treatment for the wounded, and addressing the broader consequences of these violations. Without such measures, it will be difficult for civilians to return to their homes.
The killings in Al-Jazira were carried out systematically, particularly in the Tayba area, under the pretext of collaboration with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This raises several key questions:
Who bears the primary responsibility for protecting civilians in Al-Jazira?
Did civilians move into combat zones, or did the fighting invade their homes and civilian areas?
Were those killed accused of collaborating with the RSF by choice, or were they forced into it?
Have either warring party shown any regard for international humanitarian law since the conflict began?
What is the value of the ongoing trials in various courts against individuals accused of collaborating with or belonging to the RSF, especially given the circumstances under which these alleged affiliations occurred?
Extrajudicial killings are among the crimes that historically haunt both perpetrators and commanders who fail to ensure accountability. Accusations of allegiance to one of the warring parties become meaningless when the war itself spills into civilian spaces, leaving civilians with no agency over their fate. In such cases, international humanitarian law strengthens protections to the extent that even civilians who exploit the absence of law to commit violations can face legal consequences. This shifts their actions from being classified as mere crimes to recognized violations, thus altering their legal classification and jurisdiction.
In Sudan’s history, extrajudicial killings have been closely tied to political wars—whether driven by political motives disguised as ethnic conflict, forced displacement for land grabs, or broader patterns of impunity that fuel ethnic violence. This can escalate into ethnic cleansing if left unchecked. Meanwhile, cycles of revenge persist in the collective memory of survivors and victims’ families, especially in the absence of justice.
Final Thoughts:
The Kinanbi settlements, which emerged due to economic and security conditions linked to war-induced displacement, as well as economic policies that failed to address natural disasters like food shortages, remain a historical reminder of neglected social justice. The continued disregard for these communities has preserved their status as marginalized settlements in both reality and collective memory.
