Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shiglawi Khartoum Opens the Black Files
In an important legal move, Sudanese and Arab lawyers filed a lawsuit on Saturday before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in The Gambia, under the “Banjul Charter,” demanding compensation of nearly $300 billion for the Sudanese people against six African states, over documented accusations of direct support to the Rapid Support Forces militia during the war.
According to legal experts, the lawsuit represents a remarkable shift in the course of the Sudanese crisis from military confrontation to the arena of legal accountability, opening the door wide to genuine questioning over the cost of regional interventions in the war.
The complaint, which targeted six states and regional entities, including Chad, Ethiopia, eastern Libya, Kenya, and the Central African Republic, does not stop at demanding compensation initially estimated at $300 billion. Rather, it establishes a legal narrative previously highlighted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, namely that the war in Sudan is being fought by proxy in pursuit of resources — a war with multiple sponsors, corridors, and interests, shaped through cross-border support networks.
From this perspective, the significance of the lawsuit lies not only in the accusations themselves, but also in the nature of the transformation it has created, moving the debate from the sphere of media and political accusations to the sphere of legal proof. Over recent months, Khartoum repeatedly spoke of regional roles in fueling the war, yet those accusations were often met with denial. Today, however, presenting these facts before an African judicial institution gives the file a different weight and places the accused states before a real legal, moral, and political test, particularly in light of the widespread violations committed.
What is striking is that the complainants based their case on a combination of international humanitarian law, the United Nations Charter, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, while also invoking the principle of “cross-border responsibility.” This marks an important development in understanding modern conflicts in Africa, where wars are no longer fought solely through armies, but also through proxies, financing, political cover, and the facilitation of weapons and mercenaries, making the accountability of supporting parties part of the equation of international justice.
From the necessary political reading, this step also carries pressure messages that go beyond the judicial framework, placing a number of regional capitals under the scrutiny of African and international public opinion, and raising embarrassing questions about the limits of interference in Sudanese affairs. It also represents a serious attempt to redefine the war as a matter of national security, potentially paving the way in the future for new political arrangements that are more stringent toward any external support for the armed militia.
In this context, the success of the lawsuit will not depend solely on the strength of legal texts, but also on the Sudanese state’s ability to transform the case from an initiative led by lawyers into an official state track supported diplomatically, politically, and judicially by state institutions. The Sudanese government can reinforce the lawsuit by providing documented official evidence from army, security, police, aviation, and border authorities, linking external support to military operations on the ground, alongside mobilizing its diplomatic missions within the African Union and the United Nations to emphasize that what is happening constitutes a direct threat to regional peace.
Khartoum can also strengthen its position by making use of reports issued by human rights and UN organizations, and by building an African and international legal alliance that includes experts in international humanitarian law and war crimes, in addition to linking any future peace process to the principles of justice and non-impunity, so that potential political settlements do not turn into merely temporary truces that could lead to another explosion.
As for the chances of success, the case appears likely to achieve an important political and legal breakthrough, even if reaching binding final rulings or actual compensation remains a complicated path. Simply accepting to consider the lawsuit would represent a precedent of great value for Sudan, as it consolidates the principle of state accountability and grants Khartoum an important political and moral pressure card against the accused parties.
This step also reflects a significant transformation within the Sudanese political mindset. After long decades in which crises were managed through temporary political settlements or military balances of power, a new trend is now emerging that seeks to use the tools of international law as part of the state’s battle for survival and the restoration of sovereignty. It is an important message that future settlements, whatever their nature, will not be able to bypass the files of justice, violations, and victims’ rights.
According to #Face_of_Truth, Khartoum today appears to be opening the “black files” of a war that has gone beyond Sudan’s borders, where greed became intertwined with bloodshed. The battle is no longer merely about resources, but about who bears responsibility for the destruction before the law. Despite the complexity of the road to justice, transferring these files to African judicial platforms represents an important shift in the management of the war, and a message that wars managed through proxies and covert support can ultimately become a heavy legal and political burden, and that the blood of Sudanese people will not be lost in vain before justice and history.
Stay well and healthy..
Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com