Sudan RSF War Crimes Case Lands in Kenya Under Universal Jurisdiction Bid

A landmark criminal complaint has been filed in Nairobi, seeking the prosecution of members of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. This unprecedented move marks the first known attempt to invoke universal jurisdiction in Kenya for international atrocity crimes committed outside its borders. The complaint, brought by Legal Action Worldwide (LAW) and the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) on behalf of twelve Sudanese victims, targets ten alleged RSF members, some reportedly residing in Kenya. The case will test the robustness of Kenya's International Crimes Act, 2008, and its commitment to upholding international justice principles, potentially setting a significant precedent for accountability in the region.

A pivotal legal development has emerged in Nairobi, where a criminal complaint has been lodged against members of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. This filing represents a significant moment in Kenya's legal history, as it is the first known instance where the principle of universal jurisdiction is being invoked to prosecute international crimes purportedly committed beyond Kenya's territorial boundaries.

The complaint details horrific allegations, including torture, sexual violence, forced labour, and killings, which are said to have occurred in and around Khartoum between April 2023 and March 2025. The gravity of these accusations, coupled with the novel application of universal jurisdiction, places Kenya at the forefront of a growing global effort to utilise domestic courts for the prosecution of atrocity crimes, particularly when international mechanisms face limitations or geographical constraints. This case is poised to be a crucial test of Kenya's dedication to international justice and the practical application of its domestic legal framework for prosecuting such egregious offences.

The principle of universal jurisdiction is a cornerstone of international criminal law, allowing or requiring a state to initiate criminal proceedings for certain grave crimes, irrespective of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim. This doctrine is typically reserved for crimes considered so harmful to international interests that all states have a right and, in some cases, an obligation to prosecute them. Kenya has a robust legal framework for addressing international crimes, largely stemming from its commitment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Kenya ratified the Rome Statute on 15 May 2005, thereby accepting its obligations under international law. To domesticate these obligations, Kenya enacted the International Crimes Act, 2008 (ICA), which came into force on 1 January 2009. The ICA explicitly provides for the punishment of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, aligning Kenyan law with the definitions found in the Rome Statute. Crucially for the current case, the ICA grants Kenyan courts jurisdiction over individuals who, after committing any of these international crimes, are present in Kenya. Furthermore, the Kenyan Judiciary has established the International and Organised Crimes Division (IOCD) within the High Court, specifically mandated to handle international crimes, among other serious transnational offences. The allegations against the RSF are extensive, with numerous reports from human rights organisations and the United Nations documenting widespread atrocities in Sudan, including mass killings, sexual violence, torture, and pillage, particularly in Darfur and Khartoum.

The criminal complaint in Nairobi has been filed by Legal Action Worldwide (LAW) and the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) on behalf of twelve Sudanese victims. The complaint specifically targets ten alleged RSF members, some of whom are believed to be residing in Kenya. The detailed allegations include systematic torture, sexual violence, forced labour, and killings perpetrated in and around Khartoum, with specific mention of facilities such as Soba Prison and the Al-Riyadh complex, between April 2023 and March 2025. These alleged acts fall squarely within the definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity as codified in Kenya's International Crimes Act, 2008.

The legal basis for this prosecution hinges on Section 6(1) of the International Crimes Act, which stipulates that a person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime, in Kenya or elsewhere, is guilty of an offence. Furthermore, the Act's provision that jurisdiction extends to a suspected offender who is, after the commission of the offence, present in Kenya, is central to the universal jurisdiction bid. While Kenya has successfully exercised universal jurisdiction in piracy cases, notably affirmed by the Court of Appeal in *In re Mohamud Mohammed Hashi, et al.*, there has been no precedent for prosecuting international crimes like war crimes or crimes against humanity committed abroad under this principle.

This case therefore presents a critical test for the practical application of the ICA. Historically, the Attorney General's office has shown some opposition to the principle of universal jurisdiction in practice, which could pose a challenge. However, the principle of complementarity, under which the International Criminal Court operates, places the primary duty to investigate and prosecute international crimes on national jurisdictions. Given that the ICC's jurisdiction in Sudan is currently limited to Darfur, national prosecutions in Kenya could fill a crucial accountability gap. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is expected to make a decision on whether to open a formal investigation within 30 days, a determination that will be closely scrutinised.

The filing of a war crimes complaint against members of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces in Kenya under universal jurisdiction represents a significant moment for international criminal justice in Africa. It offers a tangible opportunity for victims of grave atrocities to seek accountability where national justice systems are compromised or inaccessible. The outcome of this case will not only test the practical efficacy of Kenya's International Crimes Act, 2008, but also its broader commitment to combating impunity for international crimes.

Legal practitioners and human rights advocates will be keenly observing the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision and any subsequent proceedings. A successful prosecution would establish a powerful precedent, reinforcing Kenya's role as a potential hub for international justice and signalling to perpetrators of atrocity crimes that they cannot evade justice by seeking refuge abroad. Conversely, any impediments could highlight persistent challenges in the implementation of universal jurisdiction, underscoring the need for continued advocacy and capacity building in national legal systems across the continent.