Sudanese Court Sentences RSF Leader Hemedti to Death in Absentia Over West Darfur Killings

A Sudanese Anti-Terrorism and Crimes Against the State Court in Port Sudan has sentenced Rapid Support Forces (RSF) leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, widely known as Hemedti, to death in absentia. The landmark ruling, issued on Sunday, July 12, 2026, also condemned 15 other senior RSF figures, including Hemedti's brothers, for their involvement in the 2023 killing of West Darfur Governor Khamis Abdallah Abakar and widespread atrocities in El Geneina. The defendants were convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes against persons and property. This verdict marks the first judicial conviction against the RSF's top leadership since the outbreak of the conflict in April 2023, highlighting Sudan's commitment to domestic accountability for grave international crimes, despite the challenges of enforcement in an ongoing conflict.

In a significant development for accountability in Sudan, the Anti-Terrorism and Crimes Against the State Court, sitting in Port Sudan, delivered a death sentence in absentia against Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commonly known as Hemedti. This unprecedented ruling, issued on Sunday, July 12, 2026, also extended to 15 other high-ranking RSF commanders, including Hemedti's brothers, for their alleged roles in the assassination of West Darfur Governor Khamis Abdallah Abakar in June 2023 and the systematic atrocities committed in El Geneina.

The convictions encompass grave charges including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes against persons and property, underscoring the severity of the allegations. This verdict represents the first judicial pronouncement against the RSF's top echelon since the devastating conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF erupted in April 2023, which has plunged the nation into a profound humanitarian crisis. For legal practitioners, this ruling raises critical questions regarding the application of Sudanese criminal and procedural law in times of conflict, the enforceability of judgments against absent high-profile defendants, and the interplay between domestic justice mechanisms and international accountability efforts.

The legal framework underpinning this verdict is rooted in Sudan's domestic legislation, notably the Criminal Act of 1991 and the Criminal Procedure Act of 1991. The Criminal Act, which incorporates principles of Shari'a law, defines a wide array of criminal offenses, including a dedicated chapter on international crimes such as crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes, introduced through amendments in 2009. Article 27 of the Criminal Act permits the imposition of the death penalty for serious offenses, including those against the state.

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 further provides a legal basis for prosecuting terrorism-related offenses, with Section 5 stipulating that terrorist crimes can be punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty. The Anti-Terrorism and Crimes Against the State Court, which issued the recent verdict, is specifically mandated to handle such grave offenses. Crucially, the Sudanese Criminal Procedure Act of 1991, as amended in 2025, explicitly expanded the scope for trials in absentia, permitting them in cases involving crimes against the state, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. This is contingent upon reasonable efforts being made to notify the accused and ensure their legal representation.

The context of the charges stems from the ongoing conflict that began in April 2023 between the SAF and the RSF. The specific incident central to this case is the killing of West Darfur Governor Khamis Abdallah Abakar on June 14, 2023. Abakar was reportedly detained and killed by RSF fighters shortly after publicly accusing the RSF of attacking civilians in El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur. The court's findings detailed a systematic campaign of violence against the Masalit community in El Geneina, including killings, destruction of neighborhoods, sexual violence, looting, forced displacement, and the burial of victims while still alive.

The Port Sudan court's decision to convict Hemedti and his co-defendants in absentia underpins a critical aspect of Sudanese criminal procedure. The 2025 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 are particularly relevant, as they explicitly allow for trials in absentia for international crimes, provided that the court is satisfied that reasonable efforts were made to notify the accused and secure their presence, and that they are afforded effective legal representation. While the principle of presence at trial is a fundamental right, the expansion of in absentia proceedings for grave crimes like genocide and war crimes reflects a legislative intent to ensure accountability even when defendants evade justice. However, the practical challenge of demonstrating "reasonable efforts" to notify an absent, high-profile leader of an active paramilitary force remains significant.

The charges themselves—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—fall under the purview of the Criminal Act 1991, particularly its 2009 amendments which incorporated a dedicated chapter on international crimes. The court held Hemedti responsible for planning and directing the systematic campaign of destruction, looting, and attacks on civilians, schools, and places of worship in El Geneina. His brother, Abdel Rahim Hamdan Dagalo, was convicted for planning the siege of El Geneina and the forced displacement of its residents. These findings suggest a robust application of the national criminal code to acts that parallel definitions found in international criminal law, demonstrating Sudan's domestic capacity to prosecute such offenses.

A key legal implication is the enforceability of these death sentences. Given Hemedti's status as the leader of the RSF, an active party in the ongoing conflict, the immediate execution of the sentence is highly improbable. The court has requested Interpol Red Notices to facilitate the arrest and extradition of the convicted individuals, signaling an intent to pursue justice beyond Sudan's borders. However, the effectiveness of such notices hinges on international cooperation and the political will of states where the defendants might seek refuge.

Furthermore, the Sudanese legal framework, specifically paragraph 9 of Article 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code, grants a person tried in absentia the right to an unconditional, automatic, and full retrial upon request. This provision, while safeguarding fair trial rights, means that any future apprehension of Hemedti or his co-defendants could trigger a new trial, potentially prolonging the legal process. The presiding judge's assertion that these international crimes are not subject to any statute of limitations and cannot be politically pardoned under Sudan's international obligations aligns with international legal principles, reinforcing the gravity and enduring nature of the charges.

This domestic ruling also operates in parallel with the ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) into the situation in Darfur. The Darfur Network for Human Rights (DNHR) views Sudan's domestic courts and the ICC as complementary avenues for justice, advocating for closer collaboration. This dual approach underscores the complex landscape of accountability for atrocities committed during the Sudanese conflict, where domestic efforts seek to assert national sovereignty in justice provision, while international mechanisms offer an alternative or supplementary route when national systems are unable or unwilling to act.

The death sentences handed down in absentia against Hemedti and other RSF leaders by the Anti-Terrorism and Crimes Against the State Court represent a significant, albeit symbolic, step towards accountability for the grave atrocities committed in West Darfur. For legal practitioners, this ruling highlights the Sudanese judiciary's assertion of jurisdiction over international crimes and its willingness to employ robust procedural mechanisms, such as trials in absentia, to address alleged perpetrators who evade arrest. The reliance on the amended Criminal Procedure Act 1991 and the Criminal Act 1991 demonstrates the domestic legal system's capacity to engage with complex charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

However, the practical implications for enforcement remain challenging amidst the ongoing conflict. While Interpol Red Notices have been requested, securing the apprehension and extradition of high-ranking RSF officials will require substantial international cooperation and a resolution to the current hostilities. Practitioners should closely monitor developments regarding these extradition requests and any potential future retrials, which are guaranteed under Sudanese law for those convicted in absentia. This case also serves as a crucial reminder of the complementary roles of domestic courts and international bodies like the ICC in pursuing justice for mass atrocities, emphasizing the need for a coordinated approach to ensure comprehensive accountability in Sudan.