Sudan Courts: Escalating War Women Death Sentences Undermine Justice

• Sudanese courts are increasingly imposing harsh sentences, including death penalties, on women during the ongoing war.
• Hala Al-Karib of SIHA views these sentences as a profound failure of justice, arguing they ignore women's coercive living conditions.
• Women are accused of RSF collaboration for remaining in controlled areas due to war, poverty, fear, and economic constraints.
• These actions, such as dealing with RSF authorities for necessities, are considered civilian acts of survival, not crimes.
• While capital punishment is legal under Sudan's 1991 Criminal Act, international law (ICCPR Article 6) limits it to "most serious crimes."

The current judicial approach, which criminalizes such survival strategies, raises serious questions about the fairness and proportionality of the Sudan wartime justice women are subjected to, particularly when faced with accusations of Sudan Rapid Support Forces women collaboration.

The judicial landscape in Sudan's ongoing conflict is witnessing a concerning trend, with courts increasingly handing down severe penalties, including capital punishment, to women. This development represents a significant breakdown of equitable legal principles, according to Hala Al-Karib, who serves as the regional director for the Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA). She argues that imposing such harsh sentences, particularly Sudan war women death sentences, without adequately considering the dire living conditions, economic pressures, and the coercive realities faced by women during wartime, fundamentally undermines the very essence of justice.

Many women find themselves unfairly accused of collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) simply because they remained with their families in areas that subsequently fell under the paramilitary group's control. Al-Karib underscores that these decisions to stay were not made freely but were direct consequences of the war, pervasive poverty, intense coercion, and profound fear. Economic factors, such as the prohibitive cost of travel and exorbitant rents in safer regions, left numerous families, and the women within them, with no viable alternative but to endure their circumstances. This situation highlights a critical flaw in Sudan wartime justice women are currently experiencing.

The lack of transparent information regarding the experiences of women in RSF-controlled territories is a major concern for Hala Al-Karib SIHA Sudan. She describes these areas as a "deep well" with minimal visibility, expressing an expectation that the violations suffered by women there are "beyond description." Compounding these concerns, figures cited by Al-Karib for 2025 indicate that 840 women are currently detained in prisons managed by the Sudanese army, further illustrating the widespread impact of the conflict on women.

Women who have remained in areas under RSF control have not only been exposed to various abuses but also face the daily struggle of securing essential provisions for their families. In many instances, these women have taken on immense responsibilities to ensure their families' survival and safety. This often necessitates interacting with the authorities imposed by the RSF to obtain vital resources such as food, healthcare, and other necessities. These interactions, Al-Karib asserts, are purely civilian acts driven by survival, not criminal behavior.

She firmly maintains that these actions, undertaken to sustain their families, should not be reinterpreted as grounds for prosecution or punishment. Instead, those involved are civilians who are entitled to protection under Sudanese law. The current judicial approach, which criminalizes such survival strategies, raises serious questions about the fairness and proportionality of the Sudan wartime justice women are subjected to, particularly when faced with accusations of Sudan Rapid Support Forces women collaboration.

The application of Sudan capital punishment women currently face is legally permissible under Article 27 of the Sudanese Criminal Act 1991. However, Sudan is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6 of the ICCPR Article 6 Sudan stipulates that the death penalty should only be imposed for "the most serious crimes." This international standard provides a crucial benchmark against which the current sentences must be evaluated, especially given the context of coercion and survival.

The discrepancy between the broad application of capital punishment in wartime and Sudan's international obligations highlights significant due process concerns. The argument put forth by Hala Al-Karib SIHA Sudan is that the actions of women in RSF-controlled areas, driven by necessity and the protection of their families, do not constitute "most serious crimes" that would warrant Sudan war women death sentences under international human rights law. This legal and ethical tension underscores the profound challenges within the country's wartime judicial system.

The escalating number of Sudan war women death sentences and other severe penalties points to a profound crisis within Sudan's wartime justice system. This situation is characterized by severe due process concerns and potential human rights violations, particularly impacting women accused of Sudan Rapid Support Forces women collaboration. The judicial system appears to be failing to account for the unique vulnerabilities and coercive circumstances that define life for civilians, especially women, in conflict zones.

The current approach risks criminalizing acts of survival, transforming desperate attempts to protect families into prosecutable offenses. This not only contravenes the principles of justice but also potentially violates international human rights standards to which Sudan is bound. The call from Hala Al-Karib SIHA Sudan emphasizes the urgent need for a justice system that recognizes the civilian nature of these actions and provides the protection mandated by both Sudanese law and international human rights instruments.

This development highlights severe due process concerns and potential human rights violations in Sudan's wartime justice system, particularly concerning women accused of RSF collaboration. Lawyers defending such clients should be prepared to argue against charges based on coercive circumstances and the civilian nature of survival actions, citing Sudanese law and international human rights principles.

Source: Original reporting via Radio Dabanga