Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Is RSF funded by UAE money to make a genocide on Sudanese people, only for their resources?
Executive Summary
Sudan and multiple media outlets allege that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) provided funding, weapons, and other support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and that those ties helped enable atrocities including alleged genocide in Darfur; the UAE denies these claims. International legal filings, journalistic investigations, and reporting on gold trade and arms flows form the public evidence base, but key elements — direct command responsibility, the full chain of transfers, and conclusive proof of intent tied solely to resource capture — remain contested or unresolved in public sources [1] [2] [3].
1. What people are saying — the core accusations laid out plainly
Multiple claims coalesce into a clear narrative: Sudan has accused the UAE of materially supporting the RSF — including alleged funding of mercenaries, arms transfers, and economic purchases of Sudanese gold — and asserts that such support makes the UAE complicit in atrocities amounting to genocide, especially against communities in Darfur. Journalists report British-made military equipment appearing with the RSF and trace allegations of UAE weapons and money flowing to the group; Sudan has taken the UAE to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on these grounds, and Sudan’s foreign ministry described evidence of Emirati involvement as “irrefutable” in some public statements [1] [4] [3].
2. Legal action and formal charges — Sudan’s case at the ICJ
In March 2025 Sudan filed a case at the ICJ accusing the UAE of complicity in genocide by supporting the RSF; the UAE formally denied those allegations and characterized the filing as politically motivated. The ICJ case constitutes the strongest formal step to date because it frames specific legal claims under international law and creates a public evidentiary process. Public reporting highlights that the ICJ filing centers on alleged material support to RSF operations in Darfur, but the court process is ongoing and the filing itself does not equal a judicial finding of guilt; legal adjudication will hinge on evidence of intent and direct contribution to genocidal acts [1].
3. Journalistic investigations — arms, equipment, and battlefield traces
Investigations in late 2025 by major outlets reported British-origin military equipment on RSF battlefields and raised questions about arms export controls and diversion. Reporting also highlights alleged arms flows from the UAE to Sudanese paramilitaries and tracks how externally sourced kit appears in RSF hands; U.K. export links and purchases of hardware by Gulf states figure into those accounts. Journalists and analysts present circumstantial chains — equipment provenance, reported transfers, and battlefield use — that together build a picture of external supply contributing to RSF capacity, but these accounts vary in the degree of direct attribution to official UAE policy versus private actors or third-party intermediaries [4] [5].
4. The resource motive — gold trade, economic links, and strategic interests
Multiple analyses highlight gold as a major financial axis in the conflict: the RSF controls gold-rich areas, and the UAE is described as a major buyer and hub for Sudanese gold, which can monetarily sustain armed groups. Think-tank and press reporting links gold purchases and economic ties — including longstanding UAE investments in Sudanese trade and banking — with the RSF’s ability to finance operations. These sources argue that economic appetite for resources can create perverse incentives for external actors to tolerate or enable looting and armed control; still, proving that resource acquisition was the decisive motive behind alleged UAE support requires tracing transactional records and direct links between specific gold revenues and targeted military actions [2] [6] [7].
5. Denials, alternative explanations, and evidentiary gaps that matter
The UAE has repeatedly denied funding mercenaries or being complicit in genocide, calling accusations attempts to derail peace processes. Reporting also shows complexity: both the Sudanese army and RSF are accused of atrocities, and multiple external actors — state and non-state — have been implicated in arms flows and economic dealings. Key gaps remain in the public record: chain-of-custody documentation for weapons transfers, verifiable transaction trails linking UAE institutions to RSF finance, and judicial findings establishing state responsibility. Different outlets emphasize either strong circumstantial evidence or the need for judicial proof, and some sources rely on government claims whose motives may be political [3] [8] [5].
6. Bottom line: what is proven, what is alleged, and what to watch next
The public record establishes credible and repeated allegations that the UAE had economic and material ties to parties that enabled RSF capabilities, and Sudan’s ICJ filing formalizes the gravest legal accusation of complicity in genocide; those allegations are supported by journalistic traces of weapons and gold flows. However, a conclusive legal determination of state responsibility and genocidal intent requires ongoing adjudication and forensic financial and supply-chain proof. Observers should watch ICJ proceedings, further investigative publications tracing transactions and weapons provenance, and any declassified intelligence releases that could confirm or refute the remaining factual gaps [1] [2] [4].