UK Sanctions 15 Sudanese Commanders Over El Fasher Massacre

Fifteen Sudanese commanders now face UK travel bans and asset freezes, imposed on the first anniversary of the fall of El Fasher, in a massacre the British government has linked to a "campaign of rape".

The Foreign Office announced the measures on the anniversary of the atrocity, which saw tens of thousands of civilians killed over several days. The sanctions target military leaders from both sides of Sudan's ongoing conflict whom the UK suspects of sexual violence during the siege of the city.

The designated individuals are drawn from the two warring factions: the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). The Foreign Office said it hoped the action would ensure "the horrors that took place at El Fasher will be known to the world".

What happened at El Fasher?

The scale of the killing defies easy summary. During the RSF's takeover of the city, up to 10,000 men, women and children are believed to have been slaughtered over two days. That figure makes it the fastest and largest massacre of civilians this century. A further 40,000 people remain unaccounted for.

The killings came at the end of an 18-month starvation siege by the RSF, which was allegedly backed by the United Arab Emirates. The UAE continues to deny supporting the RSF. The siege forced hundreds of thousands of civilians to live off animal feed.

Fewer than 70,000 people are believed to remain in El Fasher today, against a prewar population of more than 1 million. That is a fall of more than 93 percent. Testimony from inside the city indicates routine detention, torture and unlawful killings continue.

Takeaway: an entire city of over one million has been emptied to a remnant population smaller than a mid-sized English town.

Who has been designated?

The UK has named two of the targeted individuals publicly:

• Hussein Abu Jalak, an RSF colonel linked to atrocities during the siege of El Fasher.
• Al-Nour Ahmed Adam – also known as "Al-Qubba" – identified as playing a prominent role in the attack on the city.

Both designations rest on government suspicion rather than criminal conviction. That distinction matters. Sanctions require a lower evidentiary threshold than prosecution, and the Foreign Office has not published the underlying intelligence.

The Foreign Office framed the measures in declaratory terms, saying it hoped the action would ensure "the horrors that took place at El Fasher will be known to the world". Whether asset freezes against commanders in an active war zone will recover assets or change battlefield conduct is not addressed in the announcement.

Takeaway: the sanctions name individuals, but the government has not explained enforcement or said whether criminal referrals will follow.

What did Western governments know?

A Guardian investigation earlier this year added a contested dimension to the anniversary. The investigation revealed that internal US and UK warnings were sidelined in the run-up to the RSF attack on El Fasher, and that action which might have saved lives was not taken.

The UK government has not publicly responded to those findings. The sanctions announcement makes no reference to the alleged intelligence failures preceding the massacre.

Takeaway: the new measures punish perpetrators while leaving unanswered questions about what London knew beforehand.

How has the conflict changed since?

During the 12 months since the fall of El Fasher, Sudan's ruinous conflict – which has forced 14 million people to flee their homes, a displacement larger than the population of Belgium – has developed increasingly into a drone war.

The latest strikes saw the RSF cause mass power outages across east Sudan after targeting power stations with a coordinated drone attack. Civilian infrastructure, not front lines, has become the recurring target.

Takeaway: the war has shifted from siege warfare to long-range drone strikes on power grids.

What have advocates said?

The Coalition on Atrocity Prevention and Justice for Sudan issued a statement to mark the anniversary. "The victims will not be forgotten, survivors will be heard, and we will continue to pursue accountability for those responsible," the coalition said.

That commitment is rhetorical so far. No arrest warrants, prosecutions or international tribunal referrals connected to El Fasher accompanied the UK announcement. The sanctions themselves mark the first formal accountability measure from London tied to this specific atrocity.

For practitioners, the designations carry immediate compliance implications. Firms with exposure to Sudanese entities must screen against the updated UK sanctions list, and any assets of the 15 designated commanders within UK jurisdiction are now frozen. Counterparties dealing with RSF or SAF-linked networks face heightened due diligence obligations. What the measures do not do, on the government's own account, is establish criminal liability – that question remains open.

Takeaway: one year on, accountability for El Fasher exists only on a sanctions list, not in any courtroom.