The pardon granted to field commanders linked to the Rapid Support Forces, including “Al-Nour Qubba”, has reignited the debate in Sudan about the limits of political settlements and the legitimacy of pardons in war crimes cases, at a time when human rights warnings are escalating against the consolidation of impunity, coinciding with increasing pressure on human rights defenders.
This comes after the announcement of the return of field commanders affiliated with the Rapid Support Forces to areas under army control, a move that has raised profound questions about the future of justice and accountability in the country, and the limits of political settlements in light of the ongoing war that has been raging in the country since April 2023. The name “Al-Nur Qubba” has been at the forefront of this controversy, after his return accompanied by a number of field commanders, including Mahmoud Al-Wali, Muhammad Kafuh, Ibrahim Abu Kanish, Ali Tanqou, and Dahia Al-Amin, amid reports indicating that they were granted official amnesty, despite widespread accusations against some of them related to committing serious violations against civilians, especially in the Darfur region.
Kashkoush: The issue of amnesty “has brought the file of justice and accountability back to the forefront of public debate.”
Lawyer and legal expert Noun Kashkoush, a member of the Al Jazeera Human Rights Monitor, stated that this step “has brought the issue of justice and accountability back to the forefront of public debate.” She pointed out that “Al-Nur Qubba is among the leaders who participated in military operations in Darfur, including the siege of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur State, and faces charges including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence.” She added that “unofficial estimates indicate that thousands of civilians were killed during these operations, in addition to widespread violations, particularly against women, within the context of systematic violence.” She explained that “this reality opens the door to complex legal questions about the legitimacy and limits of amnesty, especially when it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are not subject to any statute of limitations under international law.”
She explained that “amnesty, as a legal procedure, may be legitimate in some contexts, but it remains a highly sensitive tool that requires a delicate balance between the demands of political stability and the rights of victims.” She emphasized that “justice is not limited to punishing perpetrators, but also includes restoring the dignity of victims, redressing harm, and ensuring that violations are not repeated.” She pointed out that “amnesty is divided into two main types: special pardon, which cancels the punishment while the conviction remains, and general amnesty, which prevents prosecution altogether.” She stressed that “international humanitarian law places clear limitations on this procedure and obliges states to investigate serious crimes and hold perpetrators accountable.”
In this context, she highlighted “the importance of the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, which stipulates that these crimes remain legally prosecuteable regardless of the passage of time, and that responsibility extends not only to the direct perpetrators, but also to instigators, accomplices, and even officials who fail to hold anyone accountable.” She warned that “granting amnesty to those accused of mass atrocities could undermine the foundations of justice and send dangerous messages that reinforce a culture of impunity, thus threatening the prospects for achieving genuine and lasting peace in Sudan.”
In the same context, the “Radical Change” Forces Alliance expressed its concern about what it described as attempts to “whitewash crimes” by accommodating leaders involved in violations, considering that granting them privileges represents “a direct insult to the victims of war” and “a perpetuation of the policy of impunity.”
The coalition noted that “these practices reflect a deep flaw in the standards of justice, where the standard of accountability is no longer linked to the magnitude of the crimes, but rather to the position of the actors on the map of the conflict, which reflects a worsening moral and political crisis.”
The resistance committees' coordination in Dongola criticized what they considered a "double standard in the application of justice".
The Resistance Committees Coordination in Dongola also criticized what it considered a “double standard in the application of justice,” noting that “civilians were tried on charges of collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces, while military leaders accused of committing serious violations were received and given political cover.” In El Fasher, the Resistance Committees questioned the silence of some armed leaders regarding the violations witnessed in the region, considering that this raises questions about the priorities of political actors, between the pursuit of power and the achievement of justice. Observers believe that this debate reflects a deeper crisis related to the nature of the conflict in Sudan, where military and political considerations are intertwined with issues of transitional justice, in the absence of institutions capable of enforcing the law independently and effectively.
In a related development, the “Emergency Lawyers” group condemned the opening of a criminal complaint against lawyer and human rights activist Rehab Mubarak Sayed Ahmed, considering the move a dangerous escalation that reflects the use of criminal law as a tool to target human rights defenders.
The group stated that the charges, which include “inciting war against the state” and “spreading false news,” are being used in broad terms to target independent voices, warning that this approach undermines the independence of the legal profession and threatens fair trial guarantees. It added that prosecuting human rights defenders instead of holding perpetrators of violations accountable represents a perversion of justice, and called for urgent intervention to protect human rights defenders and stop the use of the law as a political tool.
These developments come at a time when Amnesty International’s annual report warned of a sharp deterioration in the humanitarian situation in Sudan, as a result of the ongoing armed conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, and the widening scope of violations against civilians.
The report documented grave violations committed by both sides of the conflict, including indiscriminate killings, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, sexual violence, and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including health facilities and markets. It noted that military operations had escalated in Darfur and Kordofan, with major cities remaining under siege, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis and pushing some areas to critical levels of food insecurity, even leading to famine. The report also highlighted that some 24.6 million people are facing acute food insecurity, while the conflict has displaced nearly 12 million people, creating one of the world's largest displacement crises, amidst a significant decline in humanitarian aid.
The issue of impunity remains a major challenge, with arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court still not being executed.
Despite some international efforts, impunity remains a major challenge, with arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against those accused of crimes in Darfur still unexecuted. Experts point out that the lack of accountability at the national level is not the end of the road, as those accused can be prosecuted through regional and international mechanisms, given the ICC's continued jurisdiction over crimes committed in the region. In light of these circumstances, Sudan appears to be at a critical crossroads, where the paths of war intersect with the challenges of justice, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach that balances ending the conflict with ensuring accountability.
Tags:
africa
