Sudan deserves an indisputable account

Faced with allegations coming from all sides, the forthcoming United Nations report on Sudan will need to demonstrate impartiality and provide evidence to support its conclusions.

The forthcoming report by the United Nations Security Council Panel of Experts on Sudan will be one of the most closely scrutinised assessments of the conflict since the war began. Its conclusions could influence sanctions, diplomatic positions and, more broadly, the way in which the international community assigns responsibility for this conflict.

However, the main test of this report will not lie solely in what it concludes. We must also analyse how it arrived at its conclusions.

Information recently published by Reuters regarding certain elements of an unpublished draft by the Group suggests that its investigators have focused in particular on allegations of external support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF, a paramilitary group), notably the alleged use of aircraft to transport weapons, drones and foreign fighters, as well as the recruitment of mercenaries. As the report has not yet been made public, it would be premature to prejudge its conclusions.

Its publication nevertheless presents an important opportunity to demonstrate the principles upon which the credibility of any independent investigative mechanism must be based. Since the start of the war, numerous publicly available reports have highlighted external military support for the various parties to the conflict. Investigations by international media outlets and research by independent scholars have used satellite imagery, flight data, witness accounts and other open-source material to document the movement of weapons, supply networks and forms of foreign military assistance.

Investigations published by the New York Times and Reuters in February 2026, in particular, examined allegations of support for the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), including the alleged deployment of Turkish-made drones operating from Egyptian territory. Other governments, research organisations and monitoring groups have also published analyses concerning cross-border networks and the alleged involvement of various foreign actors.

This information alone cannot establish the facts on which the Panel of Experts is required to rule. United Nations investigators may have access to confidential information or evidence to which journalists and independent researchers do not have access. The Panel operates within the framework of its own mandate and applies its own criteria for assessing evidence.

The same standard for all

This is precisely why methodological transparency is essential. If the Panel reaches conclusions that differ from those put forward by the media or researchers, it should be possible to understand why. If certain allegations are upheld and others dismissed, the report should explain, to the extent compatible with the protection of sources, the criteria that led to this distinction.

Acknowledging that evidence is insufficient is not a weakness. It is a mark of rigour. A negative conclusion does not necessarily mean that an event did not take place; it may simply mean that the available evidence has not reached the threshold required to establish it. This distinction is particularly important in a conflict characterised by disinformation, propaganda and competing narratives.

The Group’s credibility will depend above all on its ability to demonstrate that the same standards have been applied to all parties. Sudan is facing a battle of narratives. The SAF, the RSF and their respective supporters are seeking to impose their own interpretation of the conflict. Regional and international actors, too, have their own interests and strategic priorities.

In this context, an independent United Nations mechanism must specifically enable the facts to be distinguished from political narratives. An allegation must therefore be assessed on the basis of the evidence supporting it, and not on the identity of the party it targets.

This implies that allegations concerning the SAF, the RSF or their foreign supporters must be subject to comparable criteria. No actor should be treated more harshly or given greater protection on account of their alliances or diplomatic clout.

This requirement is all the more important given that the Panel’s findings may help inform decisions on sanctions. The greater the political consequences of a finding, the greater the rigour and transparency of the methodology must be.

A sanctions regime can only retain its legitimacy if those to whom it applies, and those who observe it, have confidence in the criteria on which it is based. If international actors come to believe that certain allegations are examined with greater rigour than others, the credibility of the entire mechanism risks being eroded.

The Sudanese people deserve better than mere narratives

When the report is published, it will therefore need to be read with several simple questions in mind: have the same standards of evidence been applied to all parties? Are the main sources and limitations of the investigation sufficiently explained? Are the facts clearly distinguished from allegations or elements that remain uncertain? And are the conclusions proportionate to the available evidence?

The Panel of Experts should not seek to confirm the narrative put forward by the SAF, the RSF or their supporters. Its responsibility is more demanding: to establish the facts, indicate the degree of certainty of its findings and apply its standards regardless of the identity of the actors involved.

It is precisely in the most politically sensitive cases that this independence must be most evident.

Sudan does not need a report that reinforces a pre-existing narrative. It needs a report in which even those who dispute its conclusions can recognise a rigorous methodology.

Sudanese civilians have already paid a horrific human price for this war. They deserve better than yet another battle of narratives. They deserve an accountability process capable of distinguishing facts from assertions, evidence from conjecture, and responsibility from political affiliations.

When the Panel of Experts’ next report is published, the key question will therefore not only be: who is implicated? It will also be: have the same standards been applied to everyone? It is against this yardstick that the report’s credibility – and, by extension, that of international accountability mechanisms – should be measured.

Mongi Hamdi is a former United Nations Under-Secretary-General, having represented the organisation in Mali, and a former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Tunisia.

The post Sudan deserves an indisputable account appeared first on New African Magazine .