Sudan Courts Face Scrutiny over Death Sentences for Women
Legal experts argue that prosecuting women for survival actions in RSF-held areas violates fundamental justice principles during the ongoing conflict.
The imposition of capital punishment on women in Sudan has drawn sharp criticism from legal advocates, who describe the trend as a severe breakdown of the judicial system amid the country’s civil war. According to Hala Al-Karib, regional director of the Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA), these harsh sentences represent a profound failure of justice. She stated that courts are handing down death penalties without adequately considering the specific living conditions, economic pressures, and coercive realities that define life for women under current conflict conditions.
This perspective aligns with broader concerns regarding the treatment of civilians in areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Al-Karib noted that women are frequently accused of collaborating with the paramilitary group simply because they remained in their communities rather than fleeing. She emphasized that staying in these zones was rarely a matter of free choice, but instead a result of war, poverty, and fear. With travel costs rising and rents in safer areas becoming prohibitively high, many families had little option but to remain, yet their presence is now being treated as evidence of guilt.
Survival actions misidentified as crimes
Advocates argue that the actions taken by these women to sustain their households are being incorrectly categorized as criminal offenses. Al-Karib explained that securing basic necessities such as food and healthcare from authorities imposed by the RSF are civilian acts intended to keep families alive. She stressed that these individuals are entitled to protection under Sudanese law and that their efforts to survive should not serve as grounds for prosecution. Treating these survival mechanisms as collaboration with armed groups, she said, fundamentally distorts the nature of their actions and ignores the context of extreme duress.
The legal framework surrounding these cases remains contentious. While capital punishment is legal under Article 27 of the Sudanese Criminal Act of 1991, international standards impose strict limitations. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sudan is a state party, stipulates that the death sentence may only be imposed for the most serious crimes. Critics contend that the current judicial practices fail to meet this threshold, particularly when the underlying conduct is driven by the necessity of feeding a family in a conflict zone rather than by intent to harm or support a warring party.
Limited visibility in controlled zones
Information regarding the conditions of women in RSF-controlled territories remains scarce, creating what Al-Karib described as a "deep well" into which there is little visibility. She expressed concern that the violations suffered by women in these areas are likely to be severe and underreported. According to 2025 figures cited by the SIHA regional director, 840 women are currently being held in prisons controlled by the Sudanese army. Meanwhile, those who remain in paramilitary-held areas face a dual burden of systemic abuse and the daily struggle to secure basic necessities.
The situation highlights a broader pattern of accountability gaps in the conflict. As the war continues, the distinction between civilian survival and criminal collaboration becomes increasingly blurred in the eyes of the judiciary. Al-Karib’s comments suggest that without a fundamental shift in how these cases are adjudicated, the legal system will continue to fail the most vulnerable populations. The lack of reliable data from the front lines complicates efforts to monitor human rights abuses, leaving many women without recourse or protection.
Future implications for judicial integrity
The next phase of the conflict will likely test the resilience of Sudan’s legal institutions further. Observers will watch whether international pressure leads to a review of these sentences or if the trend toward harsher punishments continues. The outcome of these cases may set a precedent for how civilian conduct is interpreted in future post-conflict justice processes. For now, the focus remains on the immediate plight of women who are being punished for their presence in contested areas rather than for any specific criminal intent.
