Sudan Starts Trial of 77 Accused of Forming RSF-linked Local Government

30 March 2026

A Sudanese judge presides over the trial of security agents charged with the torture and murder of student Mahgoub al-Taj. on April 11, 2022

March 30, 2026 (KHARTOUM) – Sudan’s Public Prosecution announced on Monday the start of the trial of 77 individuals, including 65 being tried in absentia, accused of establishing a parallel administration in the Jebel Awlia locality south of Khartoum during its occupation by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The RSF had previously formed “civilian administrations” in areas under its control, claiming these bodies were necessary to provide essential services and fill the governance vacuum created by the ongoing war.

The Public Prosecution stated that the trial commenced before the Kalakla General Criminal Court. The defendants are accused of collaborating with the “rebel forces” in their war against the state by forming a parallel local government while the RSF held the region.

Prosecutor Abdullah Babikir Abdullah delivered the opening statement, detailing how the suspects allegedly held various roles within the RSF-backed administration, including executive director and several other administrative and service-related posts.

The prosecution further alleged that the defendants provided logistical, financial, and food support to the RSF. They are also accused of managing RSF checkpoints used for detentions and searches within the locality.

Of the 77 accused, 12 are currently in custody while 65 remain at large.

The case dates back to the aftermath of the April 15, 2023, conflict, which led to the RSF seizing several areas, including Jebel Awlia, where they established civilian structures to manage local affairs.

Charges against the defendants include undermining the constitutional system, inciting war against the state, and crimes related to international humanitarian law and anti-terrorism legislation. These charges carry a maximum penalty of death. The prosecution has called on the court to impose the harshest possible sentences due to the severity of the acts and their impact on national stability.