UK sanctions Sudanese officials implicated in mass sexual violence in el-Fasher

The UK imposed two main sanctions: travel bans and asset freezes. They affect 15 commanders from both Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces and Sudanese Armed Forces. The purpose is to punish and pressure officials suspected of atrocities during Sudan’s war. The measures also signal that alleged abuses by either side may face consequences.

The sanctions particularly highlight el-Fasher, where the RSF carried out a brutal takeover after a siege lasting over 500 days. UK-funded investigations found that rape and starvation were still being used against Sudanese people. Survivors also described executions, extortion, and other abuses. The Foreign Office said the sanctions would help ensure the horrors in el-Fasher become known.

The sanctions do not end the conflict or automatically bring alleged perpetrators to trial. They restrict travel and access to assets, while increasing international pressure for accountability. British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband also called for external support to both warring parties to end. The measures show the UK is targeting commanders on both sides, not only one faction.

A travel ban is a legal restriction that prevents a sanctioned person from entering, leaving, or passing through countries applying the ban. In practice, authorities can refuse visas or entry. An asset freeze blocks access to money, bank accounts, property, or other financial resources under the sanctioning country’s jurisdiction. It does not necessarily mean every possession worldwide is seized.

For someone sanctioned by the UK, banks and businesses must generally avoid making funds or economic resources available to that person. The person may be unable to use frozen accounts, sell certain property, or receive payments through UK-linked systems. The travel restriction makes international movement more difficult, especially where partner countries cooperate.

These tools are designed to create pressure without military action. They can limit a commander’s ability to travel, pay for services, or benefit from assets. In this case, the UK used them against 15 RSF and SAF commanders accused of suspected atrocities. Their effect depends on enforcement and cooperation from other governments and financial institutions.

El-Fasher is a city in Darfur, the Sudanese region at the center of some of the conflict’s worst violence. Its importance comes from its role as a major urban focus of the war between the RSF and SAF. The city endured a siege before the RSF launched its final offensive on 26 October 2025.

The takeover was especially significant because it produced what the article describes as Sudan’s largest single massacre since the war began. Yale researchers said the speed and industrial scale of the killing could only be compared with the whole Rwandan genocide. Survivors reported rape, executions, blood-taking at makeshift clinics, and extortion.

El-Fasher therefore represents both the military struggle in Darfur and the humanitarian cost to civilians. The UK’s sanctions specifically highlight alleged abuses there, including sexual violence and starvation. The city’s experience has also intensified demands for accountability and for external backers of the warring parties to stop supporting them.

Sudan’s war is a large, continuing conflict between the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces. It began in April 2023 and, according to the article, has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. The conflict has continued through major offensives, sieges, mass killings, displacement, hunger, and sexual violence.

The war’s scale is illustrated by el-Fasher’s siege, which lasted over 500 days before the RSF launched its final offensive on 26 October 2025. Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab described the resulting killing as industrial in scale. The article also reports that rape and starvation remain weaponised against Sudan’s people.

The UK response covers both sides of the conflict. It sanctioned 15 commanders from the RSF and SAF, imposing travel bans and asset freezes. These measures are intended to increase pressure for accountability, but the article gives no indication that the war has ended. It says external support for the warring parties must stop.

After more than 500 days of siege, the RSF launched its final offensive on el-Fasher on 26 October 2025. The takeover led to what the article calls the largest single massacre of Sudan’s war. Yale researchers said the killing happened with such speed and industrial scale that it could only be compared with the whole Rwandan genocide.

Civilians experienced several forms of violence. Survivors described RSF fighters raping young women and girls, executing civilians, and moving survivors to makeshift clinics where blood was taken from them. Fighters also extorted ordinary people and their families. UK-funded investigations found that rape and starvation continued to be used against Sudan’s population.

The consequences went beyond immediate deaths and injuries. Survivors were left facing trauma, deprivation, and the loss of safety and resources. The UK has responded with sanctions against commanders from both sides, while the Foreign Secretary called for accountability. The article also says external support for the warring parties must end.

The Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces are the two warring parties identified in the article. They have fought each other since Sudan’s war began in April 2023. The source does not provide their full organisational histories, but it clearly presents them as the rival forces driving the conflict.

The UK is accusing commanders on both sides because its sanctions target suspected atrocities by both forces. The RSF is specifically linked in the article to the brutal takeover of el-Fasher. Survivors described RSF fighters carrying out rape, executions, blood-taking, and extortion. The article also says UK-funded investigations found rape and starvation were being weaponised.

The sanctions affect 15 commanders from the RSF and SAF, rather than treating the conflict as the responsibility of only one side. Each sanctioned person faces a travel ban and asset freeze. British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said perpetrators must be held accountable and called for all external backing to the warring parties to end.

Rape and starvation can be weapons of war when they are deliberately used to control, punish, terrorise, or drive out civilian populations. Sexual violence can intimidate families and communities, while withholding food can weaken people, create dependence, and make survival conditional on obedience. These acts attack civilians directly rather than merely affecting combatants.

The article says UK-funded investigations found that rape and starvation were still being weaponised against Sudan’s people. Survivors from el-Fasher described young women and girls being raped, alongside executions, extortion, and other abuse. These reports explain why the UK described the conduct as suspected atrocities and why it sanctioned commanders from both sides.

Under international law, serious attacks against civilians can amount to war crimes when connected to an armed conflict. If widespread or systematic attacks target a civilian population, they may also constitute crimes against humanity. The article calls them “crimes against our humanity” and says perpetrators must be held accountable, but it does not report final court judgments.