A drone strike that hit a funeral procession in Sudan’s Darfur region has reportedly killed more than a dozen mourners, drawing fresh attention to the collapsing state of civilian protections in the war-torn nation. The attack, which witnesses said targeted a crowd gathered for a burial south of El Geneina, marks yet another atrocity in a conflict that has left tens of thousands dead and displaced millions. For those watching from Britain, the question is no longer whether the violence is criminal but whether the world will act before the next strike.
The strike, blamed on the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group, came amid a broader escalation that has seen both sides accused of war crimes. The United Nations has documented systematic attacks on civilians, including sexual violence and the burning of villages. Yet with the international community divided and the United Nations Security Council paralysed, the burden of accountability has fallen on volunteer lawyers and small NGOs. That is where Britain could step in.
Campaigners argue that the UK should champion a new international justice mechanism, one not dependent on the Security Council’s consent. Such a body would investigate and prosecute the worst crimes committed in Sudan, from the drone strike on the funeral to the mass graves uncovered in West Darfur. Unlike the International Criminal Court, which faces political roadblocks, a UK-led tribunal could be established through a treaty among willing states. It would send a clear message that the cost of slaughtering civilians is never discounted.
The human cost of inaction is laid bare in the figures. More than 9 million people are now displaced, and the World Food Programme warns that 18 million face acute hunger. The drone strike on the funeral is not an aberration but a pattern. In May, an RSF attack on a market in Nyala killed over 100. In June, artillery fire hit a maternity hospital in Omdurman. Each incident is a separate outrage, but together they form a cascade of impunity that demands a coordinated response.
For British readers, this is not a distant story. The ties between the UK and Sudan run deep, from the colonial past to the modern diaspora that now numbers over 100,000 people in London, Manchester and other cities. Many of these families watch the news with dread, praying for relatives they cannot reach. They want Britain to use its diplomatic weight not just for statements but for action. A UK-led international justice mechanism would give them hope that the perpetrators will one day answer for their crimes.
Critics will say that building a new court is expensive and time consuming. They will point to the failures of the Special Court for Sierra Leone or the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. But the alternative is to do nothing while the body count rises. The UK has the legal expertise, the moral authority and the strategic incentive to lead. As a permanent member of the Security Council, it can rally other nations. As a signatory to the Genocide Convention, it has a duty to prevent genocide. The drone strike on the funeral is a reminder that prevention requires punishment.
The British government has already imposed some sanctions on RSF leaders and paused aid to both sides. But sanctions alone do not deter fighters who operate with impunity. Only the credible threat of prosecution can change behaviour. That means building a mechanism that can issue arrest warrants, gather evidence and hold trials. It means funding investigators and prosecutors. It means convincing other nations to join. It is a long road, but it starts with a single step: a commitment from Downing Street that the UK will not look away.
As the sun sets on another day of violence in Sudan, the families of the dead in El Geneina have no justice. They have only grief and the hope that someone, somewhere, will act. Britain can be that someone. It just needs the will.
