Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-27
**Lead**
The United Kingdom has today imposed sanctions on two Sudanese warlords accused of directing a campaign of rape and sexual violence against civilians in the war-torn Darfur region and other conflict zones. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) confirmed the designations as part of a concerted international effort to target those responsible for egregious human rights abuses amid the brutal civil war that has ravaged Sudan since April 2023. The individuals, both senior commanders within the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), now face an asset freeze and travel ban across the UK, preventing them from accessing the British financial system or entering British territory.
**Context**
The sanctions target Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, a senior RSF commander and brother of the force's leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commonly known as Hemedti, alongside Osman Mohamed Hamid Mohamed, a major general within the RSF who has commanded operations in West Darfur and Khartoum. According to the FCDO, both men have been implicated in coordinating and encouraging the systematic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, with victims including women and young girls from ethnic African communities such as the Masalit, Zaghawa, and Fur. The UK government has pointed to credible reports, corroborated by international organisations and human rights monitors, documenting mass rape, forced marriage, and sexual slavery perpetrated by RSF fighters in areas under their control.
This latest action builds upon previous rounds of sanctions imposed by London since the outbreak of hostilities between the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. The UK has already sanctioned multiple entities and individuals linked to both warring factions, including Hemedti himself, targeting those who have perpetuated the conflict that has displaced more than ten million people and triggered one of the world's most severe humanitarian emergencies. The British government has consistently condemned the atrocities committed by both sides, though the RSF has borne the brunt of international opprobrium for its campaign of ethnic cleansing and gender-based violence in Darfur.
**Analise**
The decision to single out sexual violence as a specific grounds for sanctions marks a significant precedent in British foreign policy. By explicitly naming rape and gender-based atrocities as central to the designation criteria, the UK is signalling that wartime sexual violence will not be treated as a secondary or collateral issue, but rather as a grave crime meriting targeted international action. This approach aligns with broader initiatives such as the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI), championed by the UK since 2012, and reinforces the message that perpetrators of such crimes will face tangible consequences regardless of their position within military hierarchies.
However, the practical impact of these sanctions must be viewed with cautious realism. Asset freezes and travel bans, while symbolically powerful, may have limited direct effect on individuals whose wealth and movements are largely confined to Sudan and allied nations such as the United Arab Emirates, which has been accused of supplying the RSF. The real significance lies in the diplomatic isolation and the legal jeopardy these designations create for the targeted individuals. They now face potential prosecution under universal jurisdiction principles, and the sanctions provide a framework for future accountability mechanisms, including potential referral to the International Criminal Court, which has already opened investigations into the conflict in Sudan.
The announcement comes as the international community grapples with how to respond to the escalating crisis in Sudan, where both the RSF and SAF have been accused of war crimes, indiscriminate shelling, and blocking humanitarian aid. The UK's action, coordinated with partners including the United States and the European Union, reflects a growing consensus that targeted financial measures and travel restrictions represent one of the few available tools to exert pressure on the belligerents. While sanctions alone cannot end the conflict, they serve to narrow the space in which warlords can operate with impunity, and they offer a measure of recognition to the countless victims whose suffering has often been overlooked amidst the broader geopolitical dimensions of the war.
**Fontes**
This article is based on information provided by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, statements issued by the UK government on the sanctions regime, and reports from international human rights organisations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as documentation from the United Nations regarding the situation in Sudan.