Banning the Flow of Goods to Western Sudan: Another War by Khartoum Against Civilians and a Threat to National Unity

Sudan Media Forum

Abdelmonem Madbou, Kampala (Radio Dabanga)

Amid the ongoing war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and the growing complexity of Sudan’s humanitarian, economic, and social crises, recent decisions by the governors of Northern State, Khartoum State, and North Kordofan to ban or restrict the transport of goods and commodities to western Sudan have sparked widespread controversy. Opinions are divided between those who downplay the practical impact of these decisions and those who warn of their serious legal, humanitarian, political, and national unity implications—particularly in a country already deeply fractured by war.

This report examines the impact of these decisions on markets in Darfur and Kordofan through testimonies from community leaders and traders in Nyala, Al-Daein, Al-Fula, and Bahr Al-Arab, alongside legal, human rights, and political analyses warning of risks that extend beyond economics to the very structure of the state.

The Decisions

On November 25, 2025, the Governor of Northern State, Lt. Gen. Abdel Rahman Abdel Hamid, issued a decision imposing a total ban on the transport of goods, commodities, and items to areas under RSF control in Kordofan, Darfur, and western parts of Northern State. The decision stipulated penalties including up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of 10 million Sudanese pounds, and the confiscation of goods and transport vehicles.

Less than a month later, on December 20, the Governor of Khartoum issued a similar decision with the same prohibitions and penalties. This was followed days later by a decision from the Governor of North Kordofan banning the خروج of goods and commodities from El-Obeid to areas under RSF control in parts of Kordofan and Darfur.

These decisions were met with condemnation from segments of Sudanese society who viewed them as entrenching the social divisions created by the war and threatening national unity. The National Umma Party called on the de facto authorities in North Kordofan, Khartoum, and Northern State to immediately reverse the decisions, stating that they inflict severe harm on innocent civilians and contradict the most basic duties of the state to protect life and human dignity.

The party described the decisions as the use of food as a weapon to punish civilians—an act that constitutes a war crime and a blatant violation of international humanitarian law, exposing claims of equal treatment of Sudanese citizens as hollow. In a previous Facebook poll conducted by Radio Dabanga, 85% of respondents rejected the decisions, saying they punish civilians in Kordofan and Darfur by targeting their livelihoods.

Impact on Darfur Markets

Radio Dabanga spoke with several citizens and traders in Darfur states about the impact of the decisions on markets and living conditions. Views varied between those who said the decisions affected prices of goods coming from states that issued the bans, and those who considered them meaningless, citing Darfur’s openness to neighboring countries that supply its markets—Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Libya.

Traders in Nyala (South Darfur) and Al-Daein (East Darfur) said the decisions issued by some eastern states banning the export of goods to western Sudan had little noticeable effect on market activity or the availability of basic commodities.

A trader in Nyala’s main market said goods are available in sufficient quantities and that markets have not experienced shortages of food or construction materials despite the announced bans. He explained that goods are now arriving from alternative sources, including South Sudan, Chad, Libya, and the Central African Republic, contributing to market stability and diversified import options.

He confirmed that items such as sugar, flour, pasta, cooking oil, sweets, and construction materials are currently available—some at lower prices compared to goods previously sourced from eastern Sudan—describing the recent decisions as “paper decisions” with no real impact.

Similarly, trader Karam El-Din Al-Tahir Al-Bashari from Al-Daein said markets in Darfur in general have seen notable stability in commodity availability since the outbreak of war. He noted that essential items such as flour, sugar, and tea are available in sufficient quantities without major price increases.

He added that supplies from neighboring countries—especially South Sudan, Chad, and the Central African Republic—have ensured a steady flow of goods, confirming that commercial conditions in Al-Daein remain stable and buying and selling continue normally.

Both traders emphasized that Darfur markets have become less dependent on supplies from Khartoum or Northern State, and that current alternatives have provided relative market stability, reassuring citizens that basic commodities are available and there is no cause for concern at present.

In the same context, Omda Mousa Issa Hamed, head of the Rizeigat Native Administration in Bahr Al-Arab locality, downplayed the importance of the ban on goods reaching Darfur, saying the decisions have no negative impact on the local community.

He told Radio Dabanga that Darfur communities rely on alternative local and regional sources, adding that goods coming from neighboring areas are more efficient and beneficial than those arriving from Northern State or Khartoum. “The community does not depend on goods from Khartoum or Northern State,” he said. “This ban is hollow and does not affect us in any way.”

Motasim Adam Al-Dai from Al-Fula in West Kordofan expressed a similar view, telling Radio Dabanga that the decisions have had no effect on state markets, as West Kordofan has been completely cut off from goods coming from eastern Sudan since the war began. As a result, the state opened up to South Sudan and Chad for its basic needs. He noted, however, that after the war began, one remaining route delivered limited goods from Al-Dabba to Al-Fula via Ghubaysh, but this route stopped following the decisions—without affecting markets.

Slight Price Increases

Despite assurances from several traders that the decisions had little impact, Ismail Ibrahim Hassan, a trader in Nyala’s main market, said there has been a slight effect on regional markets. He noted noticeable price increases for goods imported from eastern Sudan, such as lentils, salt, and rice. The price of a 20-kilogram sack of lentils rose from 100,000 to 130,000 Sudanese pounds, while a 50-kilogram sack of salt increased from 100,000 to 150,000 pounds—an increase of 30–40%.

He said these increases directly affected consumers. Hassan explained that while some goods still come via eastern supply lines, others arrive from Libya or Chad, and that the civil administration is working to find alternatives to facilitate the flow of essential goods. “There are efforts to ensure continued availability of basic commodities and to address import-related challenges to stabilize prices,” he said.

In Al-Daein, markets experienced confusion in the days following the decisions, with noticeable price hikes. Journalist Mohamed Saleh Triko told Radio Dabanga that goods coming from eastern areas—such as sugar, flour, biscuits, and milk—rose in price during the initial days of implementation. Prices of iron and pipes rose sharply, prompting some traders to temporarily stop selling before resuming once prices stabilized due to sufficient supply or smuggled goods.

He noted that Darfur relies on alternative supply sources: sugar, tea, and milk reach East Darfur from South Sudan; other goods reach West Darfur from Chad and El-Fasher from Libya at relatively stable prices. The region also depends on fuel coming from South Sudan and Chad.

Triko cited seasonal price fluctuations as evidence of the decisions’ impact. During the rainy season, prices rose due to road closures between Darfur and eastern states. In September, when the first shipments arrived from Al-Dabba, prices fell. He added that during the first days of the Northern State governor’s decision, prices of sugar, flour, biscuits, iron, and corrugated metal rose sharply, forcing traders to stop selling, but prices stabilized after a few days.

Violations of International Law

Commenting on the three decisions, political analyst and writer Al-Tijani Al-Haj said they lack a legal basis, arguing that state governors do not have the authority to block the flow of goods within the country, even during internal conflicts. He said the decisions violate international humanitarian law, which prohibits the use of food and essential supplies as tools of pressure or weapons in armed conflict.

Al-Haj told Radio Dabanga that blocking goods from reaching areas controlled by other conflict parties directly harms civilians and could expose those who issued and enforced the decisions to accountability under international humanitarian law, describing the measures as a form of collective punishment.

Human rights activist and political figure Hanan Hassan said the bans violate the principle of freedom of movement and trade in goods and services, which is guaranteed by Sudan’s transitional constitutional document. She argued that such restrictions are only lawful under strict conditions—clear legal grounds, limited duration, and necessity—which, she said, are absent in these decisions.

Hassan added that obstructing the delivery of essential goods such as food, medicine, and fuel to conflict-affected areas constitutes a violation of the rights to life, food, and health, which are protected constitutionally and internationally. She warned that such practices could legally amount to the use of starvation or deprivation as a tool of pressure—potentially rising to war crimes—and could worsen humanitarian crises and trigger sharp price increases.

Former minister and politician Nahar Osman Nahar described the decisions as unjust and directly harmful to civilians, warning of serious humanitarian and economic consequences that could fall under internationally prohibited collective punishment.

He told Radio Dabanga that the measures target ordinary citizens before any military party, particularly affecting vulnerable groups such as children and the sick who depend on milk, diabetes and blood pressure medications, and life-saving treatments. “If a family in Nyala or Kordofan has a child who needs milk or a patient who needs medicine, how will these items reach them under this ban?” he asked.

Nahar criticized the silence of political leaders and figures from Darfur and Kordofan based in Port Sudan, despite the decisions directly affecting their social constituencies. He stressed that political or military disputes do not justify halting trade, citing continued trade between Sudan and South Sudan despite separation and political disagreements.

He argued that these measures could be classified as war crimes if they lead to civilian starvation or denial of medical care, pointing to what he called a stark contradiction in government policies: oil revenues from Heglig continue to flow—some allegedly benefiting the RSF under a 10 million monthly agreement—while food and medicine are blocked from civilians in Darfur and Kordofan.

He called for raising public awareness of the dangers of these decisions and bringing the issue to human rights organizations, noting that blocking the movement of food and medical supplies within one country is a clear human rights violation.

In a statement seen by Radio Dabanga, the National Umma Party said the decisions reveal the use of food and basic needs as a tool of collective punishment against innocent citizens who had no role in the outbreak of war and did not cause the presence of armed forces in their areas—describing it as an attempt to pressure civilians into displacement.

Tearing Apart National Unity

Several interviewees expressed fears that the decisions could fragment national unity. Al-Tijani Al-Haj described the measures as misguided, warning that they signal an attempt by some states to separate regions from the rest of Sudan by blocking commercial exchange—an extremely dangerous trend that deepens social divisions in both western and central Sudan.

He said that even if not fully implemented, the decisions politically entrench state fragmentation and societal division, placing decision-makers in a position of threatening national unity in a country already ravaged by war.

Hanan Hassan warned that the political and social effects include deepening marginalization, regional polarization, and undermining the concept of a unified state and single market.

Nahar Osman Nahar noted that the RSF controls open borders with Chad, South Sudan, Libya, and even routes via Ethiopia, enabling it to supply its fighters—while unarmed civilians remain the primary victims of the bans.

He warned that such decisions fuel tensions and threaten national unity, citing a leaked speech by former Foreign Minister Ali Youssef in February referencing tendencies within the Port Sudan government to confine the RSF to Darfur and Kordofan. Any attempt to isolate or separate regions, he said, amounts to partitioning Sudan—something every Sudanese committed to unity should reject.

The National Umma Party reiterated that these decisions constitute the use of food as a weapon to punish civilians, amounting to war crimes and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law, exposing the de facto authorities’ claims of equal treatment of Sudanese citizens without discrimination.

Testimonies from traders in Kordofan and Darfur show that regional markets have, so far, absorbed the impact of the bans by relying on regional alternatives from neighboring countries, ensuring continued availability of basic goods and relative trade stability. However, political and legal analyses place the decisions in a far more dangerous context, arguing that they lack legal grounding, may involve serious violations of international humanitarian law—including collective punishment and the use of food as leverage—and pose a real threat to Sudan’s already fragile national unity.

• This report is published by the Sudan Media Forum and its member institutions and was prepared by Radio Dabanga. It reflects the political, economic, and daily-life impacts of decisions issued by the governors of Khartoum, Northern State, and North Kordofan in the context of the war that has raged since April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. The decisions ban the movement of goods from areas controlled by the army to areas controlled by the RSF.
  Based on a public survey, the report warns that these decisions entrench social division, threaten national unity, and directly affect civilians’ lives. Some legal perspectives consider the measures to constitute war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.