Faith Nyasuguta
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is under international scrutiny after Bulgarian-made weapons were discovered in the possession of Sudan’s notorious Rapid Support Forces (RSF), prompting a formal United Nations investigation and reigniting concerns over the diversion of arms in Africa’s most fragile regions.
The weapons, including 81mm mortar rounds, were seized in North Darfur in November 2024 by Sudanese pro-government militias. Markings on the ammunition reportedly matched those of military supplies exported by Bulgaria to the UAE in 2019. According to a confidential letter reviewed by Reuters, the munitions had originally been intended for the UAE military and were never authorized for resale or transfer to any third party, especially not a paramilitary group locked in a violent conflict.
Images and videos shared by Sudanese fighters showed clearly identifiable serial numbers on the mortar rounds, matching records of shipments made by Bulgarian manufacturers. These revelations have prompted a UN panel to investigate how such arms ended up in RSF stockpiles, raising alarms over potential violations of international arms transfer agreements and the broader implications for regional security.
Bulgaria has firmly denied any wrongdoing. In an official response to the United Nations, Bulgaria’s permanent mission confirmed the 2019 shipment to the UAE but stressed that its foreign ministry never issued a re-export license to Sudan or any other third party. “We adamantly declare that the Bulgarian competent authority has not issued an export license for defence-related products to Sudan,” the ministry told Reuters.
The case has also reignited accusations made last year by Sudan’s UN ambassador, Al-Harith Idriss al-Harith Mohamed, who claimed the UAE was actively supplying weapons to the RSF, a paramilitary force accused by human rights groups of committing atrocities, including ethnic cleansing, in its fight against Sudan’s army since April 2023. The ambassador said Sudan had gathered sufficient evidence to file a formal complaint against the UAE at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
While the UAE has denied supplying arms to the RSF and pointed to a UN report that found no conclusive proof of direct involvement, recent developments have refocused attention on the country’s broader military footprint in Africa. A Reuters investigation revealed that UN officials are continuing to probe the UAE’s role, especially following its refusal to provide flight manifests for 15 cargo flights to Chad, one of the suspected routes used to transport arms covertly into Sudan.
The incident has drawn fresh attention to the UAE’s strategic ambitions in Africa, where it has positioned itself as both a diplomatic broker and a security actor. From investments in ports and logistics to quiet involvement in civil conflicts, the UAE’s presence has become increasingly controversial, particularly in nations teetering on the edge of collapse, such as Sudan, Libya, and Ethiopia.
In Sudan, the RSF’s rise has deepened the humanitarian crisis, displacing millions and killing thousands since the country plunged into civil war last year. The force was once a state-sanctioned paramilitary but has since become one of the dominant actors in the conflict, rivaling the Sudanese army for control of territory and resources.
Khartoum has already filed a case at the International Court of Justice (World Court), accusing the UAE of breaching the Genocide Convention. The UAE rejected the charges, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that no concrete evidence links it to RSF atrocities.
Meanwhile, arms diversion remains a critical issue in the global effort to curb illicit weapons flows into conflict zones. Analysts warn that even when initial exports follow legal protocols, weak enforcement and political alliances can allow deadly weapons to end up in the wrong hands.
As investigators dig deeper, the UAE’s Africa strategy faces mounting questions,not just about its intentions, but also its accountability. The case has added another layer of complexity to a conflict already driven by geopolitical rivalries, historical grievances, and a desperate battle for control of Sudan’s future.
RELATED:
