Paramilitaries declare rival government in Sudan

BBC - Apr 16th, 2025

Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan "Hemedti" Dagalo, have declared the formation of a rival government against the country's armed forces. This announcement comes amidst a two-year-long war that has escalated into the world's largest humanitarian crisis. As fighting continues, the Sudanese army has reportedly bombed RSF positions outside el-Fasher, displacing hundreds of thousands. Hemedti claims the RSF is building a 'state of law' for Sudan, not ruled by individuals, and promises essential services across the country. The conflict, marked by accusations of war crimes against both factions, has claimed over 150,000 lives and displaced more than 12 million people.

The declaration coincided with a high-level conference in London marking the conflict's second anniversary, where UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy called for a peace pathway and announced £120m ($159m) in aid. The humanitarian toll is severe, with famine-like conditions affecting over 700,000 people around el-Fasher and impediments to aid delivery due to security threats. Despite international calls for a ceasefire, the African Union has rejected the partitioning of Sudan by the army and RSF. The ongoing crisis highlights the urgent need for international intervention to prevent further civilian suffering and stabilize the region.

Humanitarian Crisis Rapid Support Forces War Crimes Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo Sudanese Army African Union David Lammy Sudan Conflict

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant overview of the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Sudan, with a focus on the RSF's declaration of a rival government. While it presents several factual claims, the article could benefit from more precise figures and additional context to enhance its accuracy. The narrative primarily reflects the RSF's perspective, which may introduce bias, and the lack of explicit source attribution affects the overall credibility. Despite these shortcomings, the article is well-written, with clear language and a logical structure, making it accessible to a general audience. By addressing a significant humanitarian issue, the article holds public interest and has the potential to influence public opinion and drive discussions. However, it could further engage readers by including more background information and interactive elements. Overall, the article effectively highlights an important global issue but would benefit from improved balance, source quality, and transparency.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims, such as the declaration of a rival government by the RSF and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan. These claims align with external reports and sources, adding credibility to the article. However, the story could benefit from more precise figures and additional context regarding the structure and legitimacy of the RSF's government. Additionally, while the article mentions accusations of war crimes, it lacks detailed evidence or sources to substantiate these claims. Overall, the article is mostly accurate but would benefit from further verification and specificity in certain areas.

Balance

The article predominantly presents the perspective of the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan "Hemedti" Dagalo, while providing limited viewpoints from other stakeholders, such as the Sudanese armed forces or international observers. This focus may lead to a perceived bias towards the RSF's narrative. Although the article includes a quote from UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, it could offer a more balanced view by incorporating additional perspectives from the Sudanese government, local civilians, or other international entities involved in the conflict.

Clarity

The article is generally well-written, with clear language and a logical structure that makes it easy to follow. The use of direct quotes from key figures, such as Hemedti and David Lammy, helps to convey the main points effectively. However, the article could benefit from additional context or explanations for readers unfamiliar with the conflict in Sudan. Overall, the article is clear and concise, but could be improved by providing more background information.

Source quality

The article lacks explicit attribution to specific sources, which affects its overall credibility. While it mentions the UN and MSF as credible sources for certain claims, such as casualty figures and humanitarian conditions, the article does not provide direct quotes or detailed references. Additionally, the article could enhance its reliability by including a broader range of authoritative sources, such as local journalists, government officials, or independent analysts, to provide a more comprehensive view of the situation.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient context or explanation of its methodology, which affects its transparency. For instance, it does not clarify the basis for certain claims, such as the number of casualties or the extent of RSF control in Sudan. Furthermore, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may impact its impartiality. Greater transparency in these areas would improve the article's credibility and trustworthiness.