The arrival of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia leader in Nairobi today to sign the parallel government charter—if true—suggests that Kenya’s statement in January, rejecting recognition of a parallel government in Sudan, was not genuine. This indicates that Nairobi is proceeding with opening a new front of tension in East Africa, seemingly unaware of the consequences. Given its current internal security divisions, I do not believe Nairobi is in a position to ignite a new conflict at such a critical moment in Sudan’s history. If President William Ruto’s administration does not fully grasp the consequences of its actions, Kenya’s longstanding intelligence and security institutions surely do. These institutions are well aware of the implications of hosting a militia with multi-national affiliations and funding sources right on their doorstep. They also recognize the historical complexities that have shaped Kenya’s regional relations since the 1970s.
Just as the Kenyan administration acknowledges its deep internal crisis—highlighted by the emergence of a powerful opposition that includes former Vice President Gachagua, ex-Foreign Minister Kalonzo, and former Justice Minister Martha, forming a growing alliance against Ruto—it must also be aware that these very figures have had longstanding cooperation with Sudanese security agencies. Khartoum will not need much effort to reestablish those ties if necessary. Nairobi, second only to N’Djamena among African capitals in its understanding of Sudan’s security dynamics, knows how Sudan’s intelligence networks operate in peacetime, let alone in wartime.
Nairobi also understands Sudan’s ability to capitalize on Kenya’s internal security deterioration, even under the most challenging circumstances. Without delving too deeply into history, it is enough to recall the extensive network of relationships that were exposed in the 1990s when the perpetrators of the U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam fled to Khartoum. This led to complex political, security, intelligence, and social dynamics that Sudan imposed, and Kenya eventually came to acknowledge. Thus, antagonizing Sudan at this critical juncture would be unwise.
If a parallel government is declared in Sudan from Nairobi, the East African region will be on the verge of a new crisis—one that will begin in Kenya’s Rift Valley region. This time, the crisis will not be confined to the traditional leaders of the region but will reshape the political landscape of East Africa in a manner that does not align with the current political systems of the region. The only way forward is for East African nations to unite in a clear stance against all factors that threaten the survival of the nation-state. They must work collectively to eliminate all outlawed rebel movements that have taken up arms against legitimate governments, threatening both military and civilian institutions.
African political leaders—even those who disagree with Sudan’s government—understand that the RSF’s war against the Sudanese state is an existential battle aimed at dismantling Sudan’s sovereignty, depleting its resources, and uprooting its people. This war has nothing to do with national aspirations, social justice, or democracy, where rulers and citizens are treated as equals. Therefore, confronting and eradicating this militia is not just a necessity but a sacred duty. Recognizing a parallel government in Sudan, led by a rebel militia, is not merely a challenge to Sudan—it is a direct threat to the survival of nation-states across the African continent.
A scholarly contribution by the researcher is available at the following link:
حكومة “حميدتي” وإجهاض الدولة الوطنية
Dr. Amina Al-Arimi
An Emirati researcher specializing in African affairs.
