The ongoing civil war in Sudan, now approaching its third year, has left the nation in ruins. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, entire communities displaced, and more than 13 million people forced from their homes.
Cities and towns lie in ruins, famine looms over large swathes of the country, and reports of atrocities committed by both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have drawn international condemnation.
Yet, amid this devastation, Uganda has taken a step that has sparked controversy but carries the potential for a breakthrough: hosting RSF Commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, for talks under the auspices of President Museveni.
Sudan’s foreign ministry has condemned this move, framing it as a violation of international law and “an affront to humanity.” There is little doubt that such sentiments are borne of suspicion and frustration; after all, the RSF has been accused of committing widespread atrocities, including sieges, mass killings, and the displacement of civilians.
Yet, the optics of Museveni’s meeting with Dagalo should not be misread as partisanship. If President Museveni intended to side with the RSF, he would have met Dagalo clandestinely, avoiding official channels entirely.
That the meeting occurred openly and at Uganda’s presidential home in Entebbe is itself a testament to the goodwill and transparency of the effort.
Museveni is not a newcomer to crisis management in the region. As the eldest statesman in East Africa, he has a long history of mediating conflicts in neighbouring countries, earning the trust of both African Union authorities and Western governments alike. His track record includes facilitating dialogue during tense political transitions and regional disputes where impartiality was essential.
The fact that Dagalo accepted Museveni’s invitation is telling: it indicates trust in the Ugandan president’s guarantees of safety and, more importantly, signals Dagalo’s willingness to engage in a dialogue that could benefit Sudan as a whole.
The human cost of Sudan’s civil war underscores the urgency of such dialogue. From Darfur to Khartoum, towns have been razed, families separated, and health systems shattered. Reports from the United Nations and other agencies describe horrifying patterns of violence, with the RSF’s siege of El-Fasher pointing to potential genocidal acts.
Agricultural livelihoods have been destroyed, markets have collapsed, and famine threatens millions of children. Each day that the fighting continues deepens the humanitarian crisis, pushing the country further from stability. For the region, an unstable Sudan is not just a national tragedy but a regional threat, affecting trade, security, and migration across East Africa and beyond.
It is in this context that Sudan’s leaders must pause and reconsider the optics of condemnation. Museveni’s initiative is not an endorsement of the RSF, but a pragmatic step toward mediation. Dialogue is the only sustainable path out of a war that has proved resistant to military solutions alone.
The Sudanese government must recognise that Uganda’s role, guided by the African Union, is to bring actors together, not to legitimise violence. By refusing to engage, Sudan risks prolonging a war that continues to devastate its people and destabilise the region.
President Museveni’s approach exemplifies the principle that peace often requires courage, patience, and the willingness to create space for conversation, even with those seen as adversaries. Diplomacy demands that leaders separate personal grievances from national interests.
In doing so, Sudanese authorities would not only signal a commitment to ending the conflict but also reassure the international community of their willingness to seek lasting solutions.
Time is of the essence. The longer the war continues, the higher the human and economic toll. Children are growing up in refugee camps, infrastructure lies in ruins, and confidence in governance erodes daily.
By opening the door to mediated talks, Sudan’s leaders have an opportunity to prioritise their people over political pride, to embrace dialogue over distrust, and to harness the goodwill of experienced regional actors like President Museveni.
In conclusion, Sudan must see Uganda’s actions not as siding with one faction over another, but as a genuine effort to end a devastating war. Museveni’s engagement with Dagalo is a call for peace, a chance to prevent further human suffering, and a step toward stabilising a nation whose security directly impacts the wider region.
History will judge Sudanese leaders not just by their condemnation but by their courage to embrace dialogue when the stakes are highest. The people of Sudan, and indeed all of East Africa, deserve nothing less.