Exclusive Report: Credible Evidence Links Sudan Conflict to Possible Chemical Weapon Deployment

Experts have identified acute respiratory distress, strange odours, colourful explosions, lingering health complications, and environmental damage as key indicators supporting witness reports of possible exposure to toxic chemicals related to military actions in Sudan during 2024‑2025.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The investigation, comprising 32 pages reviewed by Euronews, probes the alleged use of chemical weapons in civilian zones of Sudan throughout the conflict that began in 2023.

The operation was headed by two former senior officials of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW); both were members during the agency’s 2013 Nobel Peace Prize recognition for championing the global chemical‑weapon ban.

The two ex‑senior OPCW officials spoke with Euronews but requested anonymity, owing to the sensitive nature of the subject.

“Given that several states have already sanctioned individuals linked to alleged chemical‑weapon use, new allegations suggest a clandestine programme, and multiple witnesses describe a September 2024 incident potentially involving chlorine, the OPCW and its States Parties should commencement an investigation,” the two former senior officials told Euronews.

The report draws on testimony from eight Sudanese witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by videos, photographs and other digital materials submitted by alleged victims, indicating that chemical weapons may have been deployed in the conflict.

Although Euronews examined the images cited in the report, direct interviews with the witnesses were impossible and access to their supplementary recordings or electronic evidence was not possible.

This is not the first case where suggested chemical‑weapon use in Sudan has generated evidence. Earlier investigations by the New York Times and the Washington Post in early September leveraged intelligence material from Middle‑East sources—including depictions of arsenals and internal communications—and contributed to United States sanctions imposed on Sudan in April 2025.

Nevertheless, the current inquiry supplies a powerful personal narrative together with solid factual grounds for serious accusation and promises heightened public attention.

The Sudanese authorities have consistently denied any responsibility for such incidents.

The report

According to the report, the expert panel interviewed eight witnesses in Nairobi, Kenya, identifying “a series of credible incidents involving unexplainable illness after military activity.”

The panel consisted of individuals who directly experienced alleged incidents, emergency‑response personnel, a healthcare professional who treated the sufferers, and parties providing documentary or digital evidence relevant to the case,” the report explains.

The most compelling testimony originated from two separate witnesses who had both been present at the Al‑Jili Oil Refinery near Khartoum in September 2024.

At that time the site lay under the control of the Rapid Support Forces, the principal army faction that has attracted EU and US sanctions for severe human‑rights abuses.

“Both witnesses reported seeing a military aircraft pass overhead moments before the incident,” the report states, noting “barrel‑shaped objects associated with the overflight; non‑conventional impacts; unusual airborne emissions; unfamiliar odours; acute respiratory symptoms affecting roughly twenty workers; treatment at the refinery medical clinic; and notable vegetation transformation near the impact zone.”

They concluded that the acute respiratory and ocular effects described align with exposure to an airborne irritant or hazardous chemical, although the specific agent could not be definitively identified.

Other witness testimonies relate similar aerial strikes followed quickly by rapid onset of breathing difficulties, eye irritation, gastrointestinal or skin reactions among nearby residents.

They described the hallmarks of unusual odours, coloured atmospheric plumes and a conspicuous lack of the usual blast signatures associated with conventional air strikes.

The investigative team was unable to confirm definitively whether the incidents stemmed from chemical weapons deployment, due to evidentiary gaps requiring further clarification.

Consequently, the team seeks the OPCW to evaluate the gathered findings and initiate a comprehensive investigation based on the preliminary results.

Source link