Kenya's diplomatic misstep: Hosting RSF's parallel government backfires

Kenya's role as a regional peace broker is now under scrutiny following its decision to host the sanctioned Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and its allies for the launch of a parallel Sudanese government in Nairobi.

The move has sparked a diplomatic firestorm, with key international players—including the United Nations, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and France—firmly rejecting the legitimacy of the initiative.

For Kenya, which has long positioned itself as a neutral arbiter in regional conflicts, the backlash has raised questions about its credibility.

By hosting a faction that is locked in a brutal war with Sudan's military-led government, Nairobi has inadvertently alienated key regional and global powers, risking its reputation as a trusted diplomatic actor.

International rejection and regional backlash

The first signs of trouble emerged as soon as the RSF and 23 allied groups signed the Nairobi Charter in late February, formalising their intent to form a government in exile.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) immediately rejected the plan, accusing Kenya of interfering in Sudan's internal affairs.

Khartoum recalled its ambassador from Nairobi for consultations and threatened economic reprisals, arguing that Kenya had given undue legitimacy to a sanctioned paramilitary group.

The regional backlash was swift.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait—three influential Middle Eastern actors with deep stakes in Sudan's stability—issued strong statements rejecting the formation of a parallel government.

Riyadh's foreign ministry condemned the move, warning against "illegitimate steps taken outside Sudan's official institutions that threaten unity, including the formation of a parallel government."

Saudia Arabia reaffirmed its commitment to Sudan's sovereignty and territorial integrity, urging all parties to prioritize national unity over division.

Qatar echoed similar sentiments, stating that it "fully supports Sudan's unity, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and rejects any interference in its internal affairs."

Kuwait followed suit, calling on all factions to avoid division and instead push for a negotiated political solution.

Other Topics To Read

• Sudan
• Sudan Conflict
• Sudan war
• Sudan Crisis
• sudan warring parties
• Rapid Security Forces (RSF)
• sudan RSF
• Ruto RSF
• RSF parallel government
• RSF Nairobi
• Kenya's diplomatic misstep: Hosting RSF's parallel government backfires
• Headlines

Egypt's stance

Meanwhile, Egypt, firmly rejected any efforts to establish a parallel government in Sudan, emphasising its commitment to Sudan's unity and sovereignty.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry denounced any actions that could threaten Sudan's territorial integrity, including attempts to form an alternative government.

The statement further warned that such actions would only escalate the situation in Sudan, obstruct ongoing efforts to bring together Sudanese political parties and worsen the humanitarian crisis

Egypt called on all Sudanese groups to focus on the country's national interests and engage constructively in an inclusive political process, free from exclusion or foreign interference.

Diplomatic Fallout at the U.N.

Beyond the region, Kenya's decision to host the RSF was met with strong resistance at the United Nations Security Council.

U.S. Representative John Kelley criticised the Nairobi meeting, warning that attempts to establish a government in RSF-controlled areas "are unhelpful for the cause of peace and security in Sudan and risk a de facto partition of the country."

British Ambassador Barbara Woodward was equally blunt, stating, "Respect for Sudan's charter rights, its unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity is vital and will be necessary for a sustainable end to this war."

Other major powers, including France and China, expressed deep concern about the Nairobi Charter, with Chinese Ambassador Fu Cong warning that "this move risks increasing the fragmentation of Sudan."

The African bloc within the Security Council also weighed in.

Speaking on behalf of Algeria, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Guyana, Deputy Algerian Ambassador Toufik Laid Koudri called on the RSF and its allies to put Sudan's unity above all else, emphasising that external political manoeuvres would only deepen the crisis.

Sudan's Ambassador to the U.N., Al-Harith Idriss Al-Harith Mohamed, delivered the strongest rebuke, calling the Nairobi meeting "an unprecedented violation of the U.N. Charter and the AU Constitution."

He accused Kenya of taking "a step that aims to dismantle Sudan."

Forced to defend Nairobi's position, Kenya's Ambassador to the U.N., Erastus Lokaale, denied the claims, stating, "I reiterate that neither President William Ruto nor the Government of Kenya has recognised any independent entities in Sudan or elsewhere."

But the damage had already been done.

Kenya's miscalculation: A diplomatic own goal

For Kenya, hosting the RSF in Nairobi was a high-stakes diplomatic gamble—one that has now spectacularly backfired.

The backlash has called into question the country's neutrality, credibility, and judgment as a regional mediator.

Kenya's involvement in the Sudan peace process had already been a contentious issue, with Khartoum previously objecting to Nairobi's role in IGAD-led mediation efforts.

By providing the RSF with a platform to declare a rival government, Kenya has now reinforced suspicions that it is taking sides in Sudan's conflict.

The move could also have long-term economic and strategic consequences.

Sudan remains an important trade partner for East Africa, and the possibility of economic reprisals from Khartoum could impact bilateral trade, investment, and diplomatic relations.

Moreover, alienating influential Middle Eastern powers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt could complicate Kenya's broader geopolitical relationships in the region.

Where Does Kenya Go From Here?

The Nairobi Charter fiasco has left Kenya in an awkward position.

The government must now work overtime to contain the diplomatic fallout and regain trust among its regional and international partners.

The RSF may have achieved a short-term diplomatic stunt by staging its government launch in Nairobi, but for Kenya, the consequences of this decision will linger far longer.

With its credibility on the line, Nairobi must now prove that it remains a neutral and effective regional peace broker—before its standing in African diplomacy is permanently damage.