OddsFrontNew investigation points to possible chemical-weapons attacks in Sudan
Witness accounts and digital material indicate possible toxic exposure during air operations, but investigators say laboratory and site evidence is still needed for a conclusive finding.
Evidence requiring a formal investigation
A team led by former senior officials of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has assembled evidence suggesting that toxic chemicals may have been used during Sudan’s civil war. Euronews, which reviewed the 32-page investigation, reported that the researchers examined accounts of incidents between 2024 and 2025. The findings do not conclusively establish that chemical weapons were deployed, and the investigators are asking the OPCW and its member states to conduct a formal inquiry.
The investigation draws on interviews with eight Sudanese witnesses conducted in Nairobi, together with photographs and other digital material supplied by people connected to the alleged incidents. Recurring descriptions included unusual airborne emissions, unfamiliar odours and the rapid onset of breathing difficulties, eye irritation and other health problems following military activity. Euronews said it saw photographs contained in the report but did not interview the witnesses or independently examine all of the underlying video evidence.
The refinery incident and its limits
The investigators considered testimony concerning a September 2024 incident at the Al-Jili oil refinery near Khartoum particularly significant. Two witnesses interviewed separately described an aircraft overhead, atypical impacts and respiratory symptoms among workers. The team found that the reported symptoms could be consistent with exposure to an airborne irritant or hazardous chemical, but it could not identify a substance. That distinction is essential: the report establishes grounds for investigation, not a final attribution of a chemical attack.
Sudan’s government has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons. In a May 2025 communication circulated through the United Nations, its foreign ministry rejected earlier American allegations and argued that the matter should be handled through Chemical Weapons Convention procedures. A separate Sudanese submission said a national committee had been created to examine the allegations. Those denials do not resolve the new evidence, but they are part of the formal record and underscore why an internationally supervised technical process matters.
Why the allegations matter now
The question arises amid an exceptionally severe civilian emergency. A UN human-rights expert reported in April 2026 that nearly 14 million people had been forcibly displaced since fighting began between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces in April 2023. Health services, food systems and humanitarian access have deteriorated across the country, leaving civilians especially vulnerable to any toxic exposure and complicating the preservation of medical samples or contaminated-site evidence.
The next test is whether the report’s material can be placed before a competent international mechanism with access to witnesses, medical records, environmental samples and relevant military information. Investigators would need to determine whether toxic substances were present, whether any release was deliberate, and who was responsible. Until that happens, the responsible formulation is that credible indicators and consistent testimony have been documented, while the alleged use and attribution remain unconfirmed.