Amid fears that essential goods are being transformed into indirect tools of war, authorities from the “Rapid Support Forces” (RSF) in the Darfur region and the SAF-controlled states in the North, Center, and Kordofan have traded bans on the movement of goods between their respective territories. This escalation carries profound implications that could deeply affect trade between the North and West, economically partitioning the country into isolated islands. Such a shift deepens the spirit of economic secession and the political and geographical fragmentation of Sudan.
The critical question now facing the Sudanese arena is: Will the “war of commodities” between the North, Center, and Darfur turn into an economic weapon that threatens the country’s unity amidst raging military confrontations?
Control and Prohibition
Following the completion of its control over the capitals of the five Darfur states (South, Central, East, and West) and finally El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, the Consultative Council of the Darfur region led by the RSF decided to ban the transport of 12 commodities produced in its areas of influence to any SAF-held regions in the Center, North, and North Kordofan.
These goods include all types of:
Gum Arabic, Peanuts, and Cooking Oil. Tobacco, Livestock (Cattle, Goats, Camels, Sheep). Wika (dried okra), Sesame, Millet, and Ombaz (peanut waste meant as animal feed) and Corn, Hibiscus, Gold, and other minerals.
The RSF has moved to tighten this ban by adopting strict measures, including the detention and confiscation of trucks, livestock herds, and any goods caught being smuggled from Darfur to army-controlled areas.
Counter-Bans
In response, and with the escalation of battles on the Kordofan and Darfur fronts and the fall of El Fasher, the Governor of Khartoum State issued a decree at the end of 2025 prohibiting the movement and exit of all goods and property from or through the state’s western borders toward RSF-controlled areas in Kordofan and Darfur.
The Northern State preceded Khartoum with a similar decision, stipulating harsh penalties: five years in prison, a fine of 10 million Sudanese pounds (approx. $17,000), and the confiscation of both the goods and the means of transport. North Kordofan followed suit, banning goods from leaving its capital, El Obeid, toward RSF-held areas.
Fears and Alternatives
Public opinion is divided. Some fear a deepening humanitarian crisis and worsening hunger due to soaring prices in Darfur markets, which rely on goods from the Center and North. Others believe Darfur can bypass these effects by opening up to neighboring countries like South Sudan, Chad, the Central African Republic, and Libya as alternative sources for supplies and outlets for local exports.
Observers note that these decisions have created a state of fear among traders, farmers, and herders. Vulnerable groups, such as porters (loading/unloading workers), have been severely harmed by the halt of shipping trucks, facing a genuine livelihood crisis after losing their daily income.
Price Collapse
Commercial activity in Darfur cities has taken a massive hit. The closure of roads by the RSF has led to a collapse in crop prices, particularly grains, which has devastated producers and farmers across the region.
Conversely, in army-controlled areas, citizens are suffering from the high cost of products that used to arrive from Darfur, such as meat and fodder. Meanwhile, Darfur is experiencing a severe shortage of supplies coming from the North and Center, with products accumulating and rotting because they cannot be transported to markets.
Humanitarian and Economic Warnings
Economic activist Zuhair Abdelrahman argues that the primary impact will be on the humanitarian situation. Darfur relies on the North and Center for flour, wheat, sugar, and fuel. He predicts: Acute Food Shortages especially in displacement camps in El Fasher, Nyala, and El Geneina. Health Collapse: Since the ban includes medicines and medical supplies. And war Economy: The rise of smuggling, black markets, and the destruction of national supply chains.
Abdelrahman warns that if the ban persists, it will change the economic geography of Sudan, pushing Darfur to integrate with Chad and Libya, thereby deepening economic secession. The National Umma Party also condemned these decisions, labeling the use of food as a weapon a “war crime” and a violation of international humanitarian law.
Landlocked Zones
Economic analyst Abdelazim Al-Mahal points out that producers in RSF-held areas are the primary victims, as they can no longer sell or export their goods. He describes RSF-controlled territories as “landlocked zones,” making the establishment of a functional state there nearly impossible. He notes that while the government-controlled areas still have access to ports exporting over 70 tons of gold in 2025 the rebel-held areas are seeing their revenues plummet.
A Temporary Exception?
Academic Mohamed Al-Nayer maintains that Sudan is still legally one state. He describes the current restrictions as an “exceptional temporary situation.” However, he acknowledges that the diverse regions of Sudan are economically integrated; Darfur’s export goods (like Gum Arabic) must ultimately reach the Red Sea ports to benefit the national economy. He believes these restrictions will only vanish once military control is unified or a political settlement is reached.
Historical Context
Historically, the relationship between Darfur and Northern Sudan was defined by trans-Saharan trade caravans. Before colonialism, Darfur was a powerful sultanate and a major commercial hub for West Africa and the Maghreb. However, over time, the relationship shifted toward grievances of economic marginalization by the central authorities in Khartoum, eventually fueling the long-standing conflicts over power and wealth that plague the region today.
