Amid the ongoing conflict in Sudan between the army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has entered its fourth year, a new trend has begun to emerge among some internally displaced people and refugees: a reluctance to return, even if security conditions improve.
This trend is no longer linked solely to the direct consequences of the war, but rather to a combination of factors, including the loss of property, disruption of livelihoods, deterioration of basic services, and declining confidence in the prospects for long-term stability.
Estimates from international organizations indicate that millions of Sudanese have been forced to leave their homes within a relatively short period, in what has become one of the largest displacement crises in the country’s history. This has reshaped the demographic landscape and created complex challenges concerning the future of return and reintegration.
A Psychological Burden
The decision by significant numbers of Sudanese internally displaced people and refugees not to return is linked to a range of material and psychological changes that have reshaped their relationship with their places of origin.
Khalid Al-Sir, a former employee who sought refuge in a neighboring country, says: “The issue is no longer just about the war itself, but about what it has caused. I lost my home completely, and I no longer have a clear means of restoring my source of income. Even if the fighting stops, there are no guarantees that reconstruction or compensation for those affected will take place in the near future.”
He adds: “Returning under these circumstances would mean starting from scratch in an unstable environment, with basic services such as electricity, water and healthcare unavailable. For many people, this is simply not a practical option.”
Psychological specialist Rehab Al-Baqir explains that “experiences associated with violence or forced displacement leave long-term effects that influence people’s decisions later on.” She notes that some people associate their places of origin with memories of danger or loss, making the idea of return a psychological burden rather than merely a logistical decision.
She continues: “This does not mean that people no longer feel a sense of belonging, but priorities change, particularly for those with families. The search for a stable environment becomes more urgent than the idea of returning itself. Security plays a decisive role, and with multiple armed actors and shifting control over territory in some areas, many people do not see the end of fighting alone as sufficient to guarantee stability.”
Different Burdens
In addition to security concerns, economic and service-related conditions are among the key factors reinforcing the decision not to return. According to specialists, the deterioration of electricity and water networks and the weakness of the healthcare system pose additional challenges to any large-scale return, particularly for families.
Maha Abdelhadi, a Sudanese citizen currently living in Europe, says: “The relative stability provided by the country of asylum has changed the way I think about the future. There are opportunities for planning, education and work, factors that are no longer available to the same extent.”
She adds: “The decision to stay is not only about what has been lost, but also about what has become available elsewhere, particularly in terms of essential services such as healthcare and education.”
Economic researcher Adel Ibrahim says: “The destruction that has affected infrastructure in several cities, along with the disruption of productive sectors, makes it difficult to accommodate returnees in the short term.”
He continues: “The labor market has lost a significant part of its capacity, whether because institutions have shut down or relocated, reducing opportunities to secure a stable income.”
He notes that “the cost of rebuilding one’s life, whether in terms of housing or employment, represents a genuine obstacle, particularly in the absence of clear compensation or support programs.”
Social Transformations
Over time, displacement can shift from being a temporary condition to becoming a settled reality, particularly as individuals integrate into new communities.
Social researcher Khalid Youssef explains: “The length of displacement plays an important role in shaping decisions. The longer people remain outside the country, the greater the likelihood of permanent settlement. New social relationships, education and employment opportunities are also factors that reinforce this trend.”
Youssef points out that “children who have grown up outside Sudan during the conflict may not develop a practical connection with their country of origin, making the issue of return less prominent within the family. The existence of support networks among Sudanese communities abroad also helps facilitate integration and reduces the pressures associated with returning.”
Despite this trend, the decision not to return is not necessarily permanent in all cases, as it remains linked to developments inside Sudan.
Migration researcher Nada Taher says: “Decisions to stay or return are often flexible and influenced by factors such as improved security, economic stability and the existence of clear reconstruction policies.”
Taher stresses that “providing genuine guarantees, rather than merely promises, could encourage some groups to reconsider their decision to return.”
She emphasizes that “trust in institutions plays a crucial role in individual decisions. When such trust is absent, stability abroad becomes a more realistic option, even if it was initially viewed as temporary.”
She adds: “Addressing the issue of return also requires a social approach that includes rebuilding community ties and addressing the consequences of the conflict, rather than simply providing services. However, the longer people remain settled abroad, the higher the cost of return becomes, both economically and socially, particularly for those who have managed to establish new professional or educational paths.”
Return and the Question of Reconstruction
As indications of a growing “non-return” trend increase, the absence of clear policies for reconstruction and reintegration raises questions about the role of the state in restoring confidence and encouraging return.
Public policy specialist Louay Babiker says: “Voluntary return cannot be achieved simply by ending the war. It requires an integrated institutional framework covering security, services and legal guarantees.”
Babiker adds: “The absence of a clear vision for reconstruction or compensation for those affected creates uncertainty and pushes some refugees to make long-term decisions to remain outside the country.”
He further explains: “Many international experiences show that return is linked to the existence of practical programs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, providing employment opportunities and guaranteeing property rights. These elements remain unclear in the Sudanese context so far.”
