Who Is Targeting Churches in Sudan: Islamists Controlling the Army or the RSF?

I recently read a report published by Al Hadath, a channel whose editorial line I view as openly biased toward the Port Sudan
Group .The report stated that UN Secretary-General’s Envoy Pekka Haavisto met with a number of church leaders in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, and heard their accounts of the conditions facing Christian communities amid the war. According to the report, church leaders described what they called “discriminatory practices” against Christians allegedly committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in places of worship and church premises across the state.
There is no question that the suffering of Christians deserves our full recognition, nor that every citizen has the fundamental right to practice their faith safely and without discrimination. But addressing this issue requires accuracy, objectivity, and a proper understanding of its historical context. It should not be reduced to the current war, nor should accusations against one party be accepted without credible evidence and independent investigations.
Discrimination against Christians and attacks on places of worship in Sudan are not new phenomena. Their roots go back decades, during which the country witnessed documented policies and practices targeting Christians and other religious communities. These policies reached their height under the Islamist National Islamic Front and the Salvation Government, when state institutions, security agencies, and military structures played central roles in implementing and enforcing them.
If the genuine objective is justice and accountability, then all these cases—past and present—must be examined without selectivity. Violations committed during the current war must likewise be investigated, regardless of who committed them, and anyone found responsible must be held accountable. The suffering of Christian citizens must not be turned into a political instrument or exploited as part of the propaganda war between the opposing camps.
The central question, therefore, is not simply: Who is accusing whom?
The real questions are: What is the evidence? When did the violations occur? Where did they take place? And who was responsible?
These are the questions that should lie at the heart of any serious and independent investigation.
Justice cannot be served by condemning a political or military actor simply because it belongs to one side of Sudan’s war. Justice requires establishing the facts, documenting violations, identifying those responsible through a credible process, and holding accountable everyone whose responsibility is proven—without exception.
The persecution and marginalization of Christians in Sudan did not begin with the current war. At various stages since independence, the Sudanese state adopted policies that restricted religious freedoms and undermined the rights of Christians. These practices reached their most extreme form under the Islamist National Islamic Front and the Salvation Government, when religious discrimination became intertwined with the ideological orientation of the state.
The Sudanese Armed Forces, operating within a political system in which the Islamist movement exercised extensive control over state institutions and key centers of power, were an integral part of the broader system through which those policies were implemented and protected.
For this reason, any serious discussion about protecting Christians and holding perpetrators accountable cannot begin with the outbreak of the current war and end with accusations against the RSF. It must examine the deeper roots of the problem, including the record of violations that preceded the war, as well as abuses committed during the conflict itself—regardless of which side was responsible.
Justice cannot be selective, and victims must never become tools in the propaganda war between the warring parties.
If a church, worshippers, or any citizen has been attacked because of their religion, the incident must be investigated and those responsible must be held accountable—whether they belong to the RSF, the Sudanese Armed Forces, or any other armed group.
Ultimately, the objective should not be to validate one side’s narrative over the other’s. The objective should be to protect civilians, safeguard freedom of belief and worship, establish the truth, and ensure accountability for those responsible.
That is the only meaningful path toward justice