Gunpowder Milkshake: From Mediation Table to Arms Deal Takedown

Reports linking Kenya to the flow of arms used by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have triggered alarm across the Horn of Africa and beyond. If proven, these allegations could place Nairobi in direct violation of international law, strain diplomatic ties with regional partners, and erode its hard-won image as a peace broker.
At the heart of this issue is the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), to which Kenya is a state party. Article 6 of the treaty explicitly prohibits the transfer of conventional arms if a country knows those weapons will be used to commit war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. Article 7 requires exporting states to assess the potential for human rights abuses or destabilisation before any transfer is approved. The RSF, widely implicated in atrocities in Sudan, is not just a faction; it’s a known actor in an ongoing civil war with a track record of violations.
If these weapons, whether sourced initially from Kenya, transited through its territory, or distributed with Nairobi’s knowledge, reached RSF fighters, the implications are profound. At best, it exposes a dangerous lapse in arms oversight. At worst, it suggests complicity or wilful negligence, both of which are violations under international and domestic legal frameworks.
Kenya has long styled itself as a diplomatic anchor in a volatile region. From its role in Somalia’s security transition to peacekeeping in the DRC and mediation efforts in South Sudan, Nairobi has carved out a reputation as a stabilising force. These developments now put that position at risk. The optics are damaging while Kenya sits at the peace table, questions are being asked about whether its backyard is leaking weapons of war.
The regional fallout could be swift. Ethiopia, which shares complex geopolitical interests with Sudan, may view any Kenyan support, whether intentional or accidental, for the RSF as a hostile gesture. South Sudan, which remains fragile and closely monitors arms inflows into Sudan, could reevaluate Kenya’s neutrality. Even Uganda, often aligned with Kenya on regional strategy, may begin to question Nairobi’s grip on its defence apparatus.
“Kenya has consistently projected itself as a responsible regional actor,” said Dr Amina Gedi, a Horn of Africa security analyst. “If this link to RSF arms holds, it not only undermines Kenya’s diplomatic capital but also weakens its moral authority in regional peace processes.”
Domestically, the implications are equally severe. Under the Kenya Defence Forces Act and the Firearms Act, there are strict protocols governing the movement, export, and management of arms. Any breach, whether through corruption, diversion, or lax enforcement, would signal a troubling lack of accountability within security institutions or the private arms trade sector. Civilian arms dealers, rogue border officials, or military insiders could all be subject to scrutiny.
The silence from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been deafening. No official response has been issued, despite growing pressure from both local sources and Kenya’s foreign missions. A senior security official, speaking off the record, admitted that “internal inquiries” had been initiated, although no timeline was provided for the public release of findings.
Strategically, this incident challenges Kenya’s defence posture at a time of heightened regional insecurity. With new deployments in Eastern Congo and enduring threats from Al-Shabaab, Nairobi cannot afford reputational damage that undermines confidence among its partners. The U.S., EU, and African Union have all backed Kenya’s leadership role on multiple fronts—trust that could waver if Kenya is seen as a contributor to instability.
More broadly, this casts a shadow over Kenya’s commitments to international norms and legal obligations. As a country that has consistently advocated for a rules-based order, especially when lobbying for UN Security Council reform or an increased African voice in global governance, it must be seen to uphold those same rules.
If Kenya is serious about preserving its role as a regional stabiliser, it must act decisively. That means launching a transparent investigation, cooperating with any international inquiry, and holding accountable those responsible for any breach of arms controls. Anything less not only weakens its defence credibility, but it threatens to unravel the very foundation of its foreign policy.
Fact Box
The Allegation: Reports suggest arms used by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) may have originated from or passed through Kenya.
Legal Stakes
- Breach of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) if weapons contributed to war crimes.
- Violates Articles 6 & 7 of the ATT, which Kenya ratified in 2014.
Domestic Fallout
- Raises questions about arms oversight under Kenya’s Firearms Act and KDF Act.
- Potential internal investigations and diplomatic blowback.
Regional Risk
- Could strain trust with neighbours and compromise Kenya’s credibility in Sudan peace efforts.
- May affect defence ties, especially in peacekeeping and regional security cooperation.