The UK was “uniquely placed” to help stop a large-scale mass atrocity in Sudan—specifically the el-Fasher massacre—but did not take decisive action, MPs are expected to be told.

Nathaniel Raymond, a human rights investigator, will testify to parliament’s International Development Committee that the UK’s role in driving the international response to the Sudan crisis at the United Nations gave it a credible opportunity to avert catastrophe in North Darfur. He argues that warnings and recommendations delivered to UK officials over a prolonged period were ignored, questioned, or dismissed.

Raymond said he believes the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) placed greater priority on maintaining relationships with the United Arab Emirates than on preventing civilian harm on the scale reported in el-Fasher. He cited concerns that UK decision-making was influenced by the government’s “economic, security, and diplomatic relationships” with Abu Dhabi rather than urgent atrocity-prevention steps.

The committee testimony also links the UK’s inaction to the broader pattern of violence in Darfur, including earlier massacres attributed to UAE-backed paramilitaries. Raymond told MPs that intelligence about the likely next target was provided to the FCDO and that policy options were available—but that key briefings and follow-up actions did not happen.

In his written submission, Raymond told MPs that sanctions or other direct measures could have been used to disrupt support networks supplying weapons and other backing. He warned that the same accountability and attention failures are now being repeated in other Sudanese areas under siege and attack.

The evidence presented to the committee is expected to contrast Raymond’s view with responses from UK officials, including arguments that it is overly simplistic to claim pressure on the UAE alone would have stopped the violence—citing the wider involvement of multiple external actors and broader international disengagement from Sudan.