Many Sudanese who fled the war say the prospect of returning to Khartoum fills them with fear, citing ongoing fighting, the collapse of basic services and the absence of security in the capital.
Khartoum remains heavily damaged after months of fighting between General al-Burhan’s army (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Large parts of the city lack electricity, clean water, healthcare and functioning transport, while key infrastructure, including bridges and hospitals, has been destroyed or rendered inoperable.
In recent weeks, SAF authorities have formally notified several countries, beginning with Egypt, of plans linked to the return of Sudanese civilians to Khartoum. Critics say the move risks forcing displaced people back into an unsafe environment and could expose civilians, including young people, to further harm.
Those who fled the capital argue that their departure was not an act of abandonment, but a survival decision amid indiscriminate violence. Millions left Khartoum and surrounding areas as fighting intensified, with many crossing into Egypt, Libya and other neighbouring states under dangerous conditions.
Sudanese refugees in Egypt describe widespread hardship, including poverty, discrimination and legal insecurity, saying they exhausted their savings simply to secure basic shelter and food. Many say their fear of return is driven not only by shortages of essential goods, but by reports of mass graves, decomposing bodies left in residential areas, damaged sewage systems, destroyed transport routes and the near-total collapse of public institutions.
Khartoum, long regarded as a socially diverse and cohesive city, has also seen rising social tensions during the war. Human rights groups and activists report cases of arbitrary arrests, harassment and collective punishment, with individuals targeted based on appearance, ethnicity or place of origin amid accusations of supporting one side or the other.
At the same time, critics point to what they describe as a stark contrast between the public rhetoric of SAF leaders and the reality faced by civilians. While senior military and Islamist figures have called on Sudanese abroad to return, many of their own families are believed to be living safely overseas, including in Egypt, Türkiye and Malaysia, with access to education and financial security.
From abroad, pro-SAF voices continue to publicly support the continuation of the war, urging escalation through media platforms, analysts say. However, opposition figures argue that concerns raised over forced return policies have focused primarily on protecting private investments, businesses and schools owned by elites, rather than on the safety and dignity of displaced civilians.
Some SAF-aligned figures have warned that returning a population deprived of services and hope could fuel unrest, a statement critics interpret as concern for regime stability rather than humanitarian conditions.
Analysts and civil society groups argue that Sudan’s crisis is rooted not in civilian displacement, but in the continuation of the war itself. They say any sustainable solution requires an end to the fighting and a political process that prioritises civilian protection and accountability.
Peace, they argue, remains the only path to preventing further humanitarian collapse.
