UK officials faced parliamentary scrutiny over alleged decision to keep Sudan genocide warnings from public, Guardian reports

British lawmakers are set to hear testimony alleging the UK government prioritized diplomatic ties with the United Arab Emirates over taking public steps to avert mass atrocities in Sudan, according to a report ahead of a parliamentary committee session on June 23, 2026.

The Guardian reported that the UK Foreign Office received intelligence as far back as 2024 indicating Ethiopia appeared to be supporting a genocidal militia active in Sudan’s civil war. The report says the government did not go public with the assessment, arguing that doing so could risk upsetting the United Arab Emirates, a partner in regional and diplomatic efforts.

The planned testimony will be delivered by Yale human rights investigator Nathaniel Raymond, who is scheduled to speak to a UK parliamentary select committee, the report said. The Guardian added that the alleged decision-making included what it described as pressure from the emirates, framed in the report as a factor in whether the information was shared publicly.

According to the Guardian, the committee will consider what the Foreign Office knew, when it knew it, and why public statements were not made earlier despite warning indicates. The report characterizes the issues as part of a broader accountability debate about how intelligence assessments are handled, especially when they relate to civilian protection and the prevention of atrocities.

The Foreign Office’s internal handling of the matter is expected to be a central focus for MPs, including questions about whether the government used available channels to raise the warning beyond confidential briefings, and what practical effect any delay may have had for efforts to constrain violence and protect communities caught in the conflict.

The committee session is also expected to revisit the UK’s broader approach to Sudan, including the balancing of national interests and relationships with Gulf partners against the risk that withholding warnings could reduce international pressure at a critical time, the Guardian report said.

No final outcome from the committee process was reported in the lead-up coverage. The testimony, however, is likely to shape what MPs request in follow-up documents or hearings, and whether ministers will be asked to clarify the legal and policy basis for keeping or disclosing intelligence linked to atrocity prevention.

If the allegations are confirmed through additional evidence presented to parliament, the case could become part of a wider scrutiny of parliamentary oversight of intelligence, as well as of how government departments decide when to publicize atrocity-related intelligence that may affect diplomatic leverage and the pace of international action.