From Water Plants to Warheads: Inside the Allegations of Sudan’s Chlorine Weapons

For two years, claims of chemical weapons in Sudan’s war were dismissed as battlefield rumors. That changed when The New York Times published a dossier it says proves an organized military program to weaponize chlorine in 2024.

The paper reports it obtained internal memos, videos, photos and intercepted calls. Together they describe a project to produce roughly 300 chlorine-filled bombs between July 2024 and January 2025, as the army tried to regain ground from the Rapid Support Forces.

The files name Brig. Gen. Tariq Hussein as a lead supervisor and outline the full chain: sourcing chlorine, designing the munition, testing in the desert, manufacturing, storage and deployment.

According to Independent.ng, what stands out is where the chlorine allegedly came from. Documents point to a civilian water-treatment plant in Omdurman.

In a country battling epidemics and service collapse, diverting a substance meant to keep water safe for millions into weapons raises the stakes.

The dossier also raises questions of command responsibility. Messages cited by the Times suggest Gen. al-Burhan knew about the program and later ordered evidence destroyed after the U.S. imposed sanctions.

Allegations have been building.

Independent.ng reported that civil society groups filed an ICC case against al-Burhan and three other senior officials over chemical weapons use and other violations against civilians. The filing came after AU and IGAD peace efforts failed and the army refused dialogue.

Washington has also moved.

Independent.ng further reported that U.S. sanctions against al-Burhan in January 2025 were followed by State Department penalties in May over alleged chemical weapons use.

Chlorine is not a scheduled chemical, but its deliberate use as a weapon is banned under international law. Its dual-use nature makes it attractive in conflict because it is easier to acquire than sarin or mustard gas.

Sudan denies the claims. But with names, dates, locations and correspondence now public, the pressure is on the international community. Sudan is a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and rights groups say only an independent OPCW-led probe can establish the facts.

The issue is bigger than one newspaper report. If the line against chemical weapons can be crossed in Sudan without accountability, it weakens that red line for every other conflict.