By Mathew Ndeti

After Sudanese authorities, through their official media, claimed to have downed a United Arab Emirates plane allegedly carrying Colombian “mercenaries” during its landing at Nyala Airport in Darfur, the narrative quickly collapsed under the scrutiny of the Western media, especially after it was inflated with allegations that “dozens” of mercenaries were killed.

Sudanese media circles described the report as a “fabricated scandal” hastily constructed in a clear attempt to incite both domestic and international public opinion against the United Arab Emirates. This backfired particularly due to the professionalism and accuracy of the Western media, which subjects every piece of information to thorough verification and investigation.

Prominent international news outlets, such as Deutsche Welle, cast serious doubt on the incident, referring to the claims made by Sudan’s official channel as mere “allegations.” They also noted that Sudanese Armed Forces Commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan unusually refrained from commenting on the matter, further fueling suspicions that the story was “concocted” by the regime’s media apparatus.

According to the Sudanese news site Al-Rakoba, a thorough investigation—utilizing modern technology such as satellite imagery, advanced digital media tools, independent sources, and aviation tracking platforms—confirmed that the entire story was “completely fabricated.” No UAE aircraft was recorded entering Sudanese airspace during the alleged time, no crash occurred, and no Colombian mercenaries were present in Darfur. The entire account was purely a product of media fiction.

International media quickly exposed the fragility of the alleged story, which became a subject of ridicule on social media platforms in Colombia. News agencies rephrased their initial reports, noting that the story was based on “conflicting information that cannot be independently verified,” in what appeared to be a tacit apology for their premature reporting of the claims as fact.

The situation worsened with the intervention of the Colombian government. President Gustavo Petro personally demanded an investigation into the alleged “killing of Colombian citizens,” causing significant diplomatic embarrassment for Port Sudan’s authorities and further straining their relations with the international community.

Observers believe this fabricated narrative could seriously undermine the credibility of previous accusations leveled by Sudanese authorities against the UAE, many of which were based on attempts to mislead global public opinion. These efforts culminated in the dismissal of Port Sudan’s case against Abu Dhabi at the International Court of Justice.

As is its usual approach, the UAE responded calmly and with composure to Sudan’s accusations, reaffirming its commitment to neutrality in the ongoing civil conflict and repeatedly calling for impartial international investigations into the Sudanese claims.

The UAE maintains that the Port Sudan authority continually resorts to “weak media maneuvers” aimed at deflecting attention from its direct responsibility in prolonging the civil war—now in its third year—and obstructing all regional and international efforts to achieve peace in Sudan.

Analysts link the renewed wave of accusations by Port Sudan against the UAE to the upcoming meeting of the Quad nations—comprising the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United States—in Washington, where discussions will focus on serious proposals to end the Sudanese conflict.

The four countries emphasize the urgent need to establish a binding mechanism for both warring parties to reach a ceasefire agreement and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians. This would pave the way for a comprehensive political process to end the war and restore a path toward democratic civilian governance in Sudan—an outcome that al-Burhan’s forces are actively seeking to obstruct.

Ndeti, a journalist, writes from Kenya