When journalists struggle to gain access to a conflict zone, or financial constraints mean that international newsrooms no longer deploy their correspondents, who fills the void? Who is there to hold power to account, document developments, alleged human rights abuses, shifts in the popular mood, humanitarian access, and capture material that will contribute to future archives and perhaps even to justice for those whose voices would otherwise go unheard?

This piece for ISS Today/News24 captures the reality in Sudan today, described by many as a “silent conflict”. It is based on important work by Maha Bashiri and her colleagues, many of them former journalists, documenting the role played by activists who have remained in Sudan. Rather than fleeing the country, they have stayed, often because of financial circumstances, and are filling the journalism space. Many of them are not self-appointed representatives of the journalism profession, but they are the “eyes on the ground”. It isn’t perfect. There aren’t the oversight mechanisms or professional norms that journalists are expected to adhere to, but it is what is available, and they are telling their stories through social media platforms. The question is: imperfect as it may be, can these activist journalists act as a kind of fourth estate and contribute to telling the troubled story of Sudan, now a bloody proxy war with competing geopolitical interests wading in?

The question is: imperfect as it may be, can these activist journalists act as a kind of fourth estate and contribute to telling the troubled story of Sudan, now a bloody proxy war with competing geopolitical interests wading in?

Contrast this with reporting from Darfur in western Sudan when newsrooms still had the resources to deploy correspondents. I recall documenting stories of militias rampaging through villages, raping women as they went to collect firewood. Or stories of families cowering in makeshift camps after their homes had been burnt to the ground. Those types of atrocities mirror what we hear today. At the time, the focus was largely on the Janjaweed militia, which has since evolved into the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), now engaged in fighting with the Sudanese army. Both sides stand accused of heinous atrocities and, as always, civilians and the most vulnerable members of society are caught in the crossfire.

Justice may have been a long time coming, but it requires eyes on the ground to document events as they unfold. Who tells that story when the journalists have gone?

The point is that the battles in Darfur in the mid to late 2000s led to the first conviction at the International Criminal Court in 2025. At least six other individuals have been indicted. Justice may have been a long time coming, but it requires eyes on the ground to document events as they unfold. Who tells that story when the journalists have gone? Is there a role for activist journalists, with pre-existing social media followings, to gather similar testimonies that could support future accountability? Or is their credibility inevitably capped because their motivations may be unclear, or because they don’t carry an international press card?

Through their interviews with activist journalists, Maha Bashiri and her colleagues shine a light on an important debate. I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that we need people to “bear witness” and document events when the rest of the world looks away.

Read the article on ISS Today.

Read the article on News24.