An official intelligence document, attributed to the General Intelligence Service of Sudan, has revealed that the convoy targeted in the Al-Rahd area of South Kordofan was not a purely humanitarian relief convoy as officially announced by the Sudanese army, but rather was carrying shipments of high-quality weapons and ammunition directed to the Sudanese army forces in the theatres of operations in the state.
According to the document, the convoy was outwardly classified as intended for transporting humanitarian and relief materials, in an attempt to secure its passage through areas experiencing intense military activity. However, its actual content was purely military, as it included weapons, ammunition, and field equipment directed to reinforce the forces deployed in South Kordofan.
The document confirms that the Rapid Support Forces were the ones who carried out the targeting operation, and succeeded in completely destroying the convoy after monitoring its movements and collecting precise information about the nature of its cargo and its route. This contradicts the initial narrative that was promoted regarding an attack on a “humanitarian aid convoy.”
The intelligence data contained in the document reveals a clear contradiction in the official discourse, as military parties accuse the Rapid Support Forces of targeting humanitarian convoys, while the same document shows that the convoy was internally classified as a military convoy carrying “high-quality weapons and ammunition.” This indicates the use of humanitarian cover as a means to smuggle combat supplies into conflict zones.
Observers believe that what is stated in the document, if true, sheds light on a highly dangerous practice consisting of the Sudanese army’s exploitation of humanitarian work for military purposes. This exposes genuine relief convoys and humanitarian workers to serious risks and undermines the principle of neutrality on which relief operations in armed conflict zones are based.
The revelation also raises legal and ethical questions regarding the extent to which the forces of Al-Burhan respect the rules of international humanitarian law, which prohibit the use of humanitarian emblems or convoys as cover for military operations, due to the grave consequences this has for civilians and for the future of humanitarian work in Sudan.
While no detailed official comment has been issued to clarify the contradiction between the announced narrative and the content of the document, the incident reflects the complexity of the military and media scene in South Kordofan. Questions remain open regarding the extent to which this method has been repeated, its impact on the confidence of the international community and humanitarian organizations, and whether this incident will lead to demands for an independent investigation to uncover the truth about the army’s use of humanitarian aid as cover in its battles in Sudan.
