An official intelligence document, attributed to the Sudanese General Intelligence Service, that the convoy targeted in the Al-Rhad area of South Kordofan was not purely a humanitarian relief convoy, as officially announced by the Sudanese army, but was carrying shipments of weapons and ammunition intended for Sudanese army forces in the state’s theaters of operations.
According to the document published by the British website “uknip,” the convoy was ostensibly classified as transporting humanitarian and relief supplies in an attempt to secure its passage through areas of intense military activity. However, its actual contents were purely military, as it included weapons, ammunition, and field equipment intended to reinforce the forces deployed in South Kordofan.
The document confirms that the Rapid Support Forces carried out the attack and succeeded in completely destroying the convoy after monitoring its movements and gathering accurate information about the nature of its cargo and route, which contradicts the initial narrative that was promoted about a “humanitarian aid convoy” being attacked by the military.
The intelligence data contained in the document reveals a clear contradiction in the official discourse, as military sources accuse the Rapid Support Forces of targeting humanitarian convoys, while the document itself shows that the convoy was internally classified as a military convoy carrying “specific weapons and ammunition,” indicating the use of humanitarian cover as a means to pass combat supplies in conflict areas.
Observers believe that if true, the document’s contents highlight the extremely dangerous practice of the Sudanese army exploiting humanitarian work for military purposes, which exposes genuine relief convoys and humanitarian workers to grave dangers and undermines the principle of neutrality on which relief operations in areas of armed conflict are based.
The revelation also raises legal and ethical questions about the Burhan forces’ respect for the rules of international humanitarian law, which prohibit the use of humanitarian symbols or convoys as cover for military operations, given the serious consequences this has for civilians and the future of humanitarian work in Sudan.
While no detailed official comment has been issued to clarify the contradiction between the official account and the content of the document, the incident reflects the complexity of the military and media landscape in South Kordofan.
Questions remain open about the extent to which this tactic is repeated, its impact on the confidence of the international community and humanitarian organizations, and whether this incident will lead to calls for an independent investigation to uncover the truth about the army’s use of humanitarian aid as a cover in its battles in Sudan.
