Drone attack near market kills 80 in Sudan

The attack struck al-Dibab, a town in Sudan’s West Kordofan state. It hit a transport hub near a market on Sunday evening, as commuters gathered to return to their villages after market day. The strike killed 80 people, making it one of the war’s deadliest single attacks.

Witness Ahmed Wadi said the drone struck twice, 10 minutes apart. He helped bury 50 bodies, including his brother Mohamed. Another 47 people were taken to al-Mujlad, the nearest town. A medical source said 30 of those injured later died. A second drone strike in al-Mujlad injured four people.

The locations matter because West Kordofan is controlled by the Rapid Support Forces. The RSF’s administration blamed the army for the al-Dibab attack. The incident shows how civilians can be caught at transport points far from Sudan’s capital, as drone warfare expands across the country.

A drone strike is an attack carried out by an unmanned aircraft, usually controlled remotely. The aircraft can observe a target and release explosives without placing a pilot directly over the battlefield. This makes drones useful in war, but it also creates serious risks for people nearby.

A transport hub is especially dangerous because many civilians gather in one small area. At al-Dibab, commuters were waiting for rides to their villages after the market closed. The drone struck twice, 10 minutes apart. The first attack killed or wounded people at the hub, while the second could hit rescuers, stranded travelers, or others who had gathered.

The reported result was catastrophic. Wadi helped bury 50 bodies, including his brother, and 47 people were transported to al-Mujlad. The medical source reported 80 deaths overall. The attack shows why crowded civilian spaces can become deadly when surveillance, targeting, or accountability fails.

The al-Dibab attack killed 80 people. The medical source also reported that another drone strike on al-Mujlad injured four people who were receiving treatment. Of 47 people transported from al-Dibab to al-Mujlad, 30 later died from their injuries. These figures show both the immediate and continuing human cost of the strikes.

The wider numbers are even more striking. Between January and April, drone strikes accounted for at least 880 civilian deaths in Sudan. That represented more than 80% of all conflict-related civilian deaths during that period. The figures place the al-Dibab attack within a broader escalation in drone use.

The pattern suggests that drones are not causing isolated harm. They are becoming a major source of civilian deaths across the war. Another strike on a livestock market in Nyala produced competing claims about casualties. Continued drone attacks could deepen civilian suffering and make safe travel, markets, and medical response increasingly difficult.

The Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, are Sudan’s army. They are headed by Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. The Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, are a paramilitary force led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. Both are major armed powers competing for control of Sudan.

The war began in April 2023 after a power struggle between the SAF and RSF erupted into violence in Khartoum, the capital. That political and military confrontation spread beyond the capital. The two sides now fight across several regions, using weapons that include drones.

Their rivalry explains why responsibility for attacks is often contested. Each side seeks battlefield gains and denies or shifts blame for civilian casualties. The article reports that all of West Kordofan is under RSF control, while the RSF-declared administration accused the army of the al-Dibab strike. The conflict has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced many more.

Responsibility for the al-Dibab strike is disputed because the RSF-declared administration, Tasis, accused the army of carrying it out. The article reports the accusation but does not provide an independent finding about who launched the drone. That uncertainty reflects the wider war, where opposing sides make competing claims about attacks and casualties.

West Kordofan’s political and military setting makes the dispute especially important. The article says all of the state is under RSF control. Al-Dibab is in that state, so the attack happened in territory held by one side while the RSF blamed its enemy, the SAF. The RSF also controls the local environment in which witnesses and medical workers report events.

Control does not end the fighting. It can make an area a target for attempts to weaken the opposing force or challenge its authority. The attack shows that RSF-held territory remains vulnerable. It also makes reliable information and civilian protection harder during an escalating drone war.

The wider war has brought enormous civilian suffering. The article says fighting has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced many more. Civilians face danger not only on battlefields, but also at markets, transport hubs, and livestock markets. Drone attacks have become a major cause of recent civilian deaths.

Communication and medical care are also under pressure. Ahmed Wadi used a satellite internet connection to get around a communications blackout and report what happened. After the al-Dibab strike, 47 people were taken to al-Mujlad, the nearest town. A medical source said 30 of them died from their injuries, showing how difficult survival and treatment can be.

The article does not describe the full medical system, but these events show limited access to urgent care. A separate strike in al-Mujlad injured four people. With fighting worsening and no breakthrough in sight, civilians may continue to face displacement, disrupted communication, dangerous travel, and delayed treatment.

A civil war is an organized armed conflict between opposing groups within the same country. Sudan’s war fits that description because the SAF and RSF are fighting for power inside Sudan. The conflict began in April 2023 after their power struggle erupted into violence in Khartoum.

Military gains can make peace harder when each side believes it can win more by fighting. The UN official Rosemary DiCarlo said the warring parties were not moving closer to dialogue. Instead, they appeared to believe that greater battlefield gains could help them achieve their goals by force. That belief reduces the incentive to compromise.

Foreign support can strengthen the same calculation. The article says the war has been fuelled by foreign powers with vested interests supporting the sides. DiCarlo warned that continued external support could let the parties pursue their objectives by force. As long as outside backing and battlefield hopes continue, negotiations may remain distant and the humanitarian crisis may worsen.