Hospitals in Kosti treated 14 people following an aerial attack that also left a civilian dead, according to an account published by Sudan Horizon. Local authorities said remotely piloted aircraft were used against non-military locations around the city, which lies within White Nile state.
A petrol station was among the places affected, although the report did not offer a full inventory of damaged property. It gave no names for those harmed and did not describe the age, gender or medical status of the patients. The reported toll came through the state-run Sudan News Agency, meaning the figures reflect information released by government-linked officials.
Afterward, White Nile Governor Qamar Al-Din Mohamed Fadl Al-Mawla toured the scene with members of the state security committee. Health and Social Development Minister Al-Zain Saad Adam accompanied that delegation. They subsequently went to both Kosti Hospital and Al-Madina Hospital, where wounded residents were receiving care, and reviewed the treatment being provided.
Saad Adam said medical institutions responded promptly and delivered first aid as well as further treatment to every wounded patient. His comments did not specify whether any injuries were critical, whether surgery was required, or whether patients remained hospitalized. No later health update appeared in the supplied account.
The governor used his visit to say violence directed at civilians and public-service infrastructure would not stop the Sudanese Armed Forces and aligned units from pursuing security and stability. That assertion was an official reaction to the incident and does not independently establish who ordered or carried out the operation.
Government authorities assigned responsibility to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. However, Sudan Horizon did not present physical evidence supporting that conclusion, such as recovered components, launch information or verified flight data. Nor did its account include a response from the RSF. Responsibility must therefore remain described as the position of Sudanese officials rather than a finding independently confirmed by the available reporting.
Important operational details were also absent. The source did not state how many aircraft were involved, what munitions they carried, the time of the explosions, or whether emergency teams confronted continuing danger. It mentioned neither an investigation nor a subsequent military response.
The narrow record supports three central points: authorities documented casualties, senior state representatives inspected the affected area, and two local hospitals cared for survivors. A fuller assessment would require independent confirmation, medical updates and verifiable information about the devices used. Until such evidence emerges, claims about responsibility and the broader purpose of the operation remain unresolved beyond the official Sudanese account. The source likewise gave no indication of displacement, service interruptions or damage beyond the sites it specifically identified.
