A spokesman for Sudan’s Joint Forces said the group and the Sudanese Armed Forces had taken Umm Sayala in North Kordofan during an operation against the Rapid Support Forces. The account came from Mutawakkil Ali Wakil in an interview reported by Sudan Horizon. The publication said it had not independently confirmed his claims.
Wakil attributed at least 38 RSF deaths to the operation. He also claimed that the allied forces destroyed 21 combat vehicles and seized another 17 together with weapons and ammunition. No casualty figure for the Joint Forces or the SAF appeared in the supplied account, and there was no response from the RSF. The reported toll and battlefield outcome therefore remain claims from one party to Sudan’s war.
The spokesman portrayed the fighting as part of a broader sequence of operations along the North Kordofan front. He said allied units had removed remaining RSF elements from the area, language that could not be assessed against independent reporting in the available evidence. His statement also presented the result as a step toward further advances in western Sudan.
Umm Sayala matters militarily because of its position between North Kordofan and the Darfur states, according to Wakil. He described the area as a corridor used to move fuel, equipment and other supplies. Its difficult terrain can also offer cover to the force controlling it, he said. Those characteristics, in his assessment, make the location useful both for protecting rear positions and for restricting an opponent’s ability to reorganise.
Wakil further linked the claimed result to the defection of an RSF force. He said defectors surrendered with equipment and supplied information about RSF positions and weaknesses before the battle. He argued that the episode showed declining morale within the RSF, while helping the Joint Forces plan the operation. The evidence packet contains no independent account of the alleged defection, its size or its operational effect.
Beyond its military value, Wakil said Umm Sayala supported grazing and farming. In his account, control by government-aligned forces would protect local resources and civilians, but the supplied report offered no testimony from residents or humanitarian organisations. The central verified point is that the Joint Forces publicly claimed a battlefield gain on July 25; control of the area, losses, equipment figures and the effects on civilians all require corroboration. Wakil also alleged that the change would protect residents from extortion and forced recruitment. Neither practice was documented through civilian testimony in the packet, which supplied no information about displacement, damage or humanitarian access after the fighting.
