For the second time; deadly raids on Sudanese miners near the Egyptian border, amid accusations against the Egyptian army

Alaa Khirawi ■ Once again, the deserts of northern Sudan and the mining areas bordering Egypt have become a theater of death, claiming the lives of Sudanese citizens who ventured out to seek a living amidst the sands. On October 10, 2026, the newspaper "Sudan Tribune" revealed that dozens of Sudanese miners had been killed and others injured, according to field reports, following airstrikes that targeted the Al-Aqidat mine near the Al-Ansari market on Friday, October 9. The newspaper cited miner Mirghani Malik, who stated that warplanes carried out more than five raids, and that at least 20 injured people were transported for treatment, while others fled into the mountains. Despite talk of dozens of deaths, no final verified toll has been made available, nor has the identity of the aircraft been confirmed, amid repeated accusations against the Egyptian air force that warrant an independent investigation. The blood of Sudanese citizens is not a marginal detail in the relations between the two countries, nor should it become the price for political relations between Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. If al-Burhan's authority has failed to protect its citizens from the fires of war, has it also failed to demand their protection from potential attacks across the border? And what meaning does national sovereignty hold when a Sudanese citizen falls dead, without their family knowing who killed them, why they were killed, or who will be held accountable for their blood? ■ This is not the first time that gold mines in that region have turned into arenas of death and destruction; the testimonies of survivors paint a tragic scene that goes beyond mere numbers to the details of the terror experienced by Sudanese miners. In the latest attacks, miner Mirghani Malik recounted to "Sudan Tribune" that warplanes carried out more than five raids on mining sites at the Al-Aqidat mine near the Al-Ansari market, confirming that at least twenty injured people were transported for treatment and that large numbers of miners fled to the mountains, where they faced thirst, fear, and the unknown. These scenes were not new to the region; on June 16, Jebel Al-Aqidat witnessed similar attacks. One survivor described the details in a testimony published by "Radio Dabanga" the following day, explaining that the raids began around 6:00 AM and targeted the "Ras al-Jebel" area where, by his estimation, between five and seven thousand Sudanese miners were working, and that the aircraft dropped four bombs or explosive barrels on the miners' gatherings. He added that they counted about fifty dead, and spoke of charred bodies and remains that could not be fully accounted for, with preliminary estimates that the casualties might exceed one hundred, in addition to fifty to sixty injured; figures based on survivor testimony that have not undergone independent verification. Most dangerously, the survivor spoke of aircraft he believed were Egyptian, stating they had been circling the area for days prior to the attack, while other testimonies attributed the raids to Egyptian forces. On June 25, the website "Mada Masr" published an investigative report that included the testimony of a young Sudanese miner who experienced one of the raids and documented part of what he saw with his phone. Although these reports do not constitute definitive proof of the aircraft's identity, they provide specific testimonies that require examination and investigation, revealing a human tragedy that cannot be reduced to a mere transient border incident, especially with the renewal of reports of bombing less than four months after the previous attacks. ■ Even more surprising, and indeed cause for resentment, indignation, and disapproval, is the stance of Abdel Fattah al-Burhan himself on these events. On June 22, days after the deadly raids, al-Burhan broke his silence during his visit to the Al-Rutj border area with Egypt, but he did not start by condemning the shelling or announcing diplomatic measures to protect citizens. Instead, according to "Radio Dabanga," he said: "We hear that there are people who crossed the border into Egypt and were subjected to an attack," then called on the Sudanese not to cross the border so as not to bring trouble upon themselves and the state, confirming that the authorities are investigating what happened. Herein lies the political and moral paradox; al-Burhan, who did not name the party responsible for the attack, chose to present the incident to public opinion from the angle of citizens crossing into Egyptian territory, while survivors confirmed that the shelling targeted mining sites within Sudanese territory. His statements sparked widespread criticism, including from journalist Rasha Awad, who considered them an adoption of the Egyptian narrative and a way to hold the victims responsible for their own fate. On June 23, "Radio Dabanga" cited survivors saying the location of the shelling is about twenty kilometers inside Sudanese territory; a determination that requires independent geographic verification, but one that should have been enough to make al-Burhan cautious about offering an explanation that pre-empts the investigation's results. More significantly, Dr. Amgad Farid, al-Burhan's advisor for political and foreign affairs, had spoken on June 18 about events that occurred between Egyptian forces and Sudanese miners, mentioning severe violence and casualties, calling for them to be addressed at the highest levels between the two countries. On the same day, the website "Ultra Sudan" quoted a high-ranking government official stating that Khartoum and Cairo intend to address the crisis through official channels, without resorting to summoning the Egyptian ambassador or diplomatic escalation. And here we are today with new reports of casualties in the same region, without the results of the investigation mentioned by al-Burhan having been made clear to public opinion, nor the nature of the remedies his government promised, nor the guarantees it received to prevent the recurrence of attacks. Where did those promises end? Has Khartoum received an official explanation from Cairo? Have the families of the victims been granted justice? Or has maintaining political relations with the Egyptian regime imposed a ceiling of silence on the Sudanese authorities that they cannot cross, even when it comes to the lives of their citizens? ■ As for the argument repeated about Sudanese miners crossing into Egyptian territory illegally, or approaching mining sites managed by Egyptian companies, it does not hold up, even if proven, as a justification for the use of lethal military force against civilians who do not pose a threat warranting such use. Crossing the border without permission is a violation handled by law enforcement agencies according to legal standards, not a death sentence carried out by fighter jets. Last June, the Egyptian Armed Forces announced the implementation of a broad security campaign in the southern military zone against smuggling, illegal gold prospecting, and illegal immigration. They announced the arrest of 87 Egyptian citizens and 136 foreigners, totaling 223 people, and the confiscation of unlicensed vehicles, equipment, weapons, and ammunition. However, that announcement did not include an admission of carrying out the airstrikes reported by survivors, or an explanation for the reported deaths and injuries of Sudanese. The issue becomes even more complicated with the presence of discrepancies between sources regarding the exact geographical location of the attacks; while Sudanese reports attribute the Al-Aqidat mine to the River Nile State, and survivors' testimonies confirm some raids occurred inside Sudanese territory, the "Mada Masr" investigation places the site of the June attacks north of the Hala'ib Triangle, within territory that Egypt considers part of its region. Therefore, determining the actual coordinates of the shelling is a fundamental issue for resolving legal and political responsibilities, and for verifying whether the operations involved a violation of Sudanese sovereignty. If it is proven that Egyptian forces targeted civilians without legal justification, responsibility is not diminished by the excuse of combating smuggling or protecting mineral resources; nor does the occurrence of an attack inside Egyptian territory, if proven, exempt the authorities from their legal obligations toward civilians. If it is proven that Egyptian aircraft carried out the attacks inside Sudanese territory without legal standing, the case takes on an additional dimension related to the violation of national sovereignty. In either case, the life of a Sudanese human being cannot become a hostage to border disputes, economic interests, or political alliances. The question that should be directed to Cairo is: Were there military operations that targeted gatherings of miners, what was their nature and objectives, and who gave the orders to execute them? As for the question directed to Khartoum: Why has it not yet announced to public opinion the results of its investigations into one of the most dangerous incidents affecting Sudanese citizens near the Egyptian border? ■ What happened in June, and what is reported to have recurred in October, should not pass as many other Sudanese tragedies have, buried by the war under a pile of news. What is required today is not more expressions of regret and concern, but a clear official Sudanese position that begins with publishing the results of previous investigations, identifying the locations of the attacks and the number of victims, and forming an independent investigative committee that has the necessary technical means to determine the identity of the aircraft and the parties that issued the orders to shell, and demanding that Cairo provide official clarifications and cooperate in uncovering the truth, in addition to seeking justice and compensation for the victims' families once responsibility is proven. It is unacceptable for relations between Khartoum and Cairo to become political immunity that prevents accountability, or for the frequent talk of historical bonds and a common destiny to become a substitute for respect for the lives and dignity of Sudanese people. Relations between peoples are not maintained by turning a blind eye to violations or avoiding difficult questions, but by clarity, justice, and respect for rights. It is the right of the Sudanese people to ask al-Burhan, who never stops talking about national sovereignty: Why did the issue of miners crossing the border seem more urgent in his statements than the issue of them falling dead and injured? Why have the results of the investigation he promised not been announced? And what will his position be if evidence proves that the aircraft of a country allied with him are responsible for killing Sudanese citizens? The most dangerous thing this issue reveals, beyond the magnitude of the human losses, is the possibility that the victims' blood could turn into a file to be contained politically to preserve relations between the rulers. Sovereignty is not speeches given before crowds, nor flags raised on occasions, nor fiery statements made when the adversary is Sudanese; it is a responsibility that begins with protecting the human being and requires uncovering the truth and holding the aggressors accountable. If the authority is unable to protect its citizens, its minimum duty is not to let its silence become a cover for those who attacked them, and not to let its keenness for political relations become an additional reason for the loss of their rights. A state that does not stand up for the blood of its citizens is not enough to talk about sovereignty; it must first prove that it exercises it. khirawi@hotmail.com The post For the second time; deadly raids on Sudanese miners near the Egyptian border, amid accusations against the Egyptian army appeared first on Sudanile.