SAF Captures Multiple Towns in North and West Kordofan

On 21 September 2026, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) announced the capture of six towns—Sawdiri, Al Mazrub, Abu Hajar, Umm Hajlij and Damira in North Kordofan, and Hanaitir in West Kordofan—from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The brief, posted at 19:47 UTC by the Telegram outlet WF Witness, reported no fatalities or injuries associated with the operation.

What Is Known

The only publicly available account of the incident comes from a single Telegram post by WF Witness. The post states that the SAF “were able to capture the towns of Sawdiri, Al Mazrub, Abu Hajar, Umm Hajlij and Damira in North Kordofan as well as the town of Hanaitir in West Kordofan, Sudan, from the RSF.” The language used suggests that the towns changed hands during an active engagement, but the post does not provide a detailed timeline of when each town was seized.

The same message adds that “recent gains suggest that the SAF have launched a large offensive against RSF positions in the area.” This phrasing indicates that the captures are part of a broader operational push, although the post does not quantify the size of the forces involved, the duration of the offensive, or the specific objectives beyond the territorial changes.

Location and Context

North Kordofan and West Kordofan are administrative divisions within Sudan. The towns mentioned—Sawdiri, Al Mazrub, Abu Hajar, Umm Hajlij, Damira and Hanaitir—are situated within these two divisions. While the post does not describe the geographic characteristics of each location, the fact that they are grouped together implies a concentration of combat activity across a relatively contiguous area of the Kordofan region.

The capture of multiple towns in a single reported operation points to a coordinated effort by the SAF across both northern and western parts of Kordofan. The inclusion of towns from two separate divisions suggests that the SAF’s operational reach extended beyond a single front line, potentially indicating a multi‑directional advance. However, the post does not clarify whether the towns were seized simultaneously, sequentially, or over an extended period.

Casualties and Immediate Impact

The WF Witness post explicitly reports zero fatalities and zero injuries associated with the captures. No civilian or combatant casualty figures are provided, and there is no mention of damage to infrastructure, displacement of residents, or humanitarian concerns. The absence of reported casualties does not preclude the possibility that injuries or deaths occurred but were not documented in the brief.

From an impact perspective, the change in control of six towns could have strategic implications for supply routes, local governance, and the balance of power between the SAF and RSF in Kordofan. The post does not elaborate on any administrative handover, security measures taken after the capture, or the response of local populations. Consequently, the immediate humanitarian or logistical consequences remain unaddressed in the available information.

Corroboration and Sourcing

The sole source cited for the event is WF Witness, a Telegram‑based outlet that regularly publishes updates on the Sudanese conflict. The post is dated 21 September 2026 at 19:47 UTC, providing a precise timestamp for the claim. No additional media outlets, official statements, or independent observers are referenced in the brief, and no photographic or video evidence accompanies the text.

Given that the information originates from a single, unverified channel, the level of corroboration is limited. The post itself does not reference any statements from SAF or RSF commanders, nor does it cite any third‑party monitoring organizations. As a result, the verification of the town captures rests entirely on the credibility of WF Witness, which cannot be independently assessed within the scope of this briefing.

What Remains Unconfirmed

Several key elements of the reported operation remain unverified. First, the exact timing of each town’s capture is not specified beyond the overall date of the report. Second, the size, composition, and equipment of the forces involved on either side are absent, leaving the scale of the “large offensive” open to interpretation. Third, while the post states that no casualties were reported, it does not confirm whether casualty data were collected or simply omitted.

Further, the status of the RSF after the alleged losses is unclear. The brief does not indicate whether the RSF withdrew voluntarily, was forced to retreat, or continues to contest control of any of the towns. The broader strategic objectives of the SAF—such as securing supply lines, establishing new forward bases, or influencing political negotiations—are also not detailed.

Finally, independent verification from additional news agencies, humanitarian organizations, or official government releases has not been presented. Until corroborating reports emerge, the claims of town captures and the characterization of a “large offensive” should be treated as provisional, pending further evidence.

---

Sources: WF Witness (Telegram)