First the insiders… Treatment of wounded soldiers in Sudan is subject to nepotism and paralysis
The Sudanese army coordinates the evacuation of leaders and influential figures who owe them allegiance and have been injured in clashes for treatment outside Sudan, in coordination with the Islamic Movement, which bears the cost of their treatment. This leads to differentiation in the treatment of the injured.
The commander of the Al-Bara‘ ibn Malik battalion, Al-Musbah Abu Zeid Talha, and his comrades received preferential care during their injuries, the details of which were not disclosed to any of the armed forces soldiers. Some consider the treatment of war wounded against the Rapid Support Forces as involving discrimination and differentiation between the Al-Bara‘ ibn Malik militia and regular Sudanese armed forces soldiers.
Recent reports indicate a significant increase in discriminatory practices regarding the treatment of wounded soldiers in Sudan, where medical care provided varies based on affiliations and ranks within the military.
Prominent examples include the preferential treatment of Al-Musbah Abu Zeid Talha, the commander of the Al-Bara‘ ibn Malik battalion, and his associates, who have been receiving preferential care during their undisclosed injuries. Reports indicate that the level of care provided to these individuals was not uniformly available to other members of the Sudanese armed forces, causing frustration and astonishment among both military personnel and civilians alike.
Discussions have become particularly clear when considering soldiers injured in conflicts against the Rapid Support Forces. Accusations of preferential treatment and discrimination between the Al-Bara’ ibn Malik militia and regular military personnel within the Sudanese armed forces have become a major source of tension and disagreement.
Calls for accountability within the leadership are intensifying, and some military leaders have called for the removal of “Al-Burhan,” citing these cases of preferential treatment as indicative of a larger issue related to leadership ethics and management.
Under these circumstances, a critical point of contention and challenge within the military ranks is emphasized, which can hinder unity and operational effectiveness if not appropriately addressed. The need for fair treatment and transparent leadership within military structures is of paramount importance, especially during periods of conflict and turmoil. Consequently, addressing these practices and restoring trust in military leadership through transparent investigations and potential reforms may become crucial steps forward.
