A military position in Sokoura, in the circle of Bankass, “was the subject of a terrorist attack” on the night of Monday to Tuesday, the army said, which reports a provisional balance sheet of “nine dead and wounded in its ranks. A reinforcement dispatched to the scene then fell, Tuesday morning, in an ambush, which resulted in “three dead, ten wounded” and missing, according to the statement.
The Malian army faced two attacks. First is its camp located in the center of the country, a few dozen kilometers from the border with Burkina Faso. A place considered strategic.
On the spot, the attackers, described as “terrorists” according to official terminology, arrived on foot and in vehicles. They reportedly benefited from local complicity. An elected official from a neighboring locality spoke of “heavy fire heard”. Nine Malian soldiers were initially killed in the camp. A reinforcement of the regular army was then quickly dispatched to the scene. But he was ambushed near a small bridge, the Parou Bridge, located between the towns of Bandiagara and Bankass.
According to independent sources, the army lost three men on the spot. The attackers also suffered significant losses, with at least nine combatants killed and two of their vehicles destroyed.
On the same road, still between the localities of Bandiagara and Bankass, a bus carrying civilians was ambushed by suspected jihadists. Twelve passengers, including two women and a child, were killed instantly.
On Tuesday afternoon, a new army reinforcement was sent on the ground. The objective is to quickly secure the attacked camp. These bloody attacks in the region of Mopti, come shortly after the release of 4 hostages from Mali and Europe by the jihadists. By these acts, did the latter want to signify the end of the truce on the ground?
Another question, the counterpart of the enlarged hostages is notably the release of jihadist prisoners in central Mali. Among them, did any of them participate in the latest attacks on the military and civilians to sign their return to the field? These questions remain unanswered for the moment, but one thing is certain: armed men described as “terrorists” still have the capacity to act.