The suspense has ended for many observers in Kinshasa: the law pertaining to the organization of a referendum in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been deemed constitutional by the Constitutional Court. This pivotal decision has immediately ignited intense debate within the Congolese political arena.
Political commentators highlight that beneath this ruling lies a profound division among the nation’s political elite. For opposition factions, this legislative move could pave the way for a constitutional amendment, potentially enabling the current head of state to extend his tenure. Conversely, the presidential camp vehemently rejects this interpretation, asserting that any reform is solely aimed at enhancing the functionality of state institutions.
President Félix Tshisekedi, 63, who assumed power in 2019, is slated to conclude his second term at the end of 2028. The Congolese Constitution currently expressly prohibits any revision to the number or duration of presidential mandates. However, during a rare press conference earlier in May, President Tshisekedi stated that he had “not sought a third term” but affirmed that “if the people wish for me to have a third term, I will accept.”
Opposition mounts resistance
A critical stage has now been reached. With the referendum law already passed by the National Assembly and validated by the Senate, President Félix Tshisekedi now possesses the authority to promulgate it. This development has galvanized the opposition, which stands firmly against the move.
For these dissenting voices, promulgating the referendum law could indeed open the door to a constitutional revision, which, in turn, might allow President Tshisekedi to reset his term count and seek a third mandate. This prospect is entirely unacceptable to the opposition, which has been mobilizing for weeks to thwart any attempts at constitutional amendment. While the Congolese government has offered no official justification for the opposition’s mistrust, President Tshisekedi’s prior remarks about accepting a third term if proposed by the populace continue to fuel their concerns.
The Catholic Church also voices opposition
Adding significant weight to the opposition, the highly influential Catholic Church in the DRC has also spoken out against any constitutional alterations. The Cenco, the Episcopal Conference of Congo, which brings together bishops from across all provinces, issued an unequivocal statement regarding proposed constitutional changes. The Congolese prelates firmly declared that they saw “neither the necessity, nor the urgency, nor the opportunity to modify the Constitution.” This represents a clear repudiation of any move that could facilitate a third term for the President.
In expressing their veto, the Catholic prelates demonstrate consistency. Many recall the widespread, Church-inspired demonstrations in 2018 aimed at dissuading then-President Joseph Kabila from seeking a third term, which the Constitution stipulated should be his last. At that time, under immense public pressure, coupled with international condemnation and threats of sanctions, Joseph Kabila reluctantly conceded.
Dialogue: a path forward or a political trap?
The debate surrounding the Constitution could potentially be addressed during a political dialogue anticipated to emerge in the coming weeks. However, the exact nature and inclusivity of such a dialogue remain highly conditional.
Specialized platforms focusing on the DRC note that President Tshisekedi has tasked religious confessions with organizing a political dialogue, though its specific parameters—including whether it will truly encompass all key stakeholders in the Congolese crisis, such as former President Kabila—are yet to be defined. Furthermore, there is a clear divergence in views regarding the dialogue’s thematic focus. The government primarily emphasizes national cohesion in the face of Rwandan aggression, while the opposition remains steadfastly focused on preventing constitutional change. The head of state has reportedly expressed a willingness to discuss “all questions of national interest,” suggesting that the constitutional debate might not be off-limits. Nevertheless, observers caution against the inherent risks of such exercises, where incumbent powers sometimes leverage dialogue to weaken opposition through offering superficial power-sharing arrangements.