Controversial Referendum Law Sparks Debate in Kinshasa
On Tuesday, the Constitutional Court of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) upheld a new referendum law that critics argue could pave the way for President Félix Tshisekedi to seek a third term. The decision has elicited mixed reactions in Kinshasa, the nation’s capital, where residents weigh the promise of institutional reform against fears of constitutional overreach.
What the Law Allows
The legislation creates a mechanism for constitutional change when the judiciary declares a “significant dysfunction” of state institutions. In such a scenario, the president may convene a constituent assembly, draft a new constitution, and submit it to a national referendum.
- The current constitution limits the president to two five‑year terms.
- Tshisekedi, first elected in 2019 and re‑elected in 2023, would be required to step down at the end of 2028 under the existing rules.
- The law does not explicitly remove the term limit; instead, it offers a procedural route to rewrite the constitution, which could then alter term limits.
Legal scholars note that the provision is unprecedented in Congolese jurisprudence. The International Commission of Jurists warned that the vague definition of “significant dysfunction” could be exploited to justify frequent constitutional revisions.
Public Opinion in Kinshasa
Street interviews reveal a divided populace. Martine Kabangu, a market vendor in the Gombe district, expressed support:
“We have a lot of work to do and there are things that we need to shake up and recalibrate. I support this bill, I support it.”
Bosco Kimbi, a university student, echoed a similar sentiment, emphasizing the need for a constitution that safeguards national interests:
“We need a different constitution that protects the country and the people and allows us to move forward. We will not be stuck in a whirlwind where the country is repeatedly plundered here and there and we still benefit from nothing.”
Conversely, opposition activists argue that the law undermines democratic safeguards. A protest in June turned violent after clashes between pro‑government demonstrators and police left several people injured, according to Reuters.
Broader Context: Security and Health Crises
The referendum debate unfolds amid mounting challenges:
- Renewed fighting in the east between government forces and the Rwandan‑backed M23 rebel group has displaced tens of thousands of civilians (UNHCR, 2024).
- The World Health Organization reported a resurgence of Ebola cases in Équateur province, prompting renewed vaccination campaigns (WHO, August 2024).
- Economic indicators show inflation hovering around 15 % and a fiscal deficit exceeding 5 % of GDP, according to the IMF’s latest DRC report (IMF, July 2024).
Analysts suggest that some citizens view constitutional flexibility as a tool to address these crises swiftly, while others fear it may entrench authoritarian tendencies.
Institutional Independence and the Road Ahead
Observers point out that both the judiciary and legislature in the DRC are widely perceived as lacking independence. Human Rights Watch noted in its 2023 report that judicial appointments often reflect political patronage, raising concerns about the impartiality of any future constitutional review process.
President Tshisekedi has repeatedly denied seeking a third term, stating that he would accept another mandate only if the Congolese people explicitly demanded it. Nevertheless, opposition parties—still reeling from a landslide defeat in the 2023 presidential election—have pledged to block any amendment that could extend his rule.
As the country navigates security threats, health emergencies, and economic strain, the referendum law will likely remain a focal point of national discourse. Whether it becomes a mechanism for genuine reform or a conduit for prolonged executive power will depend on the transparency of the constituent assembly process and the vigilance of civil society.
Article compiled from interviews conducted in Kinshasa (August 2024), statements by the Constitutional Court, and reports from Reuters, WHO, UNHCR, IMF, International Commission of Jurists, and Human Rights Watch.
