The Democratic Republic of the Congo is at a crossroads as lawmakers recently passed a new bill regulating referendum procedures, particularly for constitutional amendments—two decades after the 2005 referendum law. The move has ignited a fierce debate over popular sovereignty and the limits of political power in Kinshasa.
Critics argue that the reform paves the way for President Félix Tshisekedi to pursue a third consecutive term, while supporters view it as a legitimate mechanism to uphold the will of the people. The divide extends beyond politics, delving into constitutional interpretation and the role of public consultation in governance.
Legal and public perspectives
For proponents like Maria Eloyi, a jurist in Kinshasa, the referendum remains the ultimate expression of popular sovereignty. “The Constitution is the voice of the people. Any change, even a modification, must go through this process. It’s not just about political interests—some articles simply need updating,” she explains. Her stance resonates with citizens like Placide Lukeka, a young resident of Kinshasa, who believes constitutional reform could usher in positive transformation. “I’ve always supported this initiative. Those who claim it’s purely political are mistaken. A new Republic could bring real progress.”
However, not everyone shares this optimism. Ange Aloki, another resident, questions the timing and priorities of the debate. “There are far more urgent issues in this country. Why spend so much energy on a referendum two years before elections? Where were they all this time when the Constitution needed changing?” she asks.
Constitutional contradictions?
The legal community is equally divided. Godefroy Mwanabwato, a lawyer from Tshopo, warns that the bill may overstep the legislature’s authority. “The Constitutional Court must strike down any provisions that exceed the legal framework for referendums,” he asserts. Meanwhile, opposition lawmakers have boycotted the legislative process and organized protests, including a city-wide strike and a sit-in, to voice their opposition.
The new law’s fate now hinges on constitutional scrutiny, public opinion, and the upcoming electoral cycle—leaving the future of popular sovereignty in the balance.
