Kabila's War Crimes Ruling Poised to Heighten Political Instability

Kim Heller

The verdict has been delayed, and tension mounts in the trial of Joseph Kabila, the former President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from 2001 to 2019. The judgement is now set for Friday, 19 September, in the High Military Court in Kinshasa.

Kabila has been formally accused of treason. These allegations were primarily sparked by his brief visit to Goma in May 2025. Kabila was reported to have met with M23 rebel group representatives. During the trial, the State prosecutor accused Kabila of conspiring with the M23, participating in war crimes, and embezzlement.

Article 202 of the DRC Penal Code plainly states that aiding armed rebel groups is a danger to national security and is therefore treasonous. Prosecutors have reasoned that any support Kabila may have provided to M23 could also violate global humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In a rather unexpected turn of events, which caused the delay in issuing a ruling in this trial, the State is now considering charging the former President with espionage rather than treason. There is fresh evidence that incriminates Kabila in funding the M23 rebel group. Three additional witnesses are expected to testify about financial transactions. This is a serious matter.

Treason and espionage are categorised as capital offences under the legal framework of the country. These crimes carry the harshest punishments, including the death penalty. State prosecutors are pushing for the death penalty for former president Joseph Kabila if he is found guilty.

The Kabila trial has attracted attention, both on the Continent and beyond. The trial raises crucial questions about the quality and credibility of governance and judicial independence in the DRC. The verdict will determine the fate and legacy of former President Joseph Kabila and have far-reaching impacts for the integrity of the DRC's judicial system. The ruling could also significantly affect the political stability of the country, and if seen as weaponised, could fuel greater conflict and damage current and future peace initiatives.

Kabila, who has been in exile in South Africa since 2023, describes the charges against him as politically motivated. He has clearly stated that the trial is no exercise in justice and accountability. Instead, he is adamant that he is being persecuted and prevented from political participation. While he may not hold official political power, Kabila remains an influential figure in the DRC and on the Continent, with strong political allies and networks. 

Tension between Kabila and the current President, Felix Tshisekedi, has grown after Kabila voiced harsh criticism of the President's failure to address the ongoing conflict and its dire consequences. Instability, conflict, loss of life, displacement, and despair remain commonplace features of contemporary DRC. Earlier this year, M23 gained control of several strategic towns and key infrastructure, exposing the weakness of the Tshisekedi administration.

Kabila's political party, the People's Party for Reconstruction and Democracy (PPRD), has been suspended, and his assets confiscated under anti-corruption legislation. This could be a transgression of the country's Constitution, which protects against arbitrary property confiscation.

Legal experts have expressed concerns about the prosecution of Kabila within a military rather than a civil tribunal, noting that the nation's Constitution distinctly separates civilian and military jurisdictions. The decision to try a former head of State in a military rather than a civilian court suggests that political imperatives may be at play.

Kabila's legal representatives have complained of procedural irregularities. Kabila has the option to pursue recourse through the ICC should he be convicted and unable to find justice in DRC courts.

If the trial is flawed or purposed for political objectives rather than for justice and accountability, this will amount to an erosion of the DRC's Constitution and rule of law. A partisan and politically driven outcome will certainly draw scrutiny and condemnation from both the African Union and the United Nations.

This trial takes place in a troubled DRC. Over seven million people have been displaced. Displacement camps are filled to the brim, and food shortages, disease, and poverty persist in a climate of continued conflict and uncertainty. This trial is casting a deep shadow over peace talks. The U.S.-mediated negotiations between Kinshasa and Kigali have stalled, as have the Doha-negotiated demobilisation plans.

A verdict in this trial that is seen to be politically motivated could harm ongoing peace negotiations and heighten discord and instability, imperil or even collapse peace talks and ceasefires, and embolden M23 rebels.

On the other hand, a verdict that honours the provisions of the Constitution and the rule of law could boost the standing of the Tshisekedi administration and the credibility of its judiciary. This could bolster peace efforts.

At a time of great uncertainty and turmoil in DRC, where peace is elusive and accountability is low, the Kabila trial presents an important opportunity to demonstrate judicial integrity and good governance.

President Felix Tshisekedi must act in good faith. If he is using state power to persecute Kabila, or if he is using the trial to distract from the government's inability to end the conflict, it would be a deep stain of injustice that will tarnish the legitimacy of the DRC and its judicial system immeasurably. 

The trial of former President Joseph Kabila is a grand test of the DRC's judicial integrity. The forthcoming verdict is being closely monitored. Any misuse of judicial authority could severely undermine both judicial independence and credibility, as well as potentially escalate acts of violence. Friday, 19 September, is judgment day not only for Kabila but also for the DRC.

* Kim Heller is a political analyst and author of No White Lies: Black Politics and White Power in South Africa.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.