The Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Innovation is hosting three-day academic conferences in Kinshasa, Kisangani and Lubumbashi beginning June 10, aiming to spark rigorous debate on the Democratic Republic of Congo’s constitutional framework. Minister Sombo Ayanne Safi Mukuna Marie-Thérèse emphasized that these gatherings will analyze the 2006 Constitution’s strengths, weaknesses and potential adaptations to current national realities.

The events are structured around three thematic hubs: Kinshasa for geostrategic analysis, Kisangani for sociological and environmental perspectives, and Lubumbashi for industrial and energy transition insights. Organizers invite advanced university researchers, constitutional law experts, social scientists and senior students to contribute to the discussions.

“Nearly two decades after the 2006 Constitution took effect, this conference seeks to produce scientifically grounded recommendations that will strengthen democratic governance, rule of law and sustainable development in our nation,” the minister stated.

The initiative coincides with parliamentary approval of a referendum bill yesterday, reviving a contentious debate over constitutional reform. The ruling UDPS party and its allies in the Union sacrée coalition advocate for changes they claim will address governance flaws, nationality disputes and election feasibility concerns. Critics argue these reforms could pave the way for Félix Tshisekedi to seek a third term, despite his current mandate ending in January 2029.

The opposition dismisses these proposals as a power retention strategy, pointing to Rwanda-backed M23 rebel advances and what they describe as the government’s poor performance since 2023. Two opposing coalitions have emerged: the Coalition Article 64 for Defense of Constitutional Order and the Coalition of Congolese for Constitutional Change, each claiming grassroots support for their respective agendas.

As the academic community convenes to examine constitutional viability, the political arena remains deeply divided over whether reform serves national interests or personal ambitions.