How the DRC Uses Courts to Push Its Propaganda Against Rwanda

 

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is often portrayed as irrational or chaotic in its approach to regional conflicts, but this perception is misleading. Rather than acting impulsively, the DRC’s tactics are calculated and deliberate, designed to advance a carefully crafted narrative—a propaganda campaign aimed at shaping both domestic and international opinion. This narrative, which has evolved over time, is now becoming a legacy passed down through generations of Congolese, portraying Rwanda as the root cause of the DRC’s myriad problems.

 

This blame-shifting serves a convenient purpose: it allows the Congolese government to avoid confronting its own internal governance failures and deep-rooted challenges. Instead of grappling with complex historical realities, including the enduring impacts of colonialism and post-colonial struggles, the DRC prefers to scapegoat its neighbor. Rwanda, geographically proximate and historically fraught, becomes the convenient foil, particularly through the lens of threats like the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which the DRC links to its narrative against Rwanda.

 

However, this simplistic blame game is backed by a coordinated political and intellectual effort within the DRC. High-ranking officials—including the president, ministers, and military leaders—have at times openly called for violence or discrimination against Kinyarwanda-speaking communities, further deepening divisions. So-called intellectuals and academicians, unfortunately, have sometimes lent legitimacy to these false narratives, propagating them domestically and internationally.

 

Beyond its borders, the DRC has leveraged international platforms to amplify its rhetoric. Institutions like the UN’s Group of Experts, alongside researchers, journalists, NGOs, and diaspora communities, have at times played complicit roles in spreading divisive narratives. Extremist rhetoric has become disturbingly pervasive both on the ground and online, normalizing hostile views toward Rwanda.

 

It’s the Courts’ Turn

Until recently, courts remained mostly untouched by this spectacle. However, the judicial arena is now emerging as the latest front for the DRC’s propaganda campaign. The DRC has launched cases against Rwanda in three key judicial venues: the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), and more recently, through the ICC’s reopening of investigations centered on Rwanda. There are strong indications that the DRC may soon bring a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

These judicial maneuvers often come with theatrical elements. For example, DRC officials attended preliminary hearings at the EACJ, focused solely on procedural issues, accompanied by media crews and political figures—a behavior contrary to court procedures—demonstrating an intent to use the courts as a platform for publicity rather than genuine justice.

This raises real concerns about the risk of courts being co-opted into the DRC’s propaganda web. Three key factors heighten this risk:

 

Mismatch of Objectives: Courts are mandated to deliver impartial justice. The DRC’s agenda is political propaganda. The DRC’s broad filings aim to sustain its narrative of victimhood and portray Rwanda as a perpetual aggressor, pressuring courts to unwittingly reinforce this agenda or face accusations of bias.

 

Susceptibility to International Pressure: The DRC has successfully positioned itself internationally as a victim, gaining widespread sympathy. This narrative may permeate judicial spaces, challenging courts to remain truly objective amid prevalent biases.

 

High Stakes of Precedent: For courts like the EACJ and AfCHPR, these cases represent their first-ever state-to-state disputes. They are under pressure to balance delivering principled judgments with avoiding controversy. Yet, delivering just rulings—even if unfavorable to the DRC—is essential to uphold the courts’ integrity and credibility.

 

Courts must recognize that these pioneering cases demand strict procedural rigor and judicial restraint to set positive precedents for future inter-state disputes.

 

This campaign reached a critical judicial stage during the hearing on February 12, 2025.[1] In his opening statement Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General forcefully dismissed the DRC’s case, describing it as lacking any legal foundation—“having no legs to stand on” with “weak grounds to be admissible.” He criticized the DRC for obscuring its litigation strategy, undermining principles of good governance and transparency, and for filing duplicative claims before the East African Court of Justice. The DRC’s arguments were portrayed as scattered, impressionistic, and reliant on an unfocused array of legal instruments that lacked relevance or applicability.

 

The Minister underscored the absence of basic jurisdictional elements, noting that the DRC failed to prove the existence of a genuine legal dispute at the time of filing and neglected preliminary objections raised by Rwanda. Rwanda’s legal team further characterized the claims as vague, unsupported by evidence or legal authority, and procedurally deficient.

 

Professor Dopo Akande elaborated on jurisdictional concerns, pointing out that the court’s mandate is limited and the DRC’s claims fell outside both material and territorial jurisdiction, particularly because the alleged violations were not connected to Rwandan territory. Many claims pertained to peace and security issues—use of force, aggression—which fall outside the human rights mandate of the court. 

 

On February 13, 2025[2], Rwanda’s representatives, Dr. Owiso Owiso and Lauraine Abowaje, further challenged the DRC on admissibility grounds. They argued that the DRC failed to comply with key requirements, including exhausting local remedies and meeting treaty preconditions. Abowaje emphasized that the case rested heavily on media reports rather than substantive legal claims, and that issues of peace and security lie beyond the African Charter’s scope. Dr. Owiso suggested the matter would be more appropriately handled by the African Union Peace and Security Council.

 

In response, the DRC legal team insisted Rwanda supports armed groups and unlawfully occupies Congolese land, arguing that victims cannot realistically pursue local remedies due to repression and suspension of civil society. They painted a picture of victims trapped by dire conditions, unable to access justice locally.

 

Rwanda’s Attorney General concluded by reiterating the court’s lack of jurisdiction and the application’s inadmissibility for multiple reasons—reliance on media reports, failure to exhaust remedies, abuse of process, and addressing issues already settled. The DRC’s closing remarks expressed gratitude to the court but reiterated accusations of Rwandan military invasion, lack of judicial independence in Rwanda, and the impossibility of victims meeting judicial requirements.

 

Despite this judicial back-and-forth, the DRC has shown no sign of abandoning its narrative. It persistently accuses Rwanda on multiple international platforms—sometimes unrelated to the conflict, including artificial intelligence conferences, climate summits, or global health forums—using any stage available to embed its story. This relentless repetition of accusations aims to manufacture legitimacy, embodying the notion that “a lie told many times becomes the truth.”

 

This persistent campaign places Rwanda in a difficult position, diverting its attention from substantive contributions to global discussions toward defending itself against constant, baseless allegations. Rwanda deserves the right to engage positively in international forums without being overshadowed by unsubstantiated grievances.

 

If I Were the Courts

 

Courts are in a tough spot, but succumbing to external pressures at the expense of justice is unacceptable. True justice must focus on the real victims caught in the middle of the DRC’s internal conflicts. Even an unenforceable judgment grounded in truth is more valuable historically than silence or complicity.

 

This stance is not unprecedented. In 2019, a U.S. federal appeals court dismissed the DRC’s lawsuit against major tech companies for “forced labor” linked to cobalt mining, pointing instead to the DRC’s internal failures—extreme poverty, hunger, and inability to protect children from exploitative labor.

 

Similarly, other courts should remind the DRC that filing lawsuits across venues will not resolve the underlying crises. They must demand accountability for ongoing atrocities within the DRC: lynching of civilians, daylight killings, arson, state-sanctioned hate speech, and incitement to violence by those entrusted with protection. The crimes committed within the DRC should be the primary focus before extraterritorial allegations are addressed.

 

Ultimately, the courts should ask the DRC: What have you done to your own people? Only after this can extraterritorial issues like accusations against Rwanda be properly examined. Anything less would be an abdication of judicial responsibility and an injustice to the true victims.

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/live/ZFwGv85ma4A (AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS held a public hearing in application no. 007/2023, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO v REPUBLIC OF RWANDA, 12 and 13 February 2025.) 

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WxFbhgwhyw&t=3s (AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS held a public hearing in application no. 007/2023, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO v REPUBLIC OF RWANDA, 12 and 13 February 2025.)