The Democratic Republic of the Congo has faced aggression from neighboring countries through the so-called M23 rebellion, as well as a range of armed groups threatening peace and security in the East of the DRC for decades. It is noteworthy that the International Court of Justice has in the past found Uganda’s military action in DRC to be in violation of international law on the use of force, international humanitarian law, human rights law among others. Armed conflict continues vastly in various territories of the DRC.

Considering this chaotic situation, the number of human lives lost with the aim of finding solutions, particularly regarding the recurring conflict in this part of the national territory and in Congo generally, the government, on March 13, 2024, through its Minister of Justice, has made public a circular lifting the moratorium on the exécution of the death penalty in the country.

We will divide this reflection into two parts: first, an analysis of the decision, and secondly, its feasibility from political, legal, and social perspectives.

Brief overview of the government decision

The spirit and the letter of the document indicate that it is indeed about addressing the famous issue of infiltration within our army, security services, and other institutions, which has led to the chaos we are currently experiencing.

It mainly targets any act related to ‘collusion with corrupt foreign entities, the association of criminals aiming to destabilize the nation, espionage, acts of abandonment, betrayal, insurrection, and the alarming rise of juvenile delinquency or banditry.’…

Pictured below is the circular with the attendant provisions in question:

On the feasibility of the government measure

Needless to say, from a political standpoint, the approach seems plausible in terms of sovereignty; however, from a legal and/or universal perspective, there is a serious conflict. Thus, we delve deep into its legal perspective.

Right off the bat, what about the legal basis of the decision? Given that the death penalty already exists; , never abolished, as provided for in the penal code of 1940, as amended and supplemented by the laws of 2006 and 2009 (on sexual and gender-based violence), and the one of December 31, 2015. (military Justice related).

For our current analysis, we can say that the government, through its Minister of Justice and Keeper of the Seals, has specifically listed or cataloged the facts or behaviors that fall within the scope of the application of the aforementioned circular or government measure. At the same time, there are other facts in the same penal code that also provide for the death penalty, such as murder, assassination, poisoning …

In positive law, the doctrine suggests that we apply what is provided or legislated, if necessary, simply, resolving the legal issue at hand. But politically, the option should be debated especially in parliament, to clarify its meaning and implications for public opinion!

From a legal standpoint;( and this is the essence of our study), in our opinion, there is a need to formalize it or attempt to do so solely for the purpose of providing a legal or juridical basis., as I emphasize again, a criminal law exists and provides for the same penalty, which has experienced a moratorium but has not been abolished! (2003)

Indeed, when you lift a moratorium and limit the scope of an existing law, or turn it into a new, event-driven, circumstantial fact; it would be wise to consider regulating this so-called ‘specific situation.

The option of legislation or legislating will have the merit of establishing a legal basis or legal groundwork that would prevent violations of the constitution and other laws. Then, the question has already raised a lot of ink! Many are those who fear its possible extension to cases of juvenile delinquency or “kuluna.”

These groups of thugs or uncontrolled individuals, armed or not, acting in groups, spreading terror in our neighborhoods, intruding into our properties, looting, extorting. Isn’t it also a case of criminal associations that the circular or government measure refers to?

Some opponents, resistents fear reprisals from those in power, who take pleasure in manipulating this already sick justice to fulfill their corrupt designs or evil mind!

There are also Human Rights Defenders who are concerned about the direction this could take in a context of justice subservient to those in power, which today is an open secret. Here, this painting, thus created, checkered with skepticism in both its content and form, With our president constantly repeating that our justice system is sick! Through his multiple media appearances, how can we ascertain a proper administration of justice in relation to this famous measure?

Considering the endogenous and exogenous causes of the humanitarian crisis within the country, it is quite advisable to merely postpone the applicability of the measure!

Conclusion

They should examine its functional requirements before the implementation of the measure.

For instance, by starting with a justice reform; tackling the life standards of magistrates, judges and the administration of the justice, reinforcing the independence of justice, promote and protect human rights values effectively and efficiently, among other solutions.

Then one could attempt or imagine such a dangerous undertaking as this measure is.

Unfortunately, (it is) scientifically demonstrated that, death penalty had never been deterrent or dissuasive at all.

At the same time, life’s sacred, so no one has the right to deprive one’s life for any reason or whatsoever reasons.

By Bwanga Makabika Christian, Human Rights Defender from the Democractic Republic of Congo