Last week, the Constitutional Court of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) opened the door for the country’s sitting president, Felix Tshisekedi, to seek a third term. In a widely expected but nonetheless dramatic decision, the court ruled that the country’s constitution — including its provision limiting presidents to two terms in office — can now be amended via a referendum in the event of “major dysfunction” of state institutions.
The country’s 2006 constitution not only limits a president to two five-year terms, but Article 220 stipulates that “the number and length of the terms of office of the President of the Republic … may not form the object of a Constitutional amendment.”
Tshisekedi already expressed interest in the idea of a referendum on term limits, saying in June, “I have not asked for a third term, but if the people want a third term, I will accept.” The next presidential election is scheduled for 2028.
The court’s decision now threatens to set off a political crisis in the country — one in which the United States, which has actively tried to influence both political and economic issues in the DRC for years, has unintentionally become embroiled.
In a press conference on May 6, Tshisekedi argued , without evidence, that amending his country’s constitution was among the conditions put in place by Washington in the minerals agreement the two countries signed last December, which gave American firms preferential access to the country’s resources. Members and supporters of the ruling coalition are now repeating this claim across the media, pointing to Article XII of the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) as the condition requiring an amendment to the country’s constitution.
The article in question says that the DRC must commit “to undertake any legislative and constitutional reforms within a maximum period of twelve (12) months in order to align its legal framework with the relevant provisions of this Agreement.”
But the SPA does not require any specific changes to the Congolese constitution, let alone any that focus directly on presidential term limits. The only explicit requirement in the SPA is that the Congolese government agrees to amend a 2014 law focused on “the fiscal, customs, parafiscal, non-tax revenue and exchange regime” and to “undertake any legislative and constitutional reforms … to align its legal framework” with the SPA.
In order to avoid the appearance of foreign interference, the Trump administration should clearly indicate that the SPA does not require the DRC to make any constitutional amendment relating to presidential powers or term limits.
Another argument advanced by Tshisekedi and his supporters is that, since the constitution was largely written by foreigners, it never sufficiently accounted for domestic Congolese realities. The text therefore needs to be amended, if not completely overhauled, in order to be more responsive to local needs. U.S.-based organizations funded by the U.S. government were among those that sent experts to the DRC to help in the drafting and implementation of the constitution.
A third major argument presented by Tshisekedi and his supporters has to do with the long-standing war ravaging the DRC’s east. The DRC has for years been fighting a proxy war against Rwanda, in which both countries are providing munitions to various armed groups in a conflict whose origins date back to the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
In early May , Tshisekedi said “If we cannot end this war, unfortunately we will not be able to organize elections in 2028.”
“The resources are there, we can do it, but we cannot organize them without North Kivu and South Kivu,” he argued, referring to two of the country’s eastern provinces where much of the recent fighting has taken place.
The United States is directly implicated in the conflict’s future. Washington brokered an agreement in June 2025 to end the war in exchange for preferential access to the region’s minerals — access which was codified in the December SPA. Despite Trump’s claims to have ended the war, fighting has continued sporadically in the year since.
If peace continues to be elusive, and if Tshisekedi continues to cite the conflict to argue for deferring elections, Washington could find itself in a difficult position. In such a case, it would need to pressure Tshisekedi to live up to his end of the peace deal , including ceasing “any state support to non-state armed groups except as necessary to facilitate implementation of this Agreement.” Reporting suggests the DRC continues to provide support to several of the armed groups fighting in the country’s east.
Ultimately, the United States’ primary objective in the DRC shouldn’t be to support Tshisekedi’s effort to cling to power, no matter how amenable he’s been to U.S. mining interests.
The DRC has long struggled to support a liberal democracy where reliable elections happen as scheduled. The country was under a dictatorship until 1997, when long-time ruler Mobutu Sese Seko fled the country under threat. Laurent-Desire Kabila took over the next day, installing an autocratic government. After years of conflict and unstable governance, a constitution was approved in 2006, providing for two five-year term limits for the office of the president.
In 2015 , then-President Joseph Kabila — the son of Laurent-Desire — expressed his interest in seeking an unconstitutional third term in office. Tshisekedi, who was in the opposition at the time, spoke out against Kabila’s plans, claiming that they were a breach of democracy. Widespread protests and pressure from foreign governments ultimately forced Kabila to step down at the end of his second term, allowing for elections to be held, in which the Constitutional Court declared Tshisekedi the winner amid claims of electoral fraud by the opposition.
The opposition has voiced disapproval over Tshisekedi’s apparent attempt to hold onto power. In a speech before the Conference of Catholic Bishops a couple weeks ago, Martin Fayulu, who officially came in second in the 2018 presidential election and third in 2023, said “Tshisekedi has betrayed the oath he took to respect and defend the constitution.”
For the United States, the goal in the DRC shouldn’t be to advance or hinder the interests of any single domestic politician, no matter how powerful they might be. Getting embroiled in the domestic political affairs of the DRC risks pulling the U.S. into a crisis from which it has nothing to gain.
Rather, Washington should remain focused on promoting its own interests by seeking access to the region’s economic opportunities and extending its investments across the Congo in an effort to integrate the region’s vital resources into global supply chains.
The United States should also work to continuously hold each of the belligerent sides accountable for the peace accord signed last year in Washington. If peace takes hold, then the U.S. wins twice: first by securing a diplomatic victory, and second by lowering barriers to investment for American private sector firms.
DRC president claims Trump deal requires he seize another term
Aggregated summary from an independent source. Read the original at ResponsibleStatecraft.