Why Joseph Kabila’s Death Sentence Marks a Turning Point for Congo

On 30 September 2025, a military court in Kinshasa sentenced former Congolese president Joseph Kabila to death in absentia. The tribunal’s president, Lt‑Gen Joseph Mutombo Katalayi, found Kabila guilty of war crimes, treason, and crimes against humanity for allegedly backing the Rwanda‑supported M23 insurgency in eastern Congo. The charges listed by the court included murder, sexual assault, torture, and insurrection. He was not present in court and had no lawyer; his whereabouts were unknown. Kabila, who ruled the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) from 2001 to 2019, has denied wrongdoing and says the judiciary has been politicised

The verdict imposes the most severe penalty available under Article 7 of the military penal code: death by firing squad or hanging. Beyond the death sentence, the tribunal ordered Kabila to pay massive damages. Reuters reports that he must pay about $50 billion to the Congolese state and to victims, while the Associated Press says the court demanded $29 billion to the state and $4 billion to North and South Kivu, either way, a sum far exceeding Congo’s annual budget. Given that Congo had observed a de facto moratorium on executions since 2003, the sentence is legally possible but politically heavy. A March 2024 cabinet decision lifted the 20‑year moratorium, allowing executions for wartime crimes and treason.

The crimes: treason, war crimes, and insurrection

The case stems from Kabila’s alleged role in supporting the M23 rebel movement, which seized large parts of North and South Kivu in early 2025. According to the court, Kabila collaborated with Rwanda and M23, helping the rebels capture strategic cities like Goma and Bukavu. The indictment accuses him of treason, conspiracy, organising an insurrection, and war crimes. He was convicted of murder, sexual assault, and torture, reflecting the atrocities committed during the insurgency’s advance. The tribunal ordered his immediate arrest, but Kabila remains in hiding, reportedly somewhere in southern Africa

A long record of repression

Violent crackdowns on dissent

Kabila’s presidency spanned 18 years. Although his early years brought some stability after the Second Congo War, the later period was marked by repression and abuses. Human Rights Watch documented that when Kabila stalled presidential elections scheduled for December 2016, his security forces banned opposition demonstrations, arrested scores of activists and opposition leaders, and used teargas and live ammunition against peaceful protesters. In January 2015, security forces killed at least 38 people in Kinshasa and five in Goma during protests against a proposed law that would delay elections. The Republican Guard shot protesters and even fired on Kinshasa’s general hospital, injuring patients. HRW reports that some victims were buried in a mass grave outside Kinshasa, and the government shut down radio stations and blocked the internet to stifle dissent

Recruiting rebels to suppress protests

To cling to power, Kabila’s government reportedly turned to foreign rebels. A Human Rights Watch report summarised by JURIST reveals that during December 2016 protests, former M23 rebels from Rwanda and Uganda were recruited into Congo’s forces and given authority to use lethal force against demonstrators. At least 62 people were killed and hundreds arrested as these fighters, authorised to shoot protesters, helped Kabila’s regime suppress opposition. Journalists were detained to prevent reporting on the crackdown. This “special mission” linking M23 to Kabila illustrates how his government blurred the lines between state security and insurgent militias.

Entrenched impunity

Human rights groups long criticised Kabila for presiding over a system of impunity. HRW noted that those responsible for abuses were rewarded with power and wealth, while activists who demanded respect for the constitution were arrested and held incommunicado. The repression continued into the final years of his rule; even after some activists were released in 2016, many others remained detained on trumped‑up charges, and security forces continued to fire on demonstrators

Ties to Rwanda and the M23 insurgency

The 2025 verdict rests on allegations that Kabila collaborated with Rwanda‑backed M23 rebels. Over the past two years, M23 resurged with shocking speed, capturing Goma and Bukavu and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. A Human Rights Watch investigation found that M23 fighters summarily executed at least 21 civilians in Goma on 22–23 February 2025, shooting victims in the head and leaving bodies in piles. Witnesses described M23 fighters rounding up young men, forcibly recruiting some, and killing those who tried to escape

A confidential UN Group of Experts report obtained by Reuters states that Rwanda exercised command and control over M23, providing recruits with training and “high‑tech systems capable of neutralising air assets”, which gave the rebels a tactical advantage over Congo’s army. The experts found that Rwanda increased the number of its own troops in eastern Congo and that the rebels took strategic decisions on Rwanda’s instructions. Rwanda’s government denies these accusations and claims it is acting in self‑defence.

These findings amplify the significance of Kabila’s verdict. If he cooperated with an insurgency controlled by a foreign state, it would amount to treason and help explain why the court ordered the maximum punishment.

Legal context: death penalty and symbolism

The Democratic Republic of Congo retained capital punishment but halted executions after 2003, creating a de facto moratorium. According to the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, this suspension lasted twenty years until March 2024, when the government lifted the moratorium in response to the deteriorating security situation in the east. The decision allowed executions for crimes committed in wartime, under states of siege or emergency, or during police operations. While capital punishment remains controversial, human rights groups argue it does not address the underlying causes of violence. The lifting of the moratorium paved the way for Kabila’s sentence.

Because Kabila is abroad and Congo’s moratorium only recently ended, many observers see the death sentence as largely symbolic. It signals that even a former head of state can be held accountable, but it is unlikely to be implemented unless he is extradited. The enormous damages imposed by the court further emphasise the verdict’s punitive intent.

Why this verdict matters

• Accountability for past abuses. For years, victims of repression, torture, and killings during Kabila’s rule have demanded justice. This verdict acknowledges the massacres of protesters, the recruitment of M23 rebels to crush dissent, and the broader human rights violations documented by HRW. Even if enforcement is unlikely, the judgment affirms that leaders are not above the law.

  
  

• Challenging regional impunity. The case ties Kabila to Rwanda’s proxy war in eastern Congo. UN experts say Rwanda commanded M23 operations and supplied advanced weapons. Holding Kabila responsible for collaborating with a foreign‑backed rebel group challenges a long‑standing pattern in which regional leaders support militias with little accountability. The verdict may increase pressure on Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, whose government’s support for M23 has drawn U.S. sanctions and international criticism, yet he remains untouched by indictments.

  
  

• Political symbolism in Congo. President Félix Tshisekedi accuses Kabila of sponsoring the M23 insurgency and of preparing an “insurrection”. By stripping Kabila’s immunity and pursuing a trial, Tshisekedi signals that collaboration with rebels will not be tolerated. The death sentence also functions as a warning to Kabila’s allies; several members of his People’s Party for Reconstruction and Democracy (PPRD) have joined the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC) and face similar charges

  
  

• Reconsideration of the death penalty. The revival of executions in 2024 and the use of death sentences against high‑profile defendants raise questions about due process and human rights. Critics argue that capital punishment could be used to settle political scores or suppress dissent. The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty warns that applying executions in a context where constitutional guarantees protect the right to life may hinder extraditions and undermine human rights reforms

Conclusion

The Kinshasa military court’s decision to condemn Joseph Kabila to death for treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is unprecedented in Congolese history. It reflects the gravity of his alleged collaboration with the Rwanda‑backed M23 rebels and acknowledges the blood‑stained legacy of his rule, from deadly crackdowns on protesters to the recruitment of M23 fighters to suppress dissent.

Although the verdict may be impossible to enforce while Kabila remains abroad, it sends a strong message: impunity is no longer guaranteed for former leaders, and the suffering of Congo’s people demands redress. Whether this ruling leads to broader accountability, including scrutiny of regional actors like Rwanda, remains to be seen, but it marks a significant step toward justice for one of Africa’s longest‑running crises.