Kabila’s Goma Interview Exposes a Weak Return, and Rwanda’s Struggles

• Former President Joseph Kabila’s interview from rebel-held Goma exposes contradictions, selective memory, and dangerous rhetoric, revealing a political comeback strategy that undermines Congolese sovereignty while unintentionally exposing Rwanda’s reliance on proxy forces and narrative control.

  
  

Why This Interview?

When Joseph Kabila sat down with Belgium’s La Libre for his first on‑the‑record interview in years, he chose to do so from Goma, a city that was, by May 2025, under the control of the Rwanda‑backed M23 rebel movement. That decision alone raised eyebrows. The former president’s immunity had just been lifted, and he faced accusations of aiding the very rebels occupying Goma. By granting an interview from their stronghold, Kabila signaled that his words would be part of the Eastern Congo crisis rather than commentary on it. The interview’s real import lies not in its attack on President Félix Tshisekedi but in what it reveals about Kabila’s own ambitions and the broader geopolitical struggle.

Why Goma? A Former President’s Calculated Venue

Kabila insists he returned to Goma because it is “my home” and because he has a mission to speak with all Congolese for unity and peace. Yet Goma is currently M23’s base of operations; AFP journalists observed him meeting local religious figures in the presence of M23 spokesperson Lawrence Kanyuka. Sources close to Kabila acknowledged that, even if there is no formal alliance, his entourage and M23 share the “same goal” of ending Tshisekedi’s rule. In other words, Kabila’s choice of venue is not neutral. By sitting in a rebel‑held city and criticizing Kinshasa, he legitimizes M23’s grip on eastern Congo, effectively normalizing Rwanda’s proxy force as a political actor.

This location also matters because M23’s atrocities are well‑documented. Amnesty International reported in May 2025 that the group committed torture, killings, and enforced disappearances in areas under its control and that M23 captured Goma and Bukavu earlier in the year. A confidential UN expert’s report described Rwanda as exercising “command and control” over the rebels and providing high‑tech military systems to give them a decisive tactical advantage. The same report accused Rwanda of deploying thousands of troops in Congo and directing M23 to seize or relinquish territory. The UN Security Council later passed a resolution condemning Rwanda’s support for M23 and urging it to withdraw its troops. Kabila’s refusal to mention these facts while lamenting a “dictatorship” in Kinshasa is telling.

The Man Who Ruled for 18 Years Rewrites History

Throughout the interview, Kabila casts himself as a wise peacemaker who once reunited Congo and now witnesses a “dictatorship” and “Sudanization” under Tshisekedi. He claims to have bequeathed a reconciled country in 2019 and says the current crisis stems from tribalism and nepotism in the regime. This narrative glosses over his own authoritarian record. Human Rights Watch documented that, during the 2016 protests demanding his exit, government repression escalated; security forces killed at least 66 protesters in September 2016 and arbitrarily arrested scores of activists. The Guardian reported that police and soldiers rounded up demonstrators across Congo and that protests were met with live ammunition and mass arrests. Freedom House noted that Kabila repeatedly postponed elections, stayed in power after his mandate expired, and that security forces used live ammunition and arbitrary arrests to suppress demonstrations. Under Kabila, corruption was endemic and civil liberties were severely restricted.

In light of this history, Kabila’s accusation that Tshisekedi has instituted a “dictatorship” appears hypocritical. He criticizes proposals to revise the constitution, yet forgets that he remained in office past his constitutional term through a controversial court ruling and tried to delay elections again and again. The constitution he now calls “sacred” was trampled by his own regime when it suited him. His reference to tribalism and nepotism ignores allegations that his own family profited from state resources and that governance under his rule was characterized by patronage networks. The interview is, therefore, less a defense of democratic principles than an attempt to whitewash his legacy.

Article 64: Dangerous Rhetoric in a Fragile Context