How Ruto’s Goma Appointment Undermines Congo’s Sovereignty

Kenya has announced a sweeping reorganisation of its foreign service, dispatching ambassadors and consuls to cities across the world. The appointments, unveiled by the State House on 15 August, include postings to Addis Ababa, Abuja, Paris, and Dubai. But one nomination stands out: Ms. Judy Kiaria Nkumiri will head a newly created Kenyan consulate in Goma, capital of North Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Goma sits at the heart of a war zone. Since January 2025, M23 rebels, an armed group designated by the United States and United Nations for gross human‑rights abuses, have seized the city and its airport, displacing thousands and prompting protests in the Congolese capital. Nairobi’s decision to station a diplomat in territory largely controlled by M23 has provoked questions about legality, regional politics, and Pan‑African solidarity.

Legality and the Vienna Convention

International law requires exequatur, or formal approval from the receiving state, before a consulate can operate. Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulates that a consular post may be established in a territory only with the consent of the receiving state, and that opening a consular office in another locality requires express consent. Article 12 further states that a head of a consular post must receive an exequatur from the receiving state and shall not enter upon his duties until he has received this authorization. Kinshasa has not granted such permission. In fact, the Congolese government refuses even to accredit Kenya’s ambassador and recalled its own envoy to Nairobi. Any Kenyan consulate in Goma would therefore contravene international law and Congo’s sovereignty.

De‑facto recognition of M23

Goma is not just another consular district. The M23 rebel movement, widely viewed as a Rwandan proxy, controls the city’s administration, roads, and security. By choosing to open a mission in Goma rather than operating through Kinshasa, Nairobi appears to acknowledge the group that “controls the ground”. A Great Lakes security analyst quoted by Kivu Today said the appointment signals that Kenya will “talk to whoever controls the ground,” in this case, M23. The rebels’ offensive in January 2025 left bodies in the streets, forced U.N. staff to shelter on bases, and triggered protests that ransacked Kenya’s embassy in Kinshasa. Positioning a consulate there risks legitimising a sanctioned armed group and undermines ongoing African Union and SADC peace initiatives.

Aligning Nairobi with Kigali?

Kenya has long tried to mediate in eastern Congo, hosting the EAC‑sponsored Nairobi Process. However, relations with Kinshasa have deteriorated. The Congolese government refuses to accredit Kenya’s ambassador and has leaned on SADC for military support.

Protesters have attacked the Kenyan embassy in Kinshasa, and the Kenyan consulate in Goma previously withdrew its staff after the city fell to M23. President Félix Tshisekedi has publicly accused President William Ruto of siding with Rwanda, citing the M23 coalition’s announcement at Nairobi’s Serena Hotel as evidence of Kenya’s partiality.

By establishing a mission in M23‑controlled territory, Nairobi risks cementing the perception that it is aligning with Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s military strategy. This could strain East African Community unity and undermine Kenya’s credibility as a neutral mediator.

Terrorism and conflict minerals

The United States Treasury recently sanctioned entities linked to eastern Congo’s conflict minerals trade, designating PARECO‑FF, CDMC, and Hong Kong firms East Rise and Star Dragon for supporting M23. The sanctions note that M23 is responsible for human‑rights abuses and operates illegal taxation schemes in Rubaya’s coltan mines.

By opening a consulate in Goma, Kenya risks cooperating with a rebel group the U.S. and U.N. consider a terrorist organisation. This could trigger secondary sanctions and damage Nairobi’s diplomatic relationships. It also contradicts Kenya’s stated commitment to Pan‑African solidarity; aligning with an armed group accused of rape, forced displacement, and mineral plunder betrays millions of Congolese civilians.

Diplomatic fallout

Diplomats warn that Kenya’s Goma gamble could backfire. Under the Vienna Convention, the DRC could declare any Kenyan consular officer persona non grata. Kinshasa might also expel Kenyan diplomats or suspend bilateral trade. The January protests that ransacked the Kenyan embassy show Congolese citizens’ anger at perceived foreign interference.

Kinshasa has already pivoted toward SADC for military support. If Nairobi continues on its current path, it risks isolation within the regional bloc and could undermine efforts to build an African solution to the conflict. For Kenyan businesses expanding into the DRC, political instability and sanctions could jeopardise investments.

By engaging rebels rather than supporting the lawful government in Kinshasa, Kenya appears to place realpolitik above solidarity. Congolese civilians, who have endured decades of violence and exploitation, may see the consulate as a betrayal of their suffering. Nairobi should reconsider whether short‑term diplomatic access in Goma is worth undermining its moral standing and legal obligations. Respecting Congo’s sovereignty and working within international frameworks remain the surest path to peace.