What a “Full Withdrawal” from Uvira Would Really Require

While the M23 rebel group announced over the weekend that it had completed a “full withdrawal” from the strategic city of Uvira in eastern DRC, Congolese authorities have categorically rejected that interpretation. According to officials, what is currently happening on the ground does not meet the threshold of a verified withdrawal and instead raises concerns of tactical redeployment and infiltration.

M23 Claims Exit, DRC Says: “Not So Fast”

On Saturday, M23 spokesperson Lawrence Kanyuka issued a statement from the center of Uvira, declaring that the last “monitoring and security unit” of M23 fighters had exited the city. The group claimed it had ensured the safety of civilians while awaiting the handover of security responsibilities to a neutral force, possibly MONUSCO or international observers. The announcement was accompanied by videos showing convoys of fighters moving out.

However, the Congolese government and local authorities are not convinced.

South Kivu Governor Jean-Jacques Purusi Sadiki warned that intelligence reports indicate some M23 fighters remain inside Uvira, disguised in civilian clothing and still armed. In an audio message shared with the BBC, the governor urged residents to remain alert and avoid any acts of ethnic violence or revenge.

“We have information that some fighters never left; they simply changed their uniforms,” Pulusi said. “This is not a withdrawal. This is a strategy.”

According to DRC Government Spokesperson Patrick Muyaya was categorical: M23 and its backers should never have been in Uvira in the first place. For Kinshasa, any talk of withdrawal loses meaning when it refers to a presence that was illegal from the outset.

Beyond the Border: The Real Meaning of “Withdrawal”

Congolese officials and civil society actors argue that a true and complete withdrawal must include:

• A full retreat beyond pre-agreed disengagement lines, particularly north of Kamanyola