DRC government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya has challenged the international community to consider how it would react if a senior Congolese figure openly encouraged Rwandan citizens to take up arms against their own government, following controversial remarks by veteran Rwandan politician Tito Rutaremara concerning the Banyamulenge and M23.
KINSHASA — Democratic Republic of Congo government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya has turned the controversy surrounding remarks by veteran Rwandan politician Tito Rutaremara into a direct challenge to the international community: what would happen if the roles were reversed?
Speaking after Rutaremara’s controversial intervention at a commemoration of the Gatumba massacre, Muyaya asked international partners to imagine a senior Congolese official addressing a Rwandan community and openly encouraging its young people to take up arms against Rwanda’s government.
“Imagine if a Congolese minister or a Congolese notable took the floor to ask a Rwandan community to take up arms and fight the Rwandan government or Rwandan institutions.”
Muyaya said he would be “very interested” to see how Congo’s international partners would react.
The question has particular significance because international officials have previously reacted swiftly when inflammatory rhetoric came from the Congolese side.
What Tito Rutaremara said
The controversy began after remarks delivered by Rutaremara, a longtime RPF figure who has held several senior positions in Rwanda, during commemorations marking 22 years since the 2004 Gatumba massacre, in which more than 160 Congolese refugees, predominantly Banyamulenge, were killed in Burundi.
In circulating footage of his remarks, Rutaremara addresses Banyamulenge youth and encourages them to take up arms and help M23 “liberate Congo.”
WAR IN EASTERN DRC
Muyaya Challenges World Over Rutaremara’s Call to Banyamulenge
Aug 18, 2026
Aug 20, 2026
11 min read
Published
Updated:
DRC government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya has challenged the international community to consider how it would react if a senior Congolese figure openly encouraged Rwandan citizens to take up arms against their own government, following controversial remarks by veteran Rwandan politician Tito Rutaremara concerning the Banyamulenge and M23.
KINSHASA — Democratic Republic of Congo government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya has turned the controversy surrounding remarks by veteran Rwandan politician Tito Rutaremara into a direct challenge to the international community: what would happen if the roles were reversed?
Speaking after Rutaremara’s controversial intervention at a commemoration of the Gatumba massacre, Muyaya asked international partners to imagine a senior Congolese official addressing a Rwandan community and openly encouraging its young people to take up arms against Rwanda’s government.
“Imagine if a Congolese minister or a Congolese notable took the floor to ask a Rwandan community to take up arms and fight the Rwandan government or Rwandan institutions.”
Muyaya said he would be “very interested” to see how Congo’s international partners would react.
The question has particular significance because international officials have previously reacted swiftly when inflammatory rhetoric came from the Congolese side.
What Tito Rutaremara said
The controversy began after remarks delivered by Rutaremara, a longtime RPF figure who has held several senior positions in Rwanda, during commemorations marking 22 years since the 2004 Gatumba massacre, in which more than 160 Congolese refugees, predominantly Banyamulenge, were killed in Burundi.
In circulating footage of his remarks, Rutaremara addresses Banyamulenge youth and encourages them to take up arms and help M23 “liberate Congo.”
His intervention also focused heavily on identity. Rutaremara portrayed Banyamulenge as Rwandans living in Congo and challenged the community’s use of the Banyamulenge identity.
At one point, according to the Kinyarwanda remarks reviewed for this article, he says:
“It makes me laugh when I hear Banyamulenge calling themselves Congolese. They are Rwandans, just like me.”
The remarks triggered anger among Banyamulenge organizations and community voices who insist that they are Congolese citizens and reject attempts to redefine them from Kigali.
“Imagine the gravity”
Muyaya argued that Rutaremara’s remarks should not be treated merely as provocative political commentary.
He described them as spreading what he called the “poison of division” and accused the Rwandan figure of effectively encouraging an insurrection against Congolese institutions.
For Muyaya, reversing the scenario demonstrates the seriousness of what was said.
What, he asked, would happen if Kinshasa publicly told young Rwandans to acquire weapons and fight their government?
“Imagine the gravity of such remarks.”
Muyaya also challenged international partners over what he sees as an inconsistency in responses to inflammatory rhetoric involving Rwanda and the DRC.
That argument has a recent precedent.
ADVERTISEMENT
When a Congolese general crossed the line, Belgium reacted
On December 28, 2025, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot publicly condemned remarks made by FARDC spokesperson Major General Sylvain Ekenge targeting the Tutsi community.
Prévot said he was “extremely shocked” and described the comments as “absolutely unworthy” of an official representative.
His message was unequivocal: hate speech must be rejected regardless of circumstances, and national cohesion requires the inclusion of every community.
The reaction did not stop with international condemnation.
The Congolese military publicly distanced itself from Ekenge's comments, saying they did not represent the position of the FARDC, the Congolese government or President Félix Tshisekedi. Ekenge was subsequently suspended from his duties.
That response now forms an important backdrop to Muyaya's challenge.
If a Congolese military spokesperson could be publicly condemned internationally and sanctioned domestically for inflammatory rhetoric involving the Tutsi community, Kinshasa is asking what standard should apply when an influential Rwandan political figure encourages Congolese Banyamulenge youth to take up arms against their own state.
Muyaya's argument is therefore not that international condemnation of Ekenge was wrong. It is that the principle invoked then should be applied consistently now.
“Banyamulenge are Congolese”
At the center of the controversy is a much deeper question: who has the authority to define the Banyamulenge?
Kinshasa's answer is categorical.
“No, the Banyamulenge are not the ‘Rwandans of Congo.’ They are Congolese, just like all the other communities in our country,” Muyaya said in an earlier response to the controversy.
Muyaya pointed to the backlash from Banyamulenge themselves as evidence that Rutaremara's characterization does not speak for the entire community.
Several Banyamulenge organizations and community figures have rejected attempts to portray them simply as Rwandans and opposed calls for their youth to participate in armed conflict against the Congolese state.
Muyaya stressed that Banyamulenge have “never given a mandate” to anyone to speak in their place, redefine their identity or call them to war against their own country.
For Kinshasa, that distinction matters enormously.
Banyamulenge grievances concerning security, discrimination and historical violence are real political questions. But the Congolese government argues that those grievances cannot be appropriated by another state or used as justification for armed intervention.
ADVERTISEMENT
Muyaya praises Banyamulenge who rejected Rutaremara
Muyaya welcomed what he described as the firm reaction from members of the Banyamulenge community following Rutaremara's speech.
He praised those who publicly distanced themselves from the remarks and said Banyamulenge are already participating within Congolese institutions in efforts to restore peace in the High Plateaus.
That pushback complicates a narrative that automatically associates Banyamulenge political interests with Kigali or M23.
For Muyaya, the community must instead be recognized as part of Congo's national fabric.
His message was that Banyamulenge are not foreigners whom Rwanda can politically reclaim when convenient. They are Congolese citizens.
Kinshasa says the rhetoric is “not by chance”
Muyaya went further by arguing that Rutaremara's remarks should be viewed within the wider history of Rwanda's justification for involvement in eastern DRC.
“These declarations are not the fruit of chance,” he said.
He described them as part of a “persistent rhetoric” that, according to Kinshasa, uses the Banyamulenge and wider Tutsi security question to justify Rwanda's actions across the border.
Muyaya accused Kigali of instrumentalizing the community in two ways: first by reinforcing divisions between Congolese communities, and second by using those tensions as justification for continued intervention.
Rwanda has consistently presented its security concerns in eastern DRC differently, particularly emphasizing the threat posed by the FDLR, a militia founded by elements linked to forces responsible for the Rwandan Genocide in 1994.
Kinshasa acknowledges that the FDLR issue must be addressed but rejects the argument that it provides justification for Rwanda's military presence or support for armed groups inside Congolese territory.
Muyaya repeats allegations over M23 and other armed groups
During his intervention, Muyaya also repeated broader Congolese government allegations concerning Rwanda's support for armed organizations operating in eastern DRC.
He accused Rwanda of arming M23 as well as other groups and said Kinshasa holds Rwanda responsible for instability in affected areas.
Those allegations are serious and should remain clearly attributed to the Congolese government where independent evidence has not established individual claims.
The wider allegation of substantial Rwandan military support for M23, however, has been documented repeatedly by UN experts and has become central to international diplomacy surrounding the conflict.
ADVERTISEMENT
POPULAR TODAY
For Muyaya, Rutaremara's appeal for young Banyamulenge to support M23 adds another political dimension to that existing dispute.
Washington peace commitments now enter the controversy
The timing is particularly sensitive because the DRC and Rwanda are supposed to be implementing commitments reached through internationally mediated peace processes.
Muyaya argued that rhetoric encouraging Congolese citizens to take up arms risks undermining the spirit of the Washington process and efforts to de-escalate the conflict.
He confirmed that mediators would be informed about Rutaremara's declarations.
Kinshasa wants the statements considered not simply as an isolated controversy on social media but within the diplomatic framework governing Rwanda's commitments toward the DRC.
Muyaya emphasized that the dispute must not distract from what Kinshasa considers a central requirement of the peace process: the withdrawal of Rwandan forces from Congolese territory.
The international community now faces Muyaya's question
The controversy ultimately leaves international partners with the hypothetical Muyaya deliberately placed before them.
When General Ekenge made inflammatory remarks involving the Tutsi community, Belgium condemned them publicly and Congo suspended him.
Now an influential veteran RPF figure has been recorded urging members of a Congolese community to take up arms and help M23 “liberate Congo.”
What happens next?
For Muyaya, consistency means that dangerous rhetoric should be condemned regardless of whether it originates in Kinshasa or Kigali.
That is what makes his challenge more consequential than a simple diplomatic counterattack.
The Congolese government is effectively asking international partners to apply a standard they have already established: ethnic identity should not be weaponized, communities should not be pushed toward violence, and political figures should not encourage citizens of another country to take up arms against their own state.
And behind that diplomatic argument lies an equally important message from Kinshasa to the Banyamulenge themselves:
You are Congolese. Your citizenship and future belong in Congo, and no foreign political figure has the authority to redefine your identity or call you to war against your own country.
ADVERTISEMENT
RELATED ARTICLE
