Opposition politicians in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including members of the opposition coalition known as “C64,” have rejected a Constitutional Court ruling approving a referendum law that critics say could pave the way for President Félix Tshisekedi to seek a third term.
The opposition described the ruling as a threat to the country’s constitutional order and warned that it could deepen political instability.
“The Court’s ruling confirms the plot against the constitutional order and paves the way for the Balkanisation of the Republic,” Dieudonné Bolengetenge, Secretary-General of the Together for the Republic party, said at a press conference in Kinshasa.
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday upheld key provisions of the proposed referendum law, ruling that they were consistent with the constitution. The decision could allow a constitutional amendment to be pursued through a constituent assembly and a referendum in circumstances described in the law as a “major dysfunction” of state institutions.
The ruling has intensified opposition fears that President Tshisekedi could seek to alter the constitutional term limit and pursue another mandate. Tshisekedi has been in power since 2019, and under the existing constitutional framework his second five-year term is scheduled to end in 2028.
DR Congo’s current constitution prohibits revisions to the number and length of presidential terms. However, the ruling coalition has backed legislation that would establish new rules for constitutional referendums, prompting fierce resistance from opposition groups.
The court also raised reservations about other provisions of the legislation, including a clause that would permit the president to call a referendum on matters considered to be of “fundamental” importance.
The controversy has already triggered demonstrations in parts of the country, with thousands of people protesting in eastern cities over proposed constitutional changes that could enable Tshisekedi to seek a third term.
The opposition coalition C64 has accused the president and the ruling majority of attempting to undermine constitutional term limits, while supporters of the proposed reforms argue that constitutional changes should be decided through legal and democratic procedures.
This version keeps the report balanced by clearly distinguishing the court’s ruling, opposition allegations, and the constitutional position.
