Constitutional Court of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Rules Proposed Referendum Law Is Constitutional
The Constitutional Court of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has ruled that the country’s proposed referendum law is consistent with the Constitution, clearing a major legal hurdle for legislation that could pave the way for constitutional amendments before the end of President Félix Tshisekedi’s second and final term in 2028. The decision represents a significant victory for the government but has simultaneously intensified political tensions, with opposition parties warning that the referendum framework could ultimately be used to revise presidential term limits and extend the incumbent’s tenure in office.
The referendum legislation was introduced after months of political debate over constitutional reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The government has maintained that the existing Constitution requires modernization to address institutional weaknesses, improve governance, and strengthen state institutions. Officials have argued that creating a clear legal framework for organizing national referendums is necessary to enable citizens to directly participate in major constitutional and legislative decisions. According to the ruling coalition, the law merely establishes procedural rules for conducting referendums and does not itself amend any constitutional provisions.
The controversy surrounding the legislation stems from broader discussions initiated by President Félix Tshisekedi and members of the ruling majority regarding possible constitutional reform. Although the government has denied that the initiative is specifically intended to remove presidential term limits, critics argue that the referendum mechanism could eventually be used to amend provisions restricting presidents to two terms. Under the current 2006 Constitution, a president may serve only two five-year terms, and Tshisekedi’s present mandate is scheduled to expire in 2028.
Following approval by both chambers of Parliament, the legislation was referred to the Constitutional Court for mandatory constitutional review before promulgation. The Court examined whether the proposed referendum law complied with constitutional principles governing democratic participation, legislative competence, and constitutional amendment procedures. After its review, the Court concluded that the legislation did not violate the Constitution and therefore could proceed through the remaining stages required for enactment. The ruling effectively removed the final constitutional obstacle preventing the President from signing the law.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that its review concerned only the constitutionality of the referendum law itself rather than any future constitutional amendments that might eventually be proposed through that framework. In constitutional jurisprudence, such a distinction is significant. A law establishing procedures for holding referendums is legally separate from any subsequent proposal seeking to amend the Constitution. Any future constitutional revision would still have to satisfy the substantive and procedural safeguards contained in the Constitution and could itself become subject to judicial scrutiny if challenged.
Despite the Court’s decision, opposition parties have strongly criticized the ruling, describing the referendum legislation as the first step toward what they characterize as a “constitutional coup.” Opposition leaders contend that although the legislation appears procedural, its practical purpose is to facilitate constitutional amendments capable of resetting presidential term limits or otherwise extending President Tshisekedi’s stay in office. They argue that constitutional stability is essential for democratic governance and warn against altering fundamental constitutional provisions for political advantage.
Civil society organizations, constitutional scholars, and democracy advocates have likewise expressed concern about the broader political implications of the Court’s ruling. Many observers note that constitutional reform is not inherently unconstitutional and may be appropriate where institutional improvements are genuinely required. However, they caution that constitutional amendments affecting presidential tenure or the balance of political power demand exceptional transparency, broad public consultation, and national consensus. Without such safeguards, constitutional reform risks undermining public confidence in democratic institutions.
Public opposition to possible constitutional changes has become increasingly visible across the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Large demonstrations have taken place in several cities, including Goma and Bukavu, where thousands of protesters voiced opposition to any constitutional amendments that could permit a third presidential term. Protest organizers argued that respecting constitutional term limits is essential for preserving democratic governance and preventing the concentration of executive power. The demonstrations highlight the growing political sensitivity surrounding constitutional reform in the country.
The Constitutional Court occupies a uniquely important position within the Congolese constitutional system. Established under the 2006 Constitution and operational since 2015, it serves as the country’s highest constitutional authority with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional review, constitutional interpretation, electoral disputes, and referendum-related legal questions. Its decisions are final, immediately enforceable, and binding on all public authorities, making its approval of the referendum legislation legally decisive unless the Constitution itself is subsequently amended or interpreted differently in future proceedings.
From a constitutional law perspective, the case illustrates the distinction between judicial review of legislative procedures and political debates over constitutional policy. Courts generally determine whether legislation complies with constitutional requirements rather than assessing the political wisdom of proposed reforms. Consequently, a judicial finding that a referendum law is constitutional does not necessarily imply judicial endorsement of every constitutional amendment that may later be proposed under that legal framework. Future amendments affecting entrenched constitutional principles could still face independent constitutional scrutiny depending on their content and the procedures followed.
The Court’s decision is expected to shape the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s political landscape over the coming months. With the constitutional review complete, the referendum law can proceed toward promulgation, allowing the government to establish a legal mechanism for future national referendums. Whether that mechanism will ultimately be used to pursue constitutional amendments—particularly those affecting presidential eligibility—remains one of the most consequential constitutional and political questions facing the country as it moves closer to the 2028 presidential elections.
