Donation Amount. Min £2

East Africa

The governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda concluded a peace treaty in June 2025, aimed at ending a decades-long war in eastern DRC. The United Nations welcomed the agreement as “a significant step towards de-escalation, peace and stability” in the region.

I have analysed several different peace negotiations and agreements. It’s important to distinguish between what’s needed to get warring parties to the table, and what’s eventually agreed on. In this article, I examine whether the DRC-Rwanda deal has got the four essential components that usually signal that an agreement will hold.

Two broad points about peace agreements, first – and one particular complication in the DRC-Rwanda case.

Firstly, one agreement is rarely enough to resolve a complex conflict. Most deals are part of a series of agreements, sometimes between different actors. They often mention previously concluded ones, and will be referred to by subsequent ones.

Secondly, peace is a process, and requires broad and sustained commitment. It is essential that other actors, like armed groups, are brought on board. Importantly, this also includes civil society actors. An agreement will be more legitimate and effective if different voices are heard during negotiations.

One major complication in relation to the DRC-Rwanda deal is that the United States has been the prime broker. But rather than acting as a neutral mediator trying to bring about peace, Washington seems to be pursuing its own economic interests. This does not bode well.

There is no simple recipe for a good peace agreement, but research shows that four elements are important: a serious commitment from the parties, precise wording, clear timelines and strong implementation provisions.

What underpins a good agreement

First, the parties need to be serious about the agreement and able to commit to its terms. It must not be used as a cover to buy time, re-arm or pursue fighting. Moreover, lasting peace cannot be made exclusively at the highest political level. Agreements that are the result of more inclusive processes, with input by and support from the communities concerned, have a higher success rate.

Second, the agreement must address the issues it aims to resolve, and its provisions must be drafted carefully and unambiguously. When agreements are vague or silent on key aspects, they are often short-lived. Previous experiences can guide peace negotiators and mediators in the drafting process. Peace agreement databases established by the United Nations and academic institutions are a useful tool for this.

Third, clear and realistic timelines are essential. These can concern the withdrawal of armed forces from specified territories, the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and the establishment of mechanisms providing reparations or other forms of transitional justice.

Fourth, an agreement should include provisions on its implementation. External support is usually helpful here. Third states or international organisations, liked the United Nations and the African Union, can be mandated to oversee this phase. They can also provide security guarantees or even deploy a peacekeeping operation. What is crucial is that these actors are committed to the process and don’t pursue their own interests.

To know what to realistically expect from a specific peace agreement, it’s important to understand that such agreements can take very different forms. These range from pre-negotiation arrangements and ceasefires to comprehensive peace accords and implementation agreements.

A lasting resolution of the conflict should not be expected when only a few conflict parties have concluded a temporary ceasefire.

The DRC-Rwanda agreement: an important step with lots of shortcomings

It’s difficult to tell at this point how serious the DRC and Rwanda are about peace, and if their commitment will be enough.

Their assertion that they will respect each other’s territory and refrain from acts of aggression is certainly important.

But Rwanda has a history of direct military activities in the DRC since the 1990s. And the treaty only includes rather vague references to the “disengagement of forces/lifting of defensive measures by Rwanda”. It doesn’t specifically mention the withdrawal of the reportedly thousands of Rwandan troops deployed to eastern DRC.

The Paul Kagame-led Rwandan government has also supported Tutsi-dominated armed groups in the DRC since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) is the current primary military actor in eastern DRC. But the agreement between the governments of DRC and Rwanda didn’t include the M23 or other groups. The two governments only commit themselves to supporting the ongoing negotiations between the DRC and the M23 facilitated by Qatar.

The agreement also foresees the “neutralisation” of another armed group, the Hutu-dominated Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR). This group claims to protect Rwandan Hutu refugees in the DRC, but is considered “genocidal” by the Rwandan government. The group has reacted to this plan by calling for a political solution and a more inclusive peace process.

What’s needed

The DRC-Rwanda agreement includes provisions that are vital to the people most affected by the conflict, such as the return of the millions of people displaced because of the fighting in eastern DRC. But it does not address other key issues.

For instance, aside from a general commitment to promote human rights and international humanitarian law, there is no reference to the widespread violations of human rights and war crimes reportedly committed by all sides. These include summary executions, and sexual and gender-based violence, including violence against children.

Some form of justice and reconciliation mechanism to deal with such large-scale violence should be considered in this situation, as for instance in the fairly successful 2016 agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC). This could contribute to preventing further violations as it sends a clear signal that committing crimes will not be rewarded. It also helps the population heal and gives peace a better chance.

There is no single model for this, and so-called transitional justice (defined as the “range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation”) remains highly controversial. For instance, insisting on war crimes trials can be seen as endangering a fragile peace process.

But peace agreements across the world, from Libya to the Central African Republic, have over past decades moved away from blanket amnesties. They have increasingly included provisions to ensure accountability, especially for serious crimes. The DRC-Rwanda deal is silent on these questions.

A twist in the tale

The DRC-Rwanda deal is complicated by Washington’s role and pursuit of economic interests.

The two states agreed to establish a joint oversight committee, with members of the African Union, Qatar and the United States. It foresees a “regional economic integration framework”, which has been criticised as opening the door for foreign influence in the DRC’s rich mineral resources. The country is the world’s largest producer of cobalt, for instance, which is essential for the renewable energy sector.

Such a neocolonial “peace for exploitation bargain” does not send a positive signal. And it will probably not contribute to ending an armed conflict that has been fuelled by the exploitation of natural resources.

Written by Philipp Kastner, Senior Lecturer in International Law, The University of Western Australia.  By Philipp Kastner, Defense Web 

Congo and M23 rebels signed a declaration in Qatar to end fighting, a key step in peace talks, though major issues like withdrawals and prisoner releases remain unresolved [GETTY]

Congo and M23 rebels signed a Qatar peace deal to end fighting, a key step in talks, though major issues like withdrawals and prisoners remain unresolved. 

The Democratic Republic of the Congo and the M23 rebel group signed a declaration of principles on Saturday to end fighting in eastern Congo, a sign of progress, even as sources briefed on the talks said details still needed to be negotiated.

The signing by representatives from both sides took place at a ceremony in Qatar that followed months of Qatari mediation after talks began in April.

The United States has exerted pressure to finalise a durable peace deal in the volatile Central African country. US President Donald Trump has made clear he hopes that it would attract Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals.

M23, in the latest of a series of uprisings supported by Rwanda, seized Goma, eastern Congo's largest city, in January and went on to make gains across North Kivu and South Kivu provinces.

The fighting has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year, while escalating the risk of a full-scale regional war. Several of Congo's neighbours already had troops deployed in eastern Congo when the advance began.

The New Arab Staff & Agencies

In March, Qatar brokered a surprise meeting between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame during which they called for an "immediate and unconditional" ceasefire.

This led to direct talks, also held in Doha, between the Congo and the M23. Congo had previously rejected the idea of holding talks with M23, branding it a terrorist group.

Sources in both delegations have expressed frustration with the pace of negotiations and the lack of progress on confidence-building measures, including the release of M23 members held by Congo and the reopening of banks in rebel-held territory.

It was unclear on Saturday how many of those issues had been resolved.

Bigger outstanding questions concerning the possible Rwandan and M23 withdrawals from eastern Congo were not expected to be fully addressed by the declaration of principles. The New Arab Staff & Agencies

 

Idi Amin addresses the United Nations General Assembly in 1975. Bettmann/Getty Images

Idi Amin made himself out to be the ‘liberator’ of an oppressed majority – a demagogic trick that endures today

 

Fifty years ago, Ugandan President Idi Amin wrote to the governments of the British Commonwealth with a bold suggestion: Allow him to take over as head of the organization, replacing Queen Elizabeth II.

After all, Amin reasoned, a collapsing economy had made the U.K. unable to maintain its leadership. Moreover the “British empire does not now exist following the complete decolonization of Britain’s former overseas territories.”

It wasn’t Amin’s only attempt to reshape the international order. Around the same time, he called for the United Nations headquarters to be moved to Uganda’s capital, Kampala, touting its location at “the heart of the world between the continents of America, Asia, Australia and the North and South Poles.”

Amin’s diplomacy aimed to place Kampala at the center of a postcolonial world. In my new book, “A Popular History of Idi Amin’s Uganda,” I show that Amin’s government made Uganda – a remote, landlocked nation – look like a frontline state in the global war against racism, apartheid and imperialism.

Doing so was, for the Amin regime, a way of claiming a morally essential role: liberator of Africa’s hitherto oppressed people. It helped inflate his image both at home and abroad, allowing him to maintain his rule for eight calamitous years, from 1971 to 1979.

The phony liberator?

Amin was the creator of a myth that was both manifestly untrue and extraordinarily compelling: that his violent, dysfunctional regime was actually engaged in freeing people from foreign oppressors. 

The question of Scottish independence was one of his enduring concerns. The “people of Scotland are tired of being exploited by the English,” wrote Amin in a 1974 telegram to United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim. “Scotland was once an independent country, happy, well governed and administered with peace and prosperity,” but under the British government, “England has thrived on the energies and brains of the Scottish people.”

Even his cruelest policies were framed as if they were liberatory. In August 1972, Amin announced the summary expulsion of Uganda’s Asian community. Some 50,000 people, many of whom had lived in Uganda for generations, were given a bare three months to tie up their affairs and leave the country. Amin named this the “Economic War.”

In the speech that announced the expulsions, Amin argued that “the Ugandan Africans have been enslaved economically since the time of the colonialists.” The Economic War was meant to “emancipate the Uganda Africans of this republic.”

“This is the day of salvation for the Ugandan Africans,” he said. By the end of 1972, some 5,655 farms, ranches and estates had been vacated by the departed Asian community, and Black African proprietors were queuing up to take over Asian-run businesses.

Men and women walk down stairs leading from an airplane.
Ugandan Asian refugees arrive at an airport in the U.K. after being expelled from Uganda. P. Felix/Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

A year later, when Amin attended the Organization of African Unity summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, his “achievements” were reported in a booklet published by the Uganda government. During his speech, Amin was “interrupted by thunderous applauses of acclamation and cheers, almost word for word, by Heads of State and Government and by everybody else who had a chance to hear it,” according to the the report.

It was, wrote the government propagandist, “very clear that Uganda had emerged as the forefront of a True African State. It was clear that African nationalism had been born again. It was clear that the speech had brought new life to the freedom struggle in Africa.”

Life at the front

Amin’s policies were disastrous for all Ugandans, African and Asian alike. Yet his war of economic liberation was, for a time, a source of inspiration for activists around the world. Among the many people gripped by enthusiasm for Amin’s regime was Roy Innis, the Black American leader of the civil rights organization Congress of Racial Equality.

In March 1973, Innis visited Uganda at Amin’s invitation. Innis and his colleagues had been pressing African governments to grant dual citizenship to Black Americans, just as Jewish Americans could earn citizenship from the state of Israel.

Over the course of their 18 days in Uganda, the visiting Americans were shuttled around the country in Amin’s helicopter. Everywhere, Innis spoke with enthusiasm about Amin’s accomplishments. In a poem published in the pro-government Voice of Uganda around the time of his visit, Innis wrote:

“Before, the life of your people was a complete bore,

And they were poor, oppressed, exploited and economically sore.

And you then came and opened new, dynamic economic pages.

And showered progress on your people in realistic stages.

In such expert moves that baffled even the great sages,

your electric personality pronounced the imperialists’ doom.

Your pragmatism has given Ugandans their economic boom.”

In May 1973, Innis was back in Uganda, promising to recruit a contingent of 500 African American professors and technicians to serve in Uganda. Amin offered them free passage to Uganda, free housing and free hospital care for themselves and their families. The American weekly magazine Jet predicted that Uganda was soon to become an “African Israel,” a model nation upheld by the energies and knowledge of Black Americans.

A man gesticulates while talking
Roy Innis, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality, in 1972. Bettmann/Getty Images

As some have observed, Innis was surely naive. But his enthusiasm was shared by a great many people, not least a great many Ugandans. Inspired by Amin’s promises, their energy and commitment kept institutions functioning in a time of great disruption. They built roads and stadiums, constructed national monuments and underwrote the running costs of government ministries.

Patriotism and demagoguery

Their ambitions were soon foreclosed by a rising tide of political dysfunction. Amin’s regime came to a violent end in 1979, when he was ousted by the invading army of Tanzania and fled Uganda.

But his brand of demagoguery lives on. Today a new generation of demagogues claim to be fighting to liberate aggrieved majorities from outsiders’ control.

In the 1970s, Amin enlisted Black Ugandans to battle against racial minorities who were said to dominate the economy and public life. Today an ascendant right wing encourages aggrieved white Americans to regard themselves as a majority dispossessed of their inheritance by greedy immigrants.

Amin encouraged Ugandans to regard themselves as frontline soldiers, engaged in a globally consequential war against foreigners. In today’s America, some people similarly feel themselves deputized to take matters of state into their own hands. In January 2021, for instance, a right-wing group called “Stop the Steal” organized a rally in Washington. Vowing to “take our country back,” they stormed the Capitol building.

The racialized demagoguery that Idi Amin promoted inspired the imagination of a great many people. It also fed violent campaigns to repossess a stolen inheritance, to reclaim properties that ought, in the view of the aggrieved majority, to belong to native sons and daughters. His regime is for us today a warning about the compelling power of demagoguery to shape people’s sense of purpose. The Conversation

 Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho.[File, Standard]
 

The High Court has barred a company associated with the family of Cabinet Secretary  Hassan Joho from transporting cargo to South Sudan.

Justice Christopher Ndolo Mutuku issued the order after finding that the company had failed to effectively execute its mandate in handling and processing cargo destined for South Sudan. 

In his ruling, Justice Mutuku directed the Kenyan government to comply with a request from the South Sudanese government to suspend cargo transportation arrangements involving Autoport Freight Terminal, owned by the Joho family, and Compact Freight Systems Limited, owned by businessman Sam Kairu, which was handling 20 per cent of the cargo. 

Justice Mutuku noted that the firms' failure to fulfil  their responsibilities had strained relations with the appointing authority. 

This, he warned, could lead to the cancellation of their appointment, thereby infringing on the applicants' constitutional right to livelihood. 

"The lives and interests of the needy and marginalised people of South Sudan, particularly regarding access to essential cargo such as food and medicine, are paramount considerations. These concerns compel this honourable court to intervene and ensure that there is no disruption in the cargo processing and supply chain, and that no lives are unnecessarily lost due to bureaucratic hiccups," stated Justice Mutuku. 

The latest court intervention follows a June 16, 2025, letter from the South Sudanese government to Kenya's Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport, David Chirchir, notifying him of the decision to cancel the cargo allocation agreement. 

"We hereby formally notify your esteemed office (CS Transport) of our decision to cancel the previous cargo allocation arrangement issued by our Ministry, which had assigned 80 per cent of South Sudan-bound seaborne cargo to Autoport CFS and 20 per cent to Compact Freight Systems. This has led to bottlenecks and a notable cargo auctioning incident, adversely affecting commercial and sensitive consignments, including United Nations shipments," the letter stated. 

South Sudan’s Transport Minister Lam Akol, explained that the allocation to the two firms had caused logistical bottlenecks and a cargo auctioning incident, which negatively impacted vital consignments.

"Following extensive consultations and reviews with relevant national stakeholders, we have determined that the previous allocation model is no longer suitable, given the current logistical landscape and strategic direction, particularly in light of the ongoing development of the Naivasha dry port, intended to serve as the primary clearance hub for South Sudan-bound cargo," Dr Akol said.

In his ruling, Justice Mutuku emphasized the urgency of maintaining uninterrupted cargo handling operations.

"There is an urgent need to safeguard the most vulnerable members of society through an interim measure of protection in the form of a mandatory injunction, aimed at ensuring consistent and effective cargo handling as requested by the recipient country," he ruled. By Nancy Gitonga, The standard

 
A person about to click an app on a phone. Photo Canva 

The High Court has ruled that the government's directive requiring Kenyans to register the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers of their mobile phones upon entry into the country is unconstitutional.

In a judgement delivered on Friday, July 18, Justice Chacha Mwita found that the public notices issued by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) and the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) had no legal basis and therefore contravened the Constitution. 

The judge ruled that the requirement to submit IMEI numbers infringed on Articles 24 and 31 of the Constitution, which safeguard the right to privacy.

Further, the court held that compelling citizens to disclose IMEI numbers enabled potential State surveillance without oversight, rendering the directive unconstitutional.

Consequently, Justice Mwita issued orders quashing the notices and prohibiting the state from implementing or acting on those notices. 

IMEI numbers, uniquely tied to a device’s hardware, enable mobile providers to pinpoint a phone’s location within a 100-meter radius and access insights into a person’s communication history. 

The petition, filed by the Katiba Institute, argued that the directive was unjustified and disproportionate.

It also challenged KRA’s notice giving effect to the CA notice addressed to all mobile device importers, assemblers, and manufacturers, requiring them to submit the IMEI numbers. The notice further required passengers entering Kenya to declare their IMEI numbers and fill out a form.

The lobby group, in its earlier petition, warned that granting CA and KRA access to mobile service provider data could allow them to monitor individuals’ movements and communications on an unprecedented scale.

The Institute also claimed that the government had failed to provide sufficient details regarding safeguards, such as who would control the IMEI database, who would have access, and what security measures were in place to protect the data. 

The latest comes after Mwita had issued conservatory orders blocking the implementation of the directive on IMEI registration.

The directive was introduced to ensure proper tax declaration, payment, and verification for mobile devices imported into or assembled within Kenya by using the IMEI numbers for effective compliance monitoring. By Walter Ngano, Kenyans.co.ke

About IEA Media Ltd

Informer East Africa is a UK based diaspora Newspaper. It is a unique platform connecting East Africans at home and abroad through news dissemination. It is a forum to learn together, grow together and get entertained at the same time.

To advertise events or products, get in touch by info [at] informereastafrica [dot] com or call +447957636854.
If you have an issue or a story, get in touch with the editor through editor[at] informereastafrica [dot] com or call +447886544135.

We also accept donations from our supporters. Please click on "donate". Your donations will go along way in supporting the newspaper.

Get in touch

Our Offices

London, UK
+44 7886 544135
editor (@) informereastafrica.com
Slough, UK
+44 7957 636854
info (@) informereastafrica.com

Latest News

Puzzle as Kenyans Receive Title Deeds With Phone Numbers Instead of ID

Puzzle as Kenyans Re...

A sample of title deeds at a real estate firm Photo Optiven Over 300 residents of Mkocheni, Taita T...

Tiger Woods' new health update was result of a 'good decision'

Tiger Woods' ne...

It's been months since Tiger Woods provided the world with an update on his heath -- he suffered an...

Ramaphosa: Mthethwa was a courageous freedom fighter

Ramaphosa: Mthethwa...

President Cyril Ramaphosa at Nathi Mthethwa's funeral on Sunday, 12 October 2025, at the Dondotha S...

Uganda 2026 Elections: Democracy At A Crossroads – Analysis

Uganda 2026 Election...

In a world replete with democratic institutions, the African continent remains a peculiar exception....

For Advertisement

Big Reach

Informer East Africa is one platform for all people. It is a platform where you find so many professionals under one umbrella serving the African communities together.

Very Flexible

We exist to inform you, hear from you and connect you with what is happening around you. We do this professionally and timely as we endeavour to capture all that you should never miss. Informer East Africa is simply news for right now and the future.

Quality News

We only bring to you news that is verified, checked and follows strict journalistic guidelines and standards. We believe in 1. Objective coverage, 2. Impartiality and 3. Fair play.

Banner & Video Ads

A banner & video advertisement from our sponsors will show up every once in a while. It keeps us and our writers coffee replenished.