Kinshasa debate: national dialogue defined as a tool for consultation and pacification
A Paris-based lawyer has set out a clear legal framework for the national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo, describing it as a political mechanism for consultation and pacification rather than a parallel institution.
Me Ben Touere, a member of the Paris Bar and a doctor of public law who teaches at Sorbonne Paris Nord University, argued that the initiative should aim to build compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reforms and the functioning of the state. However, he warned that it must not turn into a second parliament, a parallel government, a political court, or a de facto constituent assembly.
Legal limits: dialogue outcomes require constitutional translation
According to Me Touere, any political conclusions reached during the dialogue can only produce lasting legal effects once they are translated by the institutions that hold constitutional authority. He explained that legislative reform must go through Parliament, public policy falls under the Government, constitutional questions belong to the Constitutional Court, and matters reserved for the direct decision of the people must be submitted to them in the forms prescribed by law.
The proposed sequence, he said, relies on a chain: dialogue, consensus, intervention by competent institutions, constitutional review, and—where required or legally warranted—a popular consultation.
Constitutional sovereignty and the limits of dialogue
Me Touere also pointed to Article 5 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle that national sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it directly through elections or referendums and indirectly through their representatives. He stressed that neither the majority, nor the opposition, nor participants in a dialogue can claim national sovereignty for themselves.
In his analysis, the ultimate goal of the process must be to reform and consolidate the state through dialogue, rather than to create mechanisms that could weaken it or share its prerogatives.
