The Coalition Article 64 (C64), a prominent group advocating for constitutional order in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), concluded a high-profile visit to Bujumbura this month, sparking intense debate about their political stance.
Following their meeting with Burundian President Évariste Ndayishimiye, C64 leaders clarified their position after facing criticism over perceived concessions to President Félix Tshisekedi’s administration. The coalition emphasized that the initiative for the engagement came from the Burundian president in his capacity as current chair of the African Union, not from their side. While open to political dialogue, the group insisted on strict conditions to ensure genuine progress.
Core demands for meaningful dialogue
According to the coalition’s spokespeople, any credible political dialogue must begin with the government’s unequivocal abandonment of constitutional amendments, the immediate release of political detainees, an end to politically motivated prosecutions, and the restoration of civil liberties. These prerequisites, they argue, are non-negotiable pillars for sustainable peace in the DRC.
Unaddressed political grievances fuel the crisis
The leaders of C64 highlighted a critical flaw in past peace initiatives: their failure to address the underlying political causes of the conflict. They warned that without tackling the root issues—such as constitutional violations and erosion of democratic norms—the nation’s turmoil will persist. Respect for constitutional order, adherence to the rule of law, and recognition of Congolese sovereignty remain central to their demands.
Among their top concerns is President Tshisekedi’s controversial proposal to amend the constitution, which they view as a dangerous escalation amid ongoing armed conflict and territorial occupation. The coalition has vowed to intensify their protests, including a planned peaceful march to the Palais de la Nation on July 22, where they will demand the president’s resignation for what they describe as a breach of his constitutional oath.
