A consultation mechanism, not a shadow government

In Kinshasa, a legal expert trained in Paris has drawn a clear line around what the national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi can and cannot do — and his warning carries direct consequences for how the country is governed, how its economy operates and how ordinary Congolese experience the state.

Me Ben Touere, a lawyer at the Paris bar and a doctor of public law who teaches at Sorbonne Paris Nord University, said the process should be understood as a political mechanism for consultation and pacification. Its purpose, he argued, is to build compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reform and the functioning of the state — not to become a parallel institution.

“The national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi must be conceived as a political mechanism of consultation and pacification, not as a parallel institution,” he said. “It can help seek compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reforms and the functioning of the state. On the other hand, it must not become a second Parliament, a parallel Government, a political court, or a de facto constituent assembly.”

Why legal limits matter for citizens and businesses

For Congolese citizens and companies, the distinction is not academic. If the dialogue were to produce decisions treated as directly binding, it could bypass the institutions that normally issue laws, shape public policy and settle constitutional disputes. That, in turn, would create uncertainty over which rules apply, who can change them, and how disputes are resolved — a risk felt most acutely by investors, employers and households that depend on predictable governance.

The Paris-based jurist stressed that any political conclusions reached through the dialogue could only produce lasting legal effects once they are translated by the institutions that hold constitutional authority.

“A legislative reform must go through Parliament; a public policy falls to the Government; a question of constitutionality falls to the Constitutional Court; and a question reserved for the direct decision of the people must be submitted to them in the forms provided by law,” he explained.

Under that sequence, the dialogue would feed into consensus-building, then pass through the competent institutions, constitutional review and — where required or legally warranted — a popular consultation.

Sovereignty belongs to the people, not to participants

Me Elenga also pointed to Article 5 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle that national sovereignty belongs to the people. The people exercise it directly through elections or referendums, and indirectly through their representatives.

“Neither the majority, nor the opposition, nor the participants in a dialogue can therefore claim national sovereignty for themselves,” he said.

In his view, the ultimate aim should be to reform and consolidate the state through dialogue rather than to create mechanisms that weaken it or share its prerogatives.

The practical stakes: stability, investment and public trust

When a consultation is framed this way, its real-world effects come into focus. A dialogue that respects constitutional boundaries can lower political tension, give citizens a sense that their grievances are being heard, and reassure businesses that laws will not be rewritten outside normal channels. A dialogue that oversteps those boundaries risks institutional paralysis, contested decisions and a climate in which neither citizens nor enterprises can plan with confidence.

The legal framework outlined here is intended to prevent that drift — keeping the national dialogue as a space for concertation while preserving the authority of Parliament, the Government and the courts.

By Mariama Hamani — Analyst