Congo, Rwanda spar over protocol to disarm Rwandan rebels

AFP
By AFP July 30, 2026 06:01 (EAT)
Add as a Preferred Source on Google
Congo, Rwanda spar over protocol to disarm Rwandan rebels

Copyright: Arlette BASHIZI for Reuters, Credit: REUTERS, Creator: Arlette Bashizi

Vocalize Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Vocalize

Congo said on Tuesday that a Rwandan armed group operating in eastern Congo had signed a protocol committing to disarmament, but Rwanda ​rejected the move as inconsistent with a U.S.-brokered peace agreement ‌between the two countries.

Congo's government said the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a group founded by ethnic Hutu fighters including some linked to the perpetrators of ​the 1994 Rwandan genocide, had signed a protocol on disarmament, ​demobilisation and cantonment.

The FDLR is a central issue in a peace ⁠deal signed by Congo and Rwanda in Washington last year aimed at ​ending the conflict in eastern Congo. The agreement commits the parties to ​implement a plan providing for the neutralisation of the FDLR and the disengagement of Rwandan forces in eastern Congo, making progress on the group a key test of ​the deal.

Rwanda has long accused Congo of cooperating with the group, while ​Kinshasa accuses Kigali of backing AFC/M23 rebels. Fighting has continued despite the peace deal.

A ‌copy ⁠of the protocol obtained by Reuters shows the FDLR agreeing in principle to disarm, demobilise and move into cantonment sites under a planned process, subject to security guarantees and protection from forced extradition to Rwanda.

The protocol ​does not specify how ​many fighters ⁠are covered, where cantonment sites would be located, when disarmament would begin, or whether any fighters have already surrendered ​weapons.

Congolese government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya said the protocol was ​in ⁠line with the Washington agreement and represented progress toward implementing Congo's obligations.

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called the protocol a delaying tactic, saying the peace ⁠deal required ​the FDLR's neutralisation rather than negotiations with ​the group.

The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Join the Discussion

Share your perspective with the Citizen Digital community.

Moderation applies

Sign In to Publish

No comments yet

This discussion is waiting for your voice. Be the first to share your thoughts!