Connect with us

NGO WORK

Profit off Peace? Meet the Corporations Poised to Benefit from the DRC Peace Deal

Published

on

The peace agreement signed in June 2025 between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) under the auspices of the Trump administration raises serious concerns about whom it truly serves. Rather than securing lasting peace for the Congolese people, the deal appears poised to benefit corporate and financial interests eager to access the country’s vast mineral wealth. Investigating these interests, this Policy Brief alerts that the US firms and oligarchs set to profit from the deal lack the interest, history, and know-how to make peace happen and last. Barring a radical shift, this deal may only perpetuate the deadly cycle of exploitation that has plagued the country for centuries.

On June 27, 2025, a peace agreement was signed between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) under the auspices of the Trump administration, after extensive diplomacy work and mediation by Qatar. On the surface, the deal offered hope to a country devastated by three decades of war, which have claimed over six million lives, displaced millions more, and inflicted widespread suffering.

The most recent escalation began in 2024, when the M23 rebel group and the Rwandan Defense Forces launched a violent offensive, exacerbating an already massive humanitarian crisis. The United Nations has gathered overwhelming evidence that Rwanda was actively supporting and directing M23’s offensive in eastern DRC. President Kagame has framed the intervention as a defense of the Tutsi population – targeted during the 1994 genocide – but it has been extensively documented that Rwanda’s illegal extraction of the DRC’s highly valuable minerals has been a major driver of the conflict. The DRC, rich with mineral reserves worth US$24 trillion, produces 70 percent of the world’s cobalt, and has large reserves of several critical minerals. Rwanda’s support of M23 has allowed it to take over much of eastern DRC, capture many mines, and perpetrate massacres and egregious human rights abuses. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of Rwanda’s coltan exports are illegally sourced from eastern DRC and that many of the armed groups involved in the area are financed by this illegal extraction.

Image
M23 militia in Goma, eastern DRC, 2012 © UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti
M23 militia in Goma, eastern DRC, 2012 © UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti

The peace deal came under criticism even before it was signed. The 2018 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Denis Mukwege warned that the deal “would amount to granting a reward [to Rwanda] for aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congolese natural resources, and forcing the victim to alienate their national heritage by sacrificing justice in order to ensure a precarious and fragile peace.” In June, a coalition of 80 Congolese non-governmental organizations and public interest attorneys, called for “the rejection of the hasty and ill-conceived peace and business agreement.” The appeal from the Mobilisation pour la Sauvegarde de la Souveraineté et de l’Autonomie Congolaise (MOSSAC) alerted on a number of critical shortcomings in the agreement, a draft of which had been leaked in previous weeks. Their concerns included impunity the deal provides to perpetrators of violence and abuses; and that it was forced upon the DRC and thus may not benefit the country and its people. It was also criticized for allowing Rwanda’s continued plundering of the DRC’s mineral resources while ultimately catering to the interests of US mining and corporate interests.

These concerns are legitimate given the deal is not just a peace agreement between two warring countries – it unusually also involves the expansion of mineral exploitation in partnership with the US government and American investors. President Trump even claimed at the signing of the deal: “We’re getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it.”

At the launch of the “Declaration of Principles” that preceded the peace deal in April 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “Our firms are good corporate citizens, American firms, and they’ll bring good governance and ensure responsible, reliable supply chains for things like critical minerals that benefit regional governments and our partners and allies as well.”

However, the terms of the peace agreement are vague on business arrangements with US interests. The text does not indicate which US firms would be involved and how they would deliver on the above promises. Details on specific business interests are expected to be disclosed in a forthcoming US-DRC critical minerals agreement.

Read full report: oaklandinstitute.org

Source: The Oakland Institute

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement Faces Constitutional Challenge in Court

Published

on

Top photo: President Donald Trump participates in a trilateral signing ceremony of a peace and economic agreement with President Paul Kagame of the Republic of Rwanda and President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Thursday, December 4, 2025, at the United States Peace Institute in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

  • In a landmark legal action, Congolese lawyers and human rights defenders have filed a constitutional challenge against the US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC.
  • A recent report from the Oakland Institute exposed how the US-brokered “peace” deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is the latest US maneuver to control Congolese critical minerals.
  • While US mining firms secure privileged access to vast reserves of copper, cobalt, lithium, and tantalum, promises of peace and security remain hollow as Rwanda and its proxy M23 armed group continue to occupy large swaths of mineral-rich territory in eastern DRC.

Oakland, CA – In a landmark legal action in January 2026, Congolese lawyers and human rights defenders filed a constitutional challenge against the US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC.

Signed alongside the US-brokered “peace deal” between Rwanda and the DRC – known as the Washington Accord – the agreement grants the United States preferential access to Congolese mineral reserves and requires the DRC to amend its national laws and potentially its Constitution. The agreement further establishes a joint governance mechanism that gives Washington a direct role in overseeing the management of Congo’s mining sector.

The lawyers argue that the agreement violates the Congolese Constitution, which requires that any amendment to national laws and/or the Constitution be subject to democratic review and approval by Parliament or by popular referendum.  In particular, the agreement contravenes Article 214 of the DRC’s Constitution, which governs the ratification of international agreements that alter domestic law. The petition also contends that the agreement violates Articles 9 and 217, which enshrine national sovereignty over natural resources, as well as Article 12, which guarantees equality before the law.

“By filing this case with the Constitutional Court, we are assuming our responsibility as Congolese citizens to protect the sovereignty of our country and safeguard our patrimony for future generations,” said Attorney Jean-Marie Kalonji, one of the plaintiffs.

In October 2025, the Oakland Institute released Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC, warning that US diplomatic initiatives, including the Rwanda-DRC peace deal — were being used to advance mineral extraction interests under the guise of bringing peace to the region.

“The Partnership Agreement makes it clear that these concerns were legitimate. The Congolese people have been sidelined, with an agreement focused on extraction and exploitation and a peace deal that shockingly overlooks the need for justice and for holding perpetrators accountable,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. “While the US mining firms secure privileged access to Congo’s vast reserves of critical minerals, promises of peace and security remain hollow with Rwanda and M23 still occupying large swaths of land in mineral-rich eastern DRC,” Mittal continued.

In mid-January 2026, the DRC government took a major step towards implementing the agreement by providing Washington with a shortlist of state-owned assets — including manganese, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium projects – marked for potential US investment.

The lawyers and human rights defenders behind this case are calling for a nationwide mobilization to defend Congolese sovereignty and are urging the international community to support their legal action and uphold international law at a time when it faces an unprecedented threat.

“The Oakland Institute will continue to stand by its partners to support this mobilization and promote a Congolese-led path for peace, justice, and prosperity for the DRC instead of Trump’s hyperbole of peace and security accomplished through its mineral deal,” concluded Mittal.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Violations against Kenya’s indigenous Ogiek condemned yet again by African Court

Published

on

Minority Rights Group welcomes today’s decision by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the case of Ogiek people v. Government of Kenya. The decision reiterates previous findings of more than a decade of unremedied violations against the indigenous Ogiek people, centred on forced evictions from their ancestral lands in the Mau forest.

The Court showed clear impatience concerning Kenya’s failure to implement two landmark rulings in favour of the indigenous Ogiek people: in a 2017 judgment, that their human rights had been violated by Kenya’s denial of access to their land, and in a 2022 judgment, which ordered Kenya to pay nearly 160 million Kenyan shillings (about 1.3 million USD) in compensation and to restitute their ancestral lands, enabling them to enjoy the human rights that have been denied them.

Despite tireless activism from the community and the historic nature of both judgments, Kenya has not implemented any part of either decision. The community remains socioeconomically marginalized as a result of their eviction and dispossession. Evictions have continued, notably in 2023 with 700 community members made homeless and their property destroyed, and in 2020 evicting about 600, destroying their homes in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Daniel Kobei, Executive Director of the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program stated, ‘We have been at the African Court six times to fight for our rights to live on our lands as an indigenous people – rights which our government has denied us and continues to violate, compounding our plights and marginalization, despite clear orders from the African Court for our government to remedy the violations. This is the seventh time, and we were hopeful that the Court would be more strict to the government of Kenya in ensuring that a workable roadmap be followed in implementation of the two judgments.’

Image: The Ogiek delegation outside the African Court after the delivery of the decision. 4 December 2025.

Kenya has repeatedly justified the eviction of Ogiek as necessary for conservation, although the forest has seen significant harm since evictions began. Many in the community see a connection between their eviction and Kenya’s participation in lucrative carbon credit schemes.

‘The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely and full implementation of measures imposed on a state which has been found to be in breach of their internationally agreed obligations. Kenya must now repay its debt to the indigenous Ogiek by restituting their land and making reparations, among other remedies ordered by the Court’, said Samuel Ade Ndasi, African Union Advocacy and Litigation Officer at Minority Rights Group.

The decision states, ‘the court orders the respondent state to immediately take all necessary steps, be they legislative or administrative or otherwise, to remedy all the violations established in the judgment on merits.’ The court also reaffirmed that no state can invoke domestic laws to justifiy a breach of international obligations.

Both of the original judgments were historic precedents, breaking new ground on the issue of restitution and compensation for collective violations experienced by indigenous peoples and confirming the vital role of indigenous peoples in safeguarding ecosystems, that states must respect and protect their land rights, that lands appropriated from them in the name of conservation without free, prior and informed consent must be returned, and their right to be the ultimate decision makers about what happens on their lands. Today’s decision adds to this tally of precedents as it is the first decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights concerning the record of a state in implementing a binding decision.

The case

In October 2009, the Kenyan government, through the Kenya Forestry Service, issued a 30-day eviction notice to the Ogiek and other settlers of the Mau Forest, demanding that they leave the forest. Concerned that this was a perpetuation of the historical land injustices already suffered, and having failed to resolve these injustices through repeated national litigation and advocacy efforts, the Ogiek decided to lodge a case against their government before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights with the assistance of Minority Rights Group, the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program and the Centre for Minority Rights Development. The African Commission issued interim measures, which were flouted by the Government of Kenya and thereafter referred the case to the African Court based on the complementarity relationship between the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and on the grounds that there was evidence of serious or massive human rights violations.

On 26 May 2017, after years of litigation, a failed attempt at amicable settlement and an oral hearing on the merits, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights rendered a merits judgment in favour of the Ogiek people. It held that the government had violated the Ogiek’s rights to communal ownership of their ancestral lands, to culture, development and use of natural resources, as well as to be free from discrimination and practise their religion or belief. On 23 June 2022, the Court rejected Kenya’s objections and set out the reparations owed for the violations established in the 2017 judgment.

Source: minorityrights.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Published

on

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights reveals how the Bank is appropriating climate commitments made at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to justify its multibillion-dollar initiative to “formalize” land tenure across the Global South. While the Bank claims that it is necessary “to access land for climate action,” Climatewash uncovers that its true aim is to open lands to agribusiness, mining of “transition minerals,” and false solutions like carbon credits – fueling dispossession and environmental destruction. Alongside plans to spend US$10 billion on land programs, the World Bank has also pledged to double its agribusiness investments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.

This report details how the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions to governments dismantle collective land tenure systems and promote individual titling and land markets as the norm, paving the way for private investment and corporate takeover. These reforms, often financed through loans taken by governments, force countries into debt while pushing a “structural transformation” that displaces smallholder farmers, undermines food sovereignty, and prioritizes industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Drawing on a thorough analysis of World Bank programs from around the world, including case studies from Indonesia, Malawi, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Argentina, Climatewash documents how the Bank’s interventions are already displacing communities and entrenching land inequality. The report debunks the Bank’s climate action rhetoric. It details how the Bank’s efforts to consolidate land for industrial agriculture, mining, and carbon offsetting directly contradict the recommendations of the IPCC, which emphasizes the protection of lands from conversion and overexploitation and promotes practices such as agroecology as crucial climate solutions.

Read full report: Climatewash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Source: The Oakland Institute

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter