Kinshasa has ‘created a monster it cannot control’:
The town of Uvira in South Kivu, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has been paralysed since early September by intensifying clashes between the Congolese army (FARDC) and the Wazalendo militia.
This conflict stems from the Wazalendo’s protest against the appointment of General Olivier Gasita, a high-ranking army officer in the city whom they accuse of being a Munyamulenge (Congolese Tutsi) and a double agent.
During a press briefing in Kinshasa, Major General Sylvain Ekenge, spokesperson for the Congolese army, voiced full support for Gasita, urging the Wazalendo not to validate “Rwanda’s thesis” regarding the need to protect Congolese Tutsis.
Despite the army’s stance, the Wazalendo organised a demonstration on 8 September, demanding Gasita’s immediate recall and arrest within 24 hours. The protest was violently suppressed by the Congolese army, resulting in 10 deaths and 16 people being injured, according to civil society reports. The army, however, acknowledged only the fatalities.
The army has stated that it will not appease the militia by replacing Gasita. In response to the crisis, President Félix Tshisekedi has dispatched a government mission to Uvira.
The standoff between the army and the Wazalendo, a coalition of militia groups under United Nations sanctions and previously labelled “negative forces” by the DRC government, including the Rwandan Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) active in the DRC, began in February.
This followed the swift fall of Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu, to M23, a Rwandan-backed rebel paramilitary group, without resistance. Thousands of Congolese troops and their allies, including Burundian forces, retreated to Uvira.
Local Wazalendo in Uvira immediately sought to assert their authority on the city, clashing with, arresting and firing on Congolese army troops, accusing them of cowardice. This incident exposed the critical flaw in Kinshasa’s decision to arm civilian militias without establishing a proper, unified command structure and discipline.
The Wazalendo in Uvira maintain a parallel power structure — they have established a checkpoint next to government’s at the Kavimvira border post with Burundi, collect taxes, run their own police units and manage 13 detention sites where, according to a recent UN report, detainees are subjected to torture. As Kinshasa observes, Uvira residents are bearing the brunt of this, which has crippled the economy, worsened security and fractured the social fabric.
Fabien Bika Selemani, national president of the Union of Forces for the Reconstruction of Congo, questioned the government’s actions: “The Kinshasa government voluntarily gave weapons to Wazalendo to supposedly defend the homeland, but today, they are turning against the same government. We denounced it in the past, stating that it was very dangerous to give weapons to civilians. There are more than five dead today and injured. Who benefits from these deaths? It is Kinshasa that created this monster that it can no longer control.”
Henry Pacifique Mayala, a researcher at Ebuteli Institute in Kinshasa and coordinator of the Kivu Security Barometer, views the collaboration as an impossible alliance stating, “Today, one gets the impression that the government has built a monster that is escaping its control and which will be very difficult to disintegrate in the future.”
Opposition to Gasita’s deployment is rooted in pre-existing anti-Tutsi prejudice in the DRC. His identity as a Congolese Tutsi — specifically from the Banyamulenge — has made him a target. He is a victim of his facial features and his origins.
This situation highlights the deep-rooted indoctrination, influenced by the ideology, propagated by and inherited from the FDLR. The latter is a militia founded by perpetrators of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, which has operated in eastern DRC for the last 30 years.
An alarming anti-Tutsi ideology has become embedded in local communities and is increasingly being used by socio-political actors who support, or are aligned with, Wazalendo militia.
This manipulation has strained social cohesion, as evidenced by a letter from the mayor to Kinshasa. It details how Congolese Tutsi are denied access to essential services, such as water and hospital care, and their businesses are ransacked. Benjamin Babunga Watuna, an independent analyst and researcher, said, “The Wazalendo [Patriots] have found a new legitimacy in the discourse of discrimination and hatred.”
As the Wazalendo openly defy the FARDC high military command, Kinshasa is running out of time to resolve this self-inflicted situation. The government must navigate a volatile situation, balancing the army’s primacy with the growing influence of rogue Wazalendo militia. Kinshasa must also consider the international community’s watchful eye.
If Kinshasa yields to Wazalendo’s pressure, it could signal tacit approval of discriminatory practices against Rwandophones and Congolese Tutsis, something the DRC government has denied the existence of. But, if Kinshasa refuses to concede, Uvira could plunge into further chaos and the government might be forced to confront its allies, the Wazalendo militias it armed on all fronts — in North and South Kivu — where the Congolese army is operating with them against M23.
Either way, the M23 stands to gain from this lovers’ spat.
Intore Nelson is a political analyst based in Goma, DRC.
San people still ‘invisible, voiceless in their homeland’:
More than five decades after Botswana gained independence, the country’s San, who are the first inhabitants of the region, continue to experience some of the worst forms of discrimination and marginalisation, said the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people.
Albert Barume raised these concerns during a press briefing in Gaborone last week after concluding a 12-day mission across Botswana from 1??to??12??September.
“During my visit, I encountered numerous personal accounts from indigenous people describing a reality shaped by marginalisation and discrimination,” Barume said. “They carry a heavy burden of societal judgment that seeps into every facet of life. Many told me how they feel invisible or voiceless in their own homeland.”
Barume’s fact-finding mission, which included meeting community leaders, government officials and civil society groups, painted a bleak picture of the San’s lived realities in modern Botswana. Children, he said, endure humiliation at schools, often mocked for their accents, clothing and especially for speaking their languages.
“The schoolyard, ideally a space of growth and acceptance, becomes instead a stage for ridicule. The weight of this humiliation leads to a profound sense of shame,” he observed.
San leaders echoed his concerns. One elder said: “I just ask the government to restore our dignity. Ninety percent of us cannot provide ourselves with food. Others disrespect us because of that.”
A key theme of Barume’s findings was the absence of legal and constitutional recognition of the San as indigenous people, which has left them without equal protections under the law. In a preliminary report by Barume presented during the press briefing, several senior government officials privately admitted to the UN envoy that this gap remains a significant obstacle.
Particular concern was expressed over the 2005 Constitutional Amendment that removed section 14(3)(c) of the Constitution, which had previously granted protections to the San.
“This demonstrates a commendable degree of honest self-assessment by state officials,” Barume noted, but he stressed that recognition of indigenous people must now become a policy priority.
“Indigenous people in Botswana told me that their top priority is constitutional recognition and related legal reform,” Barume said.
They lamented that the Constitution, the Ntlo ya Dikgosi (House of Chiefs) reforms, and the Tribal Land Act continue to exclude them. They argued that despite having unique cultures, traditional knowledge and languages that could enrich Botswana’s development and international image, they are still widely dismissed as incapable.
Perhaps the deepest grievances expressed to Barume concerned land rights. The San remain the only people in Botswana whose customary land rights have not been acknowledged, respected or protected.
“It is as if we don’t belong to this country, yet we are told we were the first inhabitants,” said one San representative.
Barume found that land issues fall into two main categories. First, many San were forcibly relocated from ancestral lands into government settlements where they feel culturally uprooted. In these settlements, people depend on government food baskets and are stripped of opportunities for self-reliance.
“Relocation destroys us, kills our sense of community, undermines our culture,” one San leader was quoted as saying in the preliminary report. “We are brought to unfamiliar places where we feel disconnected, hopeless and lost.”
The second issue concerns San who live on privately owned land, including farms and churches. These families effectively live as squatters, with no rights or guarantees.
“Here on this land belonging to the church we own nothing,” one San member was quoted as saying.
Public services are often inaccessible in such areas, and residents risk eviction when they can no longer provide labour.
Barume urged the government to reconsider the settlement policy, to allow San to return to their customary lands or be allocated land of equal value and legal status, in line with international standards such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
He also recommended accelerating plans to acquire land from private owners for redistribution to the San.
Barume stressed that the people commonly referred to as “Basarwa” reject that label, which they regard as derogatory. Instead, they prefer to be identified simply as “indigenous people” or by their ancestral names.
“They informed me that they do not wish to be referred to as ‘Basarwa’,” Barume reported. “They feel that the word is a label of shame, reinforcing their marginalisation.”
He said restoring dignity involves more than legal reforms. It requires public education to eliminate prejudices, dismantle negative stereotypes and promote respect for indigenous identity.
“I encourage the government to educate the public on the contemporary human rights concept of indigenous people,” he said.
One San leader also told the UN envoy that: “Restore the dignity of the San by empowering them to be self-sufficient, rather than leaving us as one of the few communities primarily reliant on government assistance.”
Oarabile Mosikare’s work has appeared in Mmegi, the Mail & Guardian, City Press and CNN.
Lesotho Highlands Water Project must work with women, not against them:
South Africa, Lesotho and the project financiers must avoid repeating the mistakes of Phase I of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project – Phase II (LHWP II), the scheme that will transfer water from Lesotho’s highlands to South Africa’s economic hub, Gauteng, while generating hydroelectric power for Lesotho. Development projects funded by public banks must work for women, not against them.
Strong leadership from the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), New Development Bank (NDB), and the African Development Bank (AfDB) is crucial. Anything less compromises women’s well-being, strips away their dignity and ignores the interdependence that sustains rural life.
Every drop of water harnessed from the Mountain Kingdom tells two stories. One is about development finance, regional integration and renewable energy, highlighting the promise of shared responsibility. The other is about the displaced and disempowered women, rendered invisible by a development model that builds dams but violates rights.
Despite several gender strategies on paper, commitments on gender equality by the DBSA, the NDB and the AfDB have yet to be translated into meaningful environmental or social safeguards or protections on the ground.
Women and girls affected by Phase II of the project continue to be excluded from consultations and overlooked in project design and decision-making processes as had been done during Phase I. Their specific needs and contributions are ignored, silencing their voices, and denying them agency in shaping the development that directly affects their lives.
Additionally, ongoing blasting activities damage homes and render properties unsafe. Natural springs and rivers long relied upon for drinking, cooking and sanitation are increasingly polluted by construction runoff and dust. Water pipes are also destroyed during construction, often without repair or alternatives. As a result, women and girls must walk long distances to find clean water, exposing them to risks of gender-based violence.
Findings by the Seinoli Legal Centre, which supports 17 directly affected communities, show that women disproportionately bear the brunt of the project’s harm. Many are losing access to land they depend on for food and income. Compensation is usually paid to male heads of households, excluding women from decision-making and economic redress in line with discriminatory customary practices. Resettlement sites lack clean water and fertile soil, deepening their vulnerability. Consultations are largely gender-blind, rendering women’s unpaid labour and informal livelihoods invisible.
Women are stretched thin between survival and resistance. The influx of male labourers has also triggered a rise in transactional sex, sexual exploitation of girls, school drop-outs and a spike in HIV/Aids. Still, the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA), the highland project’s implementing authority, operates without a gender policy or responsive framework. Despite this, project financiers continue to disburse tranches of funds, even as their own safeguards go unmet.
The rural community of Ha-Phohla faces resettlement talks with the LHDA, but four senior widows risk being left behind. Though their homes lie just outside the official impact zone, the rising dam waters will soon surround them and they cannot afford to relocate on their own.
The LHDA has rejected demands to include them in the resettlement plan, offering roads and water instead. But no infrastructure can replace the protective social fabric that resettlement will dismantle. Abandoning these women means condemning them to isolation, neglect, vulnerability and indignity.
What should be done?
The LHWP, the AfDB, DBSA and NDB have articulated strong commitments to gender equality and inclusive development. Without rigorous enforcement, monitoring and accountability, the very harms they aim to prevent go on unchecked.
First, the NDB and DBSA must establish a comprehensive gender strategy or policy, following the example of the AfDB.
Second, gender strategies must translate into action. Financing should ensure gender-responsive implementation, with disbursements tied to measurable outcomes, gender impact assessments, genuine consultation with women and safeguards against harm to land, livelihoods, and resettlement.
Third, monitoring and accountability must be strengthened through independent, community-informed oversight, published gender-disaggregated data and active involvement of women and civil society.
Fourth, women must be empowered as full stakeholders, with barriers removed and equitable access to legal support, livelihood restoration and compensation.
Fifth, project implementation must align with financiers’ policies. Implementers such as the LHDA must be held accountable for gender, social and environmental safeguards. Public development banks must finance justice, dignity and equality — not only infrastructure.
With the sustainable development goal financing gap of more than $ 4 trillion, the AfDB, DBSA and NDB, as drivers of change in the global financial architecture as public development banks, must ensure funds benefit women and vulnerable communities and prevent harm as highlighted last month at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development.
South Africa has less than 100 days until hosting the 2025 G20 Summit — the first in Africa which will take place under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability”. Attention is on South Africa as it plays an important role in making progress on reforming global governance structures and financial institutions. This includes ensuring that the voices of African women, communities and civil society are heard in projects and structures of national and multilateral development finance institutions such as the DBSA, NDB and AfDB.
South Africa has made water infrastructure investment a key G20 priority and hosted the Africa Water Investment Summit as part of its G20 Presidential Legacy Initiative on Water Investments in Cape Town this month, emphasising Africa’s $ 30 billion annual funding gap, and highlighting the need for improved governance and accountability.
As South Africa positions water at the highest levels of the global political and financial agenda from G20 and COP30 to the UN 2026 Water Conference, women must not be left behind.
Mosa Letsie is the programme lawyer for gender justice and women empowerment at the Seinoli Legal Centre. Marianne Buenaventura Goldman is the programme coordinator (Finance for Development) at Forus.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
