Kinshasa, December 7, 2025 (CPA). -The Washington Agreement signed between President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame under the auspices of US President Donald Trump, for the restoration of peace in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), was the subject of three questions posed to Jean-Marie Kabengela, lawyer at the Kinshasa-Matete Bar, and lawyer for the Republic in the trial of former President Joseph Kabila.

Question 1: In light of Congolese constitutional law, how do you assess the agreement's compliance with the government's obligation to refer to Parliament before making any major international commitments? Could the absence of this step legally undermine the validity or enforceability of the agreement on national territory?

Answer: 'The Washington Agreement of December 4 complies with the provisions of Article 213 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies international treaties and agreements.

It should be noted that, with regard to what happened in Washington, the President of the Republic negotiated. The obligation to refer the matter to Parliament for ratification applies only to agreements relating to the settlement of disputes, in accordance with Article 214, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, which states that The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies international treaties and agreements.

It should be noted that, with regard to what happened in Washington, the President of the Republic negotiated. The obligation to refer agreements to Parliament for ratification applies only to agreements relating to the settlement of disputes, in accordance with Article 214, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, which states that "agreements relating in particular to the settlement of international disputes may only be ratified or approved by virtue of a law."

This is the next step, as announced by Aimé Boji, President of the National Assembly.

Question 2: Several analysts argue that the agreement will have little concrete effect as long as the security situation in the east remains unchanged. From a legal perspective, which mechanisms in this agreement could actually have an impact on the ground, and which ones are likely to remain dead letters due to a lack of enforcement guarantees?

Answer: The agreements that have just been signed in Washington are very likely to have legal effects, given that both parties have agreed on an uncompromising arbitrator, responsible for implementing all sanctions against any party considered recalcitrant. In this regard, the images showed a weakened Paul Kagame and a confident Félix Tshisekedi, reassured and reassuring.

Question 3: Rwanda submitted the agreement to its Parliament, whereas the DRC did not. Under international law, could this procedural asymmetry create an imbalance in the obligations of the two States or expose the DRC to a particular risk in the event of a dispute over the implementation of the agreement?

Answer: If Rwanda referred the agreement to its Parliament prior to ratifying the Washington Agreement, whereas in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the President signed the agreement and ratification will follow, this is a matter of difference between the constitutions of the two countries. In Rwanda, parliamentary approval precedes negotiation or ratification, in accordance with Article 168 (2) of the Constitution of August 4, 2023, which stipulates that international treaties and peace agreements can only be ratified after approval by Parliament. In the DRC, however, Articles 213 and 214 of the Constitution provide that ratification or approval by Parliament comes after the fact.