The African Union (AU) Commission came under criticism on Friday, February 6, after it released a statement condemning the destruction of a drone command centre at Kisangani airport in eastern DR Congo by the AFC/M23 rebel group. The rebels, members of the Banyamulenge community and independent observers accused the AU of selective condemnation amid the escalating conflict in eastern DR Congo. ALSO READ: AFC/M23 draws red line over air strikes out of Kisangani airport killing civilians AFC/M23 movement recently said it had carried out the operation on January 31 and February 1 as a defensive measure, saying the facility had been used by the Congolese forces and their allies who include the Burundian forces, Rwandan genocidal militia FDLR, mercenaries, Wazalendo and other local militias, to plan and conduct attacks against civilians and its positions across North and South Kivu. Kisangani, capital of Tshopo Province and a strategic town along the Congo River, has long served as a logistical base for the Congolese armed forces. The rebel movement described the airport as a rear base used to project drone and air operations into areas under its control. ALSO READ: AFC/M23 says its forces ‘destroyed’ Kinshasa’s drone command center AU Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf condemned the operation, calling it a drone attack that endangered civilians and could amount to terrorism under AU legal instruments, attracting criticism of the body for for selective condemnation that overlooked multiple government‑led strikes that preceded the recent incident. ALSO READ: South Kivu: AFC/M23 warns of “imminent genocide” against Banyamulenge civilians ‘A serious setback’ Reacting to the AU condemnation, AFC/M23 deputy coordinator Bertrand Bisimwa accused the AU of ignoring deadly drone operations conducted by government forces. “Rather than condemning the terrorist drone attacks which caused the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of innocent people,” Bisimwa said, “the commission condemns an action which saved human lives and which caused no casualties.” La Commission de l’UA condamne une action qui a sauvé des vies humaines et qui n’a fait aucune victime plutôt que de condamner les attaques terroristes aux drones ayant causé la mort des centaines voire des milliers d'innocents. C’est un grave recul très dangereux pour l'Afrique. https://t.co/W6fDzM7IV4 — Bertrand Bisimwa (@bbisimwa) February 6, 2026 He went on to say that the position taken by the AU risked sending the wrong signal at a time when civilians were bearing the brunt of the conflict in eastern DR Congo. “The African Union is, first and foremost, a matter of the peoples and not a club of ruling regimes, the members of the Commission must take responsibility to call their Chairperson to order and correct this blunder, which defends the [Kinshasa] regime at the expense of the people,” Bisimwa said, adding that the statement was a “a serious setback, very dangerous for Africa.” AU's mandate of protecting African people In a more detailed response released on Friday, AFC/M23 Permanent Secretary Benjamin Mbonimpa expressed concern over what he described as a defamatory and unbalanced statement. Mbonimpa said the AU had condemned the neutralisation of attack drones while failing to address previous bombardments of civilian areas and rebel positions by the government coalition using drones operated by foreign mercenaries. “By condemning this defensive action without prior investigation or the gathering of contradictory information, the African Union Commission adopts a biased stance that calls into question its impartiality in the peace process it is supposed to lead,” Mbonimpa said, “In doing so, it positions itself as a defender of a regime responsible for grave violence against civilians, rather than standing alongside the victims.” ALSO READ: PHOTOS: Banyamulenge petition US govt over attacks on Minembwe Mbonimpa recalled that since January 22, there had been an intensification of military operations using attack drones in several parts of North and South Kivu provinces. According to the movement, the drones struck densely populated areas such as Minembwe, Twangiza, Rwitsankuku, Katogota, Sange and the Port of Kalundu, as well as Masisi, Walikale, Rutshuru, Lubero, Mwenga and Kalehe. Mbonimpa said civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and churches, were hit, resulting in the deaths of women and children. “To label as 'terrorist' an action that saved human lives... undermines [AU's] moral credibility,” the statement added, warning that such language distances the institution from its mandate of protecting African peoples. ‘Inconsistencies in AU’s approach’ Mahoro Peace Association (MPA), an NGO that represents the Banyamulenge community, also criticised what it called inconsistencies in the AU’s approach to civilian protection. While acknowledging that condemnation of attacks endangering civilians was legitimate, the group questioned why similar scrutiny had not been applied to drone strikes launched by the Congolese armed forces (FARDC) from Kisangani airport against civilians. “It is troubling to note that similar and repeated strikes carried out by the FARDC from the same airport against civilian areas in the High Plateaux of Minembwe (South Kivu) and Masisi (North Kivu) have not received comparable attention or scrutiny,” the organization said in a statement on Friday. #DRCongo #AU Déclaration de Mahoro Peace Association (MPA) Sur les incohérences dans l’approche de l’Union africaine concernant la protection des civils en République démocratique du Congo Mahoro Peace Association, engagée en faveur de la paix, de la justice et de la protection... pic.twitter.com/MKVz1TSX4G — Mahoro Peace Association (MPA) (@MahoroMpa) February 6, 2026 MPA noted that these strikes resulted in deaths, destruction of homes and mass displacement, raising serious concerns about targeted violence against Banyamulenge and Tutsi communities. “The marked difference between the AU’s reaction to M23 actions and its silence on FARDC strikes raises legitimate questions about the consistency, impartiality, and credibility of the continental civilian protection framework,” the statement reads. “A coherent response to attacks against civilians, regardless of the perpetrator, is essential to restore trust and strengthen the African Union’s role as guarantor of peace and justice on the continent.” Albert Rudatsimburwa, an analyst, the echoed similar concerns, questioning the basis of the AU statement and pointing to the absence of condemnation regarding the use of foreign mercenaries by the Congolese government. African Union ... This statement from the “Chairperson of the African Union Commission” smells like “corruption”... Why? First... what tangible evidence does the “Chairperson” have to condemn? But what is actually revelatory ... ... why hasn’t the Chairperson of the African... pic.twitter.com/wvzrDXm2Bo — Albert Rudatsimburwa (@albcontact) February 6, 2026 “This statement from the Chairperson smells like corruption... What tangible evidence does the commission have to condemn?” “Why hasn’t the Chairperson never condemned the contracted mercenaries by the Congolese government, yet the OAU convention for the elimination of mercenaries in Africa has been there while, since 2022, Romanian and now American mercenaries have been active against Congolese, paid by Tshisekedi to kill his fellow countrymen.” Another analyst and researcher, Lonzen Rugira, said the AU statement undermined itself by admitting to an absence of objective evidence regarding the nature of the target. “Most importantly, by showing its hand ‘in the absence of objective evidence’ the AU undermines/sabotages itself in terms of the credibility and impartiality needed to be among the “relevant regional and international mechanisms, all credible initiatives aimed at restoring peace, security and stability in the eastern part of the country,” Rugira said. The AU statement collapses under its own weight. 1. The moment it concedes that it is based on “the absence of objective evidence establishing the strictly military nature of the target.” 2. If there is no evidence, isn’t the right thing to do to call for an independent... https://t.co/YLau5zwaf1 — Lonzen Rugira (@LonzenRugira) February 6, 2026 “Between the party that initiated drone attacks for years and the party that waited two years to gain such capabilities in order to respond in kind, which is responsible for introducing ‘indiscriminate means and methods of war’ into the conflict? And why the sudden concern for the resultant humanitarian situation?” Rugira also challenged the notion of escalation “far from the front lines,” questioning whether front lines should be defined by troop positions or by the locations from which drones are launched. American scholar and Great Lakes conflict researcher Bojana Coulibaly described the AU response as politically motivated. “The statement by the AU Commission chairperson was politically motivated, sacrificing its required impartiality and protection of civilians role,” Coulibaly said.
