The reappearance of Maj Gen Sylvain Ekenge as spokesperson of the Congolese armed forces raises questions that go far beyond an ordinary personnel decision. Ekenge was suspended in December 2025 after making remarks on Congolese state television targeting Tutsi women and portraying intermarriage with them in deeply discriminatory terms. The remarks prompted his suspension by the FARDC leadership, which at the time said they did not reflect the position of the army, government or presidency. The United Nations Secretary-General subsequently recorded both the remarks and his suspension in a report on the regional peace process. Yet, nearly nine months later, Ekenge has resurfaced in exactly the same position. His signature appeared on a FARDC communiqué of September 25, identifying him once again as army spokesperson. No public explanation of how or why his suspension was lifted had been issued when his return became apparent. That matters because eastern DR Congo’s crisis is not only military. Ethnic discrimination, inflammatory rhetoric and decades of violence against communities have repeatedly complicated efforts to build lasting peace. It also comes against the backdrop of the continuing FDLR problem. The armed group remains under UN sanctions, with the Security Council describing it as contributing to instability and documenting attacks against civilians and other abuses. More significantly, UN experts have previously reported continued cooperation between elements of the FARDC, government actors and the FDLR even after official instructions for such collaboration to cease. These facts make developments such as Ekenge’s return relevant to those facilitating the Washington, Doha and African Union-led peace processes. The Washington agreement signed by Rwanda and DR Congo specifically recognises neutralisation of the FDLR as part of the pathway towards addressing the security crisis, while also committing the parties to human rights and a negotiated political settlement. Against that background, personnel decisions, public rhetoric and relationships with armed groups cannot be dismissed as peripheral matters. They can either build confidence in the commitments being made at negotiating tables or deepen mistrust. Peace facilitators therefore have reason to examine not only what Kinshasa signs in international agreements, but also developments on the ground that may affect implementation. Ultimately, durable peace in eastern DR Congo will depend on more than diplomatic ceremonies. It requires confronting the armed groups, hate speech and political practices that have sustained insecurity for decades. The treatment of such issues will remain an important measure of whether the commitments made through the ongoing peace processes are translating into meaningful change.
