New P-DDRCS Leadership in North Kivu Raises Key Peace Concerns

Geopolitical Context: The Washington Agreement (DRC–Rwanda)

In late June 2025, under the mediation of the United States, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington aimed at ending ongoing hostilities in the eastern region of the DRC. A key provision of the agreement calls for Kinshasa to commit to the neutralization of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), an armed group composed in part of former participants in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

For Rwanda, the presence of the FDLR on Congolese soil represents a direct security threat and has often been cited as a reason for its military involvement in eastern Congo. The effective implementation of the National Program for Disarmament, Demobilization, Community Reintegration, and Stabilization (P-DDRCS) is therefore critical. This program serves as the primary mechanism for reducing armed group activity, fostering reintegration, and promoting long-term peace in North Kivu.

In this sensitive context, the appointment of Joseph Sukisa Ndayambaje as provincial coordinator of the P-DDRCS for North Kivu, based in Beni, in July 2025 has drawn attention and provoked discussion among national and international stakeholders. His designation comes at a time when the program is expected to demonstrate neutrality, efficiency, and credibility to all parties involved in the peace process.

Profile of Joseph Sukisa Ndayambaje

Joseph Sukisa Ndayambaje is a Congolese civil servant with extensive experience in North Kivu’s territorial administration. He previously served as deputy administrator of Masisi and later as administrator of Walikale from 2020 onward. In 2021, he joined the P-DDRCS as deputy coordinator for North Kivu and was promoted to lead the provincial branch in July 2025.

While his administrative background is recognized, his past has been the subject of scrutiny in various civil society and analyst reports. Some sources have alleged that Sukisa maintained contacts with FDLR-affiliated individuals during his tenure in territorial administration. These claims, which remain unproven in a legal sense, suggest potential past associations with senior FDLR figures such as the late Sylvestre Mudacumura and General Pacifique “Omega” Ntawunguka.

Critics argue that such connections, if substantiated, could raise concerns about the impartiality expected from someone in charge of disarmament efforts. Supporters, however, highlight Sukisa's familiarity with the local security environment and his experience within the DDR framework as valuable assets in managing complex and volatile contexts.

This dual perception has contributed to making his appointment a subject of public debate, particularly given the importance of trust and transparency in DDR operations.

Strategic Analysis of the Appointment

1. Implications for the Washington Agreement

The appointment may be perceived as inconsistent with the spirit of the Washington Agreement, which emphasizes a firm stance against the FDLR and other armed actors. Placing an individual with alleged past links to such groups in a leadership position within the DDR structure could raise questions among international partners about the clarity and consistency of Kinshasa’s commitments.

2. Local Reception

In areas like Beni, Butembo, and Lubero—regions severely affected by armed violence—public perception plays a key role in the success of DDR efforts. Some local groups and civil society actors have expressed concern about the appointment, interpreting it as misaligned with community expectations. These reactions may affect the willingness of certain local armed groups to engage voluntarily in the DDR process.

3. Operational Integrity of the P-DDRCS

As provincial coordinator, Sukisa is responsible for overseeing key activities such as disarmament operations, reintegration planning, and the management of community liaisons. Ensuring transparency and fairness in these processes is essential to preserving the program’s credibility. Any perception of favoritism or bias—whether founded or not—could undermine trust among participants and stakeholders.

4. Diplomatic Repercussions

The decision has attracted attention from regional and international partners, including Rwanda and the United States. Kigali may interpret the appointment as a potential setback to trust-building efforts, while Washington may view it as a test of the DRC’s commitment to the terms of the recent agreement. Clear communication and continued diplomatic engagement will be necessary to mitigate misunderstandings.

5. Coordination with Military and International Actors

The new military governor of North Kivu, General Somo Kakule Evariste, may face coordination challenges if alignment is lacking between provincial military leadership and civilian DDR structures. Likewise, MONUSCO, a long-standing partner in DDR implementation, may require additional assurances to continue its collaboration effectively given the sensitivities involved.

Projected Impacts

A. Local Level

• Possible erosion of community support for the P-DDRCS due to perception issues.
• Tensions between provincial institutions if coordination and communication are not proactively managed.
• Risk of disengagement from field staff if internal legitimacy is questioned.

B. National Level

• The appointment could be interpreted as symptomatic of broader inconsistencies in DDR policy.
• Raises questions about the transparency of nomination processes within DDR structures.

C. Regional and International Level

• May affect Kinshasa’s standing as a reliable partner in peace processes.
• Could impact international funding and support if concerns about program neutrality persist.

Key Strategic Risks

Reduced Community and Armed Group Participation
If local actors perceive the DDR process as politically compromised or unbalanced, participation could decline. This may lead to stagnation in disarmament and the resurgence of insecurity in some zones.

Strained Regional Trust
The Washington Agreement relies on mutual confidence, especially between Rwanda and the DRC. Any action perceived as favouring the FDLR could hinder implementation and provoke a diplomatic recalibration.

Challenges for International Partners
MONUSCO and donor agencies supporting the DDR may face operational and reputational risks if their continued involvement is seen as implicit endorsement of controversial decisions.

Fragmentation of the Security Landscape
If the DDR process loses credibility, some armed groups may withdraw from the process, while others may feel encouraged to remain active—potentially destabilizing the region further.

Institutional Legitimacy and Morale
Internal resistance or demoralization within P-DDRCS teams could affect program delivery, particularly in critical areas like data collection, ex-combatant management, and community engagement.

Recommendations from African Security Analysis

Review and Clarify the Appointment Process
A review of the selection process for DDR leadership could help ensure alignment with principles of neutrality, professionalism, and transparency.

Commission an Independent Audit of Nominations
An audit led by neutral experts could assess potential undue influences or gaps in the recruitment framework, helping to safeguard institutional integrity.

Strengthen Transparency Mechanisms
Regular publication of data on beneficiaries, budgets, and program outcomes would promote accountability and enhance stakeholder confidence.

Engage in Structured Community Dialogue
Public forums and local consultations—especially in sensitive areas—can help clarify government decisions and build social support for DDR efforts.

Reinforce Oversight by Partner States and Donors
Monitoring by guarantor states (e.g., the U.S., Kenya, Angola, Uganda) could ensure that DDR remains aligned with peace objectives and international norms.

Final Observations from African Security Analysis

The appointment of Joseph Sukisa Ndayambaje has sparked important conversations about the credibility and direction of the DDR process in eastern DRC. While the government retains the prerogative to make appointments based on administrative merit and operational need, maintaining trust in the peace process requires careful attention to perceptions, especially in a post-conflict setting.

To succeed, DDR programs must be seen as impartial, transparent, and inclusive. Whether or not the concerns raised about this appointment are ultimately validated, they highlight the importance of strengthening institutional safeguards, improving stakeholder engagement, and maintaining alignment with national and international commitments.

Conclusion: A Crucial Test for Peacebuilding in the DRC

The Washington Agreement offers a rare opportunity for durable peace in eastern DRC. However, its success will depend not only on diplomatic signatures but also on the day-to-day decisions that shape implementation. Each appointment, each policy move, sends a message—either affirming or weakening the country’s commitment to ending armed violence.

Navigating this moment requires coherence, accountability, and political will. Ensuring that DDR structures are staffed with credible, trusted leaders is one of the clearest ways to build momentum for peace. As such, the current debate should not be seen as an obstacle, but as an invitation to reinforce the institutions tasked with realizing the hopes embodied in the Washington Agreement.