Maintaining or lifting the state of siege in Ituri and North Kivu continues to generate debate and controversy. After holding a round table on the evaluation of this measure in place for more than two years, it seems that the general trend is leaning in favor of its lifting. However, the final decision rests with the Head of State, and nothing is certain yet.
A renowned political scientist, Jonas Kasimba, sheds pragmatic light on the question. According to him, the only viable solution is the return to parallelism of form and competence, that is to say the restoration of provincial institutions in compliance with constitutional and legal provisions. He underlines that two options are possible: the maintenance of the state of siege or its lifting, thus excluding any requalification.
In a tweet, Kasimba highlights the divergent agendas and interests surrounding this complex issue. He believes that the Head of State will have to make a decision based on these different influences, using his discretionary power.
The question of lifting or maintaining the state of siege, or even its reclassification, will be decided by the Head of State in the coming days. The recommendations from the round table have been forwarded to the President of the Republic, who will be responsible for deciding based on this report.
It is important to recall that the state of siege was declared by President Félix Tshisekedi more than two years ago, in response to the persistent insecurity in the provinces of Ituri and North Kivu. The delegates who took part in the round table formulated three hypotheses: the maintenance of the state of siege, its lifting or a disqualification of this measure.
In the days to come, the decision of the Head of State will put an end to the debates and will give a direction to follow for the future of these two provinces. In the meantime, the question of the lifting of the state of siege remains at the center of concerns and is the subject of sustained interest on the part of the population and political and social actors.
This is a crucial decision that will have a significant impact on the security situation and the functioning of local institutions. Pending this decision, citizens and observers remain attentive and hope that the path chosen will guarantee the security of the populations while respecting democratic and constitutional principles