In the context of recent developments surrounding the Estates General of Justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo, magistrates’ unions have expressed their dismay at the multiple irregularities that mar the conduct of these meetings. The main unions, such as Synamac, Jusi, Synchremac and Symco, have jointly published a statement highlighting the flaws that compromise the credibility and effectiveness of these proceedings.
It is clear that the primary objective of the Estates General of Justice was to assess the implementation of the judicial reform policy, to carry out an impartial diagnosis of the functioning of the justice sector and to define concrete actions to improve the administration of justice. However, the unions have raised several points of concern that call into question the legitimacy and relevance of these meetings.
First, the lack of involvement of major justice stakeholders, in particular the High Council of the Judiciary, in the organization of the proceedings is a major shortcoming. Indeed, the legitimacy and representativeness of the decisions taken during these meetings are called into question if the main players in the sector are not fully involved in the process.
Secondly, the overpopulation of participants, mainly students and political activists, is also a source of concern. Such a multitude can compromise the quality of the exchanges and the relevance of the debates that should be at the heart of the Estates General of Justice.
Thirdly, the conditions for supporting participants, particularly magistrates from the provinces, are considered insufficient. Such a lack of consideration for the key players in the judicial system does not promote constructive and fair dialogue.
Furthermore, the biased selection of speakers and the themes addressed during the panels raises doubts about the objectivity and integrity of the exchanges. By restricting the diversity of points of view and directing the debates towards specific agendas, the organizers risk compromising the credibility of the conclusions that will be drawn from them.
Finally, the limited duration of the workshops, reduced to a single day, is a major obstacle to the depth and quality of the discussions. Such a time constraint risks reducing the debates to their superficiality, thus preventing in-depth reflection on the crucial issues of justice in the DRC.
In summary, while the magistrates’ unions welcome the initiative of the Estates General of Justice, they also express their concerns about the way in which these meetings are conducted. They highlight the gaps and flaws that compromise the legitimacy and effectiveness of this work, warning against a superficial and biased approach that risks compromising the initial objectives of reforming and improving justice in the DRC. It is crucial that the competent authorities take these concerns into account and ensure that the Estates General of Justice are a genuine space for dialogue and constructive reflection to guarantee the future of a fair and effective judicial system in the country.