By Bojana Coulibaly
We have witnessed an eruption of relentless commentaries and articles as well as social media posts on the final 2025 UN Group of Experts’ report this past week, occurring in the immediate aftermath of the signing of a peace deal between DRC and Rwanda in Washington.
The persistent and abundant dissemination of commentaries on the report began on July 2nd and has been carried out by a closely interconnected network of journalists, covering DRC with Reuters, Jeune Afrique, RFI, France 24, TV5 Monde, Afrikarabia, and Actualité.CD. They have systematically relayed identical or similar news reports, with the highest number of commentaries being posted on the platform X by Stanis Bujakera Tshiamala, a Jeune Afrique, Reuters, and Actualité.CD columnist, with more than 17 X posts in only 5 days since the report was leaked to the media.
On the timing of the leak
An important element regarding this UN report has been overlooked by experts on the DRC, namely that the report is still in its confidential status and has not been published yet. The confidential report was in fact leaked to the media by the Group of Experts before the review of the draft and of the Group’s recommendations was completed by the Security Council Committee. The Group of Experts leaked the report to the media only a few hours before the Council members met for the first time to discuss the draft.
The timing of the leak seems therefore to be part of a broader coordinated political strategy by the Group of Experts and partnering media houses to influence the opinion of the Council members ahead of the review process. This action equally influences public opinion and the outcome of the conflict in eastern DRC, while hindering the ongoing peace process brokered by Washington.
The desire to hinder the peace process is evidenced in an article published by Jeune Afrique on July 5th, in which Romain Gras — who has been frequently co-reporting with Stanis Bujakera on the situation in DRC for Jeune Afrique — is quoted saying that there is a risk that the peace agreement signed in Washington is a sham.
Whereas some of Romain Gras’ concerns about the challenges of the implementation of the peace agreement are valid, Jeune Afrique deliberately manipulates the title by making the reader believe that Romain Gras’ words are the ones used by the Trump administration. The title “Accord RDC-Rwanda: ‘Pour l’administration Trump, il y a un risque que ce soit une victoire en trompe-l’œil’ [“DRC-Rwanda agreement: ‘For the Trump administration, there is a risk that this will be a hollow victory’] implies clearly that the quoted section in the title is attributed to the Trump Administration and not Romain Gras. This linguistic manipulation demonstrates a visible desire of Jeune Afrique to influence public opinion by fueling a negative perception about the peace agreement brokered by Washington.
On the substance of the report itself as a tactic to influence the outcome and hinder the peace process
One cannot help but notice that the confidential report is deeply flawed in terms of research integrity, neutrality, and accountability. Rather than impartial expert analysis, the report operates as a vehicle for DRC Government narratives—misrepresenting facts, reinforcing harmful stereotypes, and neglecting the rights and realities of vulnerable groups. This undermines prospects for meaningful peace, justice, and the credibility of the UN in the DRC context.
On the lack of research integrity and independence of the Group of Experts
The report fails to uphold basic standards of independent, scientific inquiry expected of UN expert teams. Reliance on unverified sources (including counterfeit X accounts) illustrates a troubling absence of due diligence and source verification. Methodological inconsistencies and an overreliance on anonymous, uncorroborated testimonies further undermine the credibility of the findings.
MONUSCO, a co-producer of the report, was an active participant in the conflict, directly supporting the DRC government and its coalition. The Group’s close collaboration with MONUSCO—a belligerent—compromises any claim to impartiality and neutrality. Standard ethical principles dictate that entities involved in conflict cannot credibly serve as neutral investigators.
On the systematic reporting bias of the Group of Experts
The language used in the report is highly polarized, casting AFC/M23 and Rwanda in overwhelmingly negative terms, while framing the DRC Government and its allies positively or neutrally. Key terms such as “conquest,” “parallel administration,” and “indoctrination” are deployed in ways that reinforce state narratives and xenophobic tropes. The portrayal of M23 as coercive, expansionist, and illegitimate lacks substantiated evidence and ignores the historical context of M23’s formation and grievances.
On the promotion of DRC government propaganda by the Group of Experts
The report’s framing frequently aligns with and amplifies DRC state narratives, normalizing historical patterns of scapegoating and exclusion of Congolese Tutsi communities. By focusing on M23’s alleged “crimes” and minimizing state-led violence, the report obscures the root causes of conflict, including ethnic persecution and forced displacement. Accusations of M23 “instrumentalizing” ethnic violence or “smuggling minerals” lack serious substantiation and conveniently distract from large-scale state and multinational exploitation of DRC resources. Central claims of “Rwandan control” of M23 revive decades-old conspiracy theories that have historically been used by DRC leaders to deflect criticism and externalize blame for internal crises. The narrative of “foreign aggression” echoes patterns aimed at shielding the DRC government from accountability for governance failure, exclusion, and violence. The report’s continued focus on external actors such as Rwanda obscures the state’s own role in perpetuating conflict and ignores genuine root causes.
On a dangerous narrative reversal by the Group of Experts
The report participates in a reversal of victim and perpetrator roles, ascribing responsibility for violence to those seeking to protect vulnerable communities, while absolving state and allied actors, including the UN sanctioned FDLR, force responsible for the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, UN and EU sanctioned warlords who have committed unaccountable war crimes in DRC, but also mercenaries, in contravention of the UN ban on the use of mercenaries. The report disregards the long-standing plight and legal rights of Congolese Tutsi and Banyamulenge refugees and internally displaced persons. Unsubstantiated claims about “forced recruitment,” “increased violence” post-M23 advances, and “instrumentalization” of atrocities foster further stigmatization and endanger vulnerable populations.
On the partiality of recommendations and policy prescriptions by the Group of Experts
The recommendations reinforce the DRC Government’s agenda, notably in calling for M23 cantonment while ignoring or excusing documented abuses by the government, FDLR, and Burundian forces. No substantive measures are recommended for state-sponsored violence or ongoing cooperation with proscribed groups. An analysis of the perceptions of the different actors in the report highlights a pattern of depicting the DRC state as a victim “in need of outside help,” while characterizing M23 and Rwanda as existential threats to peace and stability.
By prioritizing political narratives and ignoring independent, context-sensitive research standards, the Group’s report and its orchestrated leak to the media impair both its own legitimacy and that of the United Nations system. The perpetuation of colonial, exclusionary tropes and the marginalization of minority grievances ultimately hinder the search for just, lasting solutions in the DRC.