DRC Interior Minister Jacquemain Shabani Issues Order Banning Mass Gatherings

The Democratic Republic of Congo's Interior Minister, Jacquemain Shabani, recently issued an order banning mass gatherings in Kinshasa, Tshopo, Haut-Uele, and Bas-Uele provinces. This measure, implemented on June 27, 2026, aims to prevent the spread of an ongoing Ebola outbreak, which was declared on May 15, 2026, and is currently concentrated in the eastern provinces of Ituri, North Kivu, and South Kivu. While justified as a public health imperative, the ban has sparked significant controversy, with opposition and civil society groups alleging it is politically motivated to suppress planned protests against proposed constitutional changes. The legal implications of this order raise critical questions about the balance between state powers to protect public health and the constitutional guarantees of freedom of assembly and expression in the DRC.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is once again at a critical juncture, navigating the complex interplay between public health emergencies and fundamental civil liberties. On June 27, 2026, the nation's Interior Minister, Jacquemain Shabani, issued a directive prohibiting mass gatherings in four key provinces: the capital Kinshasa, Tshopo, Haut-Uele, and Bas-Uele [8, 9, 11]. This sweeping ban is ostensibly a preventative measure to contain the spread of a deadly Ebola outbreak, which was officially declared on May 15, 2026, and has primarily affected the eastern provinces of Ituri, North Kivu, and South Kivu [8, 9, 11].

While the government asserts the ban is crucial for public health, particularly given the absence of confirmed cases in the affected provinces, the decision has ignited a fierce debate. Opposition parties and civil society organizations have vehemently condemned the directive, alleging it is a politically motivated tactic to stifle dissent and prevent planned demonstrations against proposed constitutional amendments [7, 8, 9, 11]. This article delves into the legal framework underpinning such emergency measures in the DRC, examining the constitutional provisions and public health legislation that permit restrictions on fundamental rights, and analyzes the contentious balance between state authority and individual freedoms in the face of a public health crisis.

The legal landscape governing public health emergencies and the exercise of fundamental rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo is primarily shaped by its Constitution and specific public health legislation. The Constitution of the DRC, adopted in 2006 and revised in 2011, explicitly guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration. Article 25 stipulates that the freedom of peaceful and unarmed assembly is guaranteed, subject to respect for the law, public order, and good morals [13, 16]. Similarly, Article 26 guarantees the freedom of demonstration, requiring organizers to inform the competent administrative authority in writing [13, 21]. These provisions establish a constitutional safeguard for collective expression, albeit with inherent limitations.

Complementing these constitutional guarantees is the Loi n° 18/035 du 13 décembre 2018 fixant les principes fondamentaux relatifs à l'organisation de la santé publique (Law No. 18/035 of December 13, 2018, establishing the fundamental principles relating to the organization of public health) [14, 18, 23, 24]. This comprehensive statute empowers the government to take necessary measures to promote public health and combat infectious diseases. It provides the legal basis for interventions such as quarantine, isolation, and restrictions on movement and gatherings during epidemics [14]. The DRC has a history of recurrent Ebola outbreaks, and previous government responses have often involved similar public health measures, including restrictions on gatherings, to curb transmission [25, 28]. This legislative framework, therefore, provides the state with significant powers to act in times of health crisis, setting the stage for potential conflicts with constitutionally protected rights.

The recent ban on mass gatherings, issued by the Interior Minister, draws its purported legal authority from the broader framework established by the Loi n° 18/035 du 13 décembre 2018 relative à la santé publique. This law grants the government extensive powers to implement measures deemed necessary for public health protection, including those that restrict individual freedoms to prevent the spread of infectious diseases [14, 18]. The government's justification for the current ban rests on the principle of preventing the Ebola virus, currently active in the eastern provinces, from reaching the capital and other non-affected regions through large public assemblies [8, 9, 10]. The argument is that the proximity of the affected provinces poses a significant transmission risk, necessitating proactive and stringent measures [8, 9].

However, the legality and proportionality of this ban are subject to intense scrutiny, particularly in light of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of assembly and demonstration. While Article 25 of the Constitution allows for restrictions on assembly in the interest of public order and good morals [13, 16], the blanket prohibition in provinces with no confirmed Ebola cases raises questions about whether the measure is strictly necessary and proportionate to the public health threat. Critics, including opposition figures like Prince Epenge of the Lamuka coalition, argue that the ban is "politically motivated" and designed to thwart a planned protest in Kinshasa against proposed constitutional changes that could extend President Felix Tshisekedi's term [7, 8, 9, 11]. This contention highlights a recurring tension in the DRC, where public health emergencies have, at times, coincided with periods of political sensitivity, leading to accusations of using health crises to suppress political dissent [7, 26].

The principle of proportionality requires that any restriction on fundamental rights must be appropriate, necessary, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In this context, while containing Ebola is undoubtedly a legitimate aim, the imposition of a blanket ban in areas without active cases, especially when juxtaposed with a looming political protest, invites legal challenges regarding its necessity and whether less restrictive means could achieve the same public health objective. The World Health Organization (WHO), in its assessment of the current Ebola outbreak, has not recommended international travel or trade restrictions, instead emphasizing strengthened surveillance and community engagement [30]. While this pertains to international measures, it underscores the importance of targeted and evidence-based interventions, which may be contrasted with a broad domestic ban in unaffected areas. The legal validity of the Interior Minister's order will likely hinge on whether it can withstand a challenge demonstrating a clear and present public health danger that necessitates such a wide-ranging curtailment of constitutional rights, rather than serving an ulterior political motive.

The Democratic Republic of Congo's ban on mass gatherings in several provinces, including Kinshasa, to contain an Ebola outbreak presents a complex legal and ethical dilemma for practitioners. While the state has a clear mandate under the Loi n° 18/035 du 13 décembre 2018 relative à la santé publique to protect public health, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the confines of the Constitution, particularly Articles 25 and 26 guaranteeing freedom of assembly and demonstration [13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24]. The current controversy underscores the critical need for transparency, clear scientific justification, and strict adherence to the principle of proportionality when implementing public health measures that impact fundamental rights.

Practitioners advising clients on issues related to public gatherings, human rights, or public health compliance in the DRC must meticulously scrutinize the legal basis of such directives. They should assess whether the measures are genuinely necessary for public health, are narrowly tailored to address the specific threat, and do not disproportionately infringe upon constitutional freedoms. The strong allegations of political motivation surrounding this ban suggest that legal challenges are likely, and the judiciary may be called upon to arbitrate this delicate balance. Attorneys should closely monitor any further decrees or judicial pronouncements, as these will shape the interpretation and application of public health emergency powers and the safeguarding of civil liberties in the DRC.