Tshisekedi Could Seek a Third Term via Constitutional Changes — But It Hasn't Happened Yet

The claim is that President Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is engineering constitutional changes to allow himself a third term in power. That framing goes too far. The concern is legitimate, but it presents a speculative risk as a done deal — and those are very different things.

Here is what we know for certain. Tshisekedi was re-elected in December 2023 for what is, under the current constitution, his second and final term. Shortly after, Reuters reported that he publicly called for a new constitution, framing it as a modernization of governance. He denied any intention to use it to extend his own rule.

Critics are not buying that denial, and they have reason to be watchful. BBC News Africa reported that opposition figures warned a constitutional revision could reset the presidential term count from zero, effectively giving Tshisekedi a fresh start. Human Rights Watch flagged the same concern, pointing to a clear pattern across the continent — leaders in Rwanda, Burundi, and Guinea have all used constitutional rewrites to do exactly this.

But the International Crisis Group, which monitors the DRC closely, noted that no confirmed legislative text explicitly resetting term limits exists. Al Jazeera similarly reported that while a new constitution could theoretically allow a third run, no formal proposal to that effect had been tabled. The scenario is plausible, not proven.

This matters because treating a risk as a fait accompli can itself distort public debate. The concern deserves serious scrutiny and pressure — but accuracy requires distinguishing between what leaders have done and what they might do. Watch for any draft constitutional text and whether term limits appear in it. That is the moment the claim becomes true.

This story spread so fast because it fits a pattern audiences already know. When a leader in Africa calls for a new constitution, alarm bells ring — and for good reason given recent history. That pattern-recognition is healthy, but it can also cause people to skip the step of checking whether the specific thing has actually happened yet.