One year after the takeover of Goma by the March 23 Movement (M23), a key figure in the rebel alliance operating in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo has openly criticised a recent minerals agreement between Kinshasa and Washington, questioning both its legality and its implications for local governance in contested regions.
Corneille Nangaa, the former electoral commission chief who now leads the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC) a political and military coalition that includes M23, described the United States Democratic Republic of Congo critical minerals deal as deeply problematic. Signed in Washington on 4 December 2025, the agreement outlines enhanced American access to Congolese strategic minerals in return for financial investments and security cooperation. Nangaa challenged the legitimacy of the agreement, citing what he described as a lack of transparency and procedural irregularities.
Speaking from Goma in North Kivu, Nangaa asserted that the deal bypassed constitutional safeguards, adding that the process failed to include actors currently holding de facto control over significant portions of the eastern mineral-rich territory. Many of Congo’s prized resources such as coltan and cassiterite are located in areas presently under the control of M23, including strategic mining zones like Rubaya. Nangaa argued that the government in Kinshasa has neither the legal nor the practical authority to offer concessions in regions it does not currently control, suggesting that some of the sites promised to foreign investors might already be subject to existing partnerships.
In response, the Congolese presidency rejected Nangaa’s claims, describing them as speculative. A spokesperson maintained that the strategic agreement is consistent with the constitutional mandate of the elected government. The presidency insisted that any foreign cooperation would be aligned with existing laws and respect current legal mining contracts. Officials have confirmed that the agreement will be presented to parliament for ratification in March and expressed confidence that it will receive legislative approval given the current parliamentary majority.
Beyond the debate on legality, the context of the agreement is complicated by the shifting military and political control in the eastern provinces. The AFC and M23 claim to administer large swathes of territory more effectively than the central government, asserting that areas under their governance have seen a relative improvement in public service provision, including the reopening of schools and hospitals. Nangaa argued that their administration has restored stability in regions otherwise neglected by Kinshasa, though such claims remain contested.
These developments unfold amidst ongoing accusations about the role of external actors. While Nangaa admitted to engaging in security coordination with Rwanda and Uganda, he denied direct support from Kigali. A July 2025 report from a United Nations panel of experts however, found that Rwanda has exercised command influence over M23 operations and provided both military training and high-tech weaponry. Rwanda has officially denied backing the rebel movement but has acknowledged engagement in regional security dialogues involving AFC and M23.
Goma’s fall in January 2025 marked a significant shift in the balance of power in eastern Congo, as the city of over two million people straddles the border with Rwanda and serves as a key logistical and economic hub. Since then, international efforts led by Qatar and backed by the United States have sought to negotiate a ceasefire. Nangaa accused the Congolese government of blocking progress on these efforts and failing to honour commitments made during talks in Doha. The government, conversely, blamed the rebels for fuelling the continuing violence.
A brief incursion by M23 into the town of Uvira in December 2025, ostensibly to protect civilians from militia violence, underscored the volatility of the region. Although the rebels withdrew, Nangaa did not rule out further operations if insecurity persisted.
Independent human rights monitors, including the United Nations Human Rights Office, have documented serious violations committed by all parties to the conflict including M23, the Congolese armed forces and local militias. These abuses include potential war crimes, though all sides deny any wrongdoing. The human toll continues to grow amidst displacement, economic collapse and an increasingly fragmented political landscape.
The minerals deal with the United States symbolises more than a trade partnership; it reflects broader questions about sovereignty, legitimacy and who gets to speak for and manage the Congolese people and their resources. While Washington views the agreement as a strategic response to global supply chain pressures, local actors see it as emblematic of a long-standing pattern of exclusion and elite-driven decision making. Within this dynamic, the human dimensions of the conflict are often overshadowed by geopolitical competition.
For many across the African continent, particularly in regions impacted by extractive industries, the unfolding developments in Congo raise difficult but necessary questions about the future of governance, resource sovereignty and the role of foreign actors in domestic affairs. As various stakeholders push their narratives, the voices of affected communities must not be silenced in the shadows of high diplomacy.
