State Spokesperson’s Incendiary Remarks Echoes of Historical Hate Speech
On December 27, 2025, a broadcast on the national broadcaster RTNC by Major General Sylvestre Ekenge, spokesperson for the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC), delivered a message that has sent shockwaves and invoked chilling historical parallels. The carefully orchestrated “communication spéciale” was designed to command national attention, with the Congolese public explicitly urged to listen closely to the army’s voice. RTNC, as a state-funded and politically aligned entity, presents its platform not for entertainment but for authoritative pronouncements. Therefore, Major General Ekenge’s words were not those of a private citizen, but a direct articulation of institutional power.
The General’s address was delivered with an unnerving calmness, devoid of interruption or challenge. He stated, “You must be very careful when you marry a Tutsi woman… she can act with perfidy by bringing her cousin into the household to have children with him instead of her husband… and she will convince you that the Tutsi race is superior… Ubwenge… They are capable of anything…” These pronouncements, laden with historical significance, systematically:
- Collective Identification: Assumed Tutsi women as a monolithic group, rather than as individuals.
- Attribution of Malice: Accused them of sexual deception, biological conspiracy, and adherence to a supremacist ideology.
- Presentation as Fact: Framed these accusations as established truths, not mere allegations.
- Sweeping Generalization: Concluded with the definitive statement, “They are capable of anything.”
This language transcends mere hate speech; it functions as preparatory dehumanization, a deliberate mobilization of animosity designed to dismantle moral barriers by suggesting inherent, limitless criminality within a targeted group. Such rhetoric is recognized within the framework of international criminal law and is a grim precursor to historical atrocities.
Kangura: A Blueprint for Incitement in the DRC
The echoes of the infamous Rwandan publication Kangura, notorious for its role in inciting the 1994 genocide, are undeniably present in Major General Ekenge’s recent address. For those familiar with Kangura’s content, Ekenge’s speech is not a novel expression but a disturbing revival.
In May 1992, Kangura No. 36 issued a dire warning to Tutsis: “The war, which you waged, yourself will have serious consequences on you yourselves and the Hutus you conquered. Go to hell with them or to Abyssinia, we will not be bothered with them.” This was already language of extermination, framing violence as an inevitable destiny and expulsion as the ultimate solution.
By November of the same year, Leon Mugesera amplified this message, elaborating on the idea that Tutsis would be expelled to Abyssinia via rivers. The same issue of Kangura directly addressed Hutu men married to Tutsi women: “Let those who have Tutsi women divorce them while it’s still time; otherwise, you will face an adverse fate because of these women which you are keeping—whom you are keeping.” The implication was stark: Tutsi women posed a threat within the domestic sphere.
The conspiracy narrative further expanded in Kangura No. 46 in July 1993, which alleged: “No one can forget how the Tutsis falsified their identities so as to occupy positions reserved for Hutus within the context of ethnic balance with the executive, in parliament, at the level of the judiciary, embassies, as senior civil servants of the state…” This was followed by a passage that eerily mirrors Ekenge’s pronouncements: “In the meantime, Tutsi women got married to Hutus but were careful not to have children with their Hutu husbands and whenever there were children from such union, the children became very committed in this struggle so as to give back power to the Tutsis. It is because of this infiltration of Tutsis within the society that the country no longer has secrets and it is easily invaded…”
This is not mere rhetoric; it is a doctrine that redefines marriage as infiltration, Tutsi women as biological weapons, and reproduction as a form of political warfare. The parallels between Kangura and the FARDC spokesperson’s message are not superficial; they are doctrinal. They share corresponding accusations, obsessions, manias, and an identical gendered paranoia. The construction of women as instruments for collective annihilation remains constant. The only discernible differences are the temporal and geographical contexts, the accent, and the medium of communication. Hassan Ngeze disseminated this doctrine through print in Rwanda between 1992 and 1993, while Major General Sylvestre Ekenge propagated it via state television in the DRC in December 2025. The medium has evolved, but the crime has not.
Gendered Incitement: A Strategic Cornerstone of Genocidal Ideology
Genocidal ideology does not emerge spontaneously among soldiers; it begins by targeting women. This is because women are universally perceived as the carriers of continuity: the custodians of bloodlines, culture, memory, and future generations. The deliberate targeting of women in genocidal propaganda is never accidental; it is a strategic imperative.
Major General Ekenge’s words serve this exact purpose. They unequivocally declare an entire category of women untrustworthy by birth, invite pervasive surveillance of marriages, legitimize suspicion as a patriotic duty, and transform private life into a theatre of ethnic warfare. By portraying Tutsi women as sexually deceitful, racially manipulative, and reproductively dangerous, Ekenge’s venomous speech simultaneously achieves several critical objectives:
- Legitimizing Suspicion: It validates suspicion within the most intimate spaces of life – the home, marriage, and the bedroom.
- Preparing for Sexual Violence: The rhetoric frames Tutsi women as deceivers who inherently deserve control and subjugation, thereby paving the way for sexual violence.
- Undermining Family Cohesion: It actively breaks apart families by positioning spouses as potential, or even perpetual, adversaries.
- Racializing Reproduction: It transforms the act of procreation into a source of terror, with children becoming potential targets.
Ekenge’s speech represents a direct assault on family cohesion, social trust, bodily autonomy, and the fundamental right to exist free from collective suspicion. This type of incitement is a potent precursor to a range of crimes, including ostracism, expulsion, sexual violence, forced separation, and ultimately, physical annihilation. This is precisely why Ekenge’s words carry such profound danger. They do not merely constitute insults; they fundamentally recode social relations.
International criminal law has long recognized this pattern. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) did not solely prosecute killings; it prosecuted speech that prepared minds for violence, particularly when delivered by figures of authority. International jurisprudence, from the ICTR to contemporary gender-crime doctrine, firmly establishes that gendered ethnic propaganda is not a byproduct but an early, critical warning sign of impending genocide.
Silence as Authorization: The President’s Unwavering Quiet
In the hours and days following Major General Ekenge’s broadcast, a strong expectation existed for an immediate and decisive response from President Félix Tshisekedi, the Commander-in-Chief of the FARDC. At a minimum, this would have entailed arrest and prosecution, accompanied by a clear repudiation from the highest office. Instead, a profound silence prevailed.
Within the realms of international law and political reality, silence from a Commander-in-Chief after such a public broadcast is far from neutral. It is deeply interpretive, signaling tolerance, approval, or strategic endorsement. When the army’s spokesperson addresses the nation on state media, and the head of state remains silent, the message to the military ranks is unambiguous: this speech falls within acceptable parameters. Implicitly, Ekenge articulated sentiments that his supreme commander either could not, or chose not to, express directly.
President Tshisekedi’s silence is not a procedural oversight but a political statement. Ekenge did not speak in hushed tones; he delivered his remarks confidently on national television. The President cannot have missed the vitriol contained within the speech; he permitted it. This silence from the supreme commander communicates several critical messages:
- To Congolese Soldiers and Militias: Such thinking is not only tolerated but actively accepted.
- To Ordinary Citizens: Protection is selective, implying that certain groups are left vulnerable.
- To Potential Victims: The message is one of profound isolation and abandonment.
In a nation with a deeply troubling history of ethnic massacres, this silence is not benign. It represents governance by abdication, a tacit signal that persecution may proceed without fear of accountability.
Normalizing the Unthinkable: The Chilling Effect of Mundane Reactions
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this episode is the disturbingly ordinary manner in which it was treated by many. Where was the sense of emergency? Where were the front-page warnings and the urgent historical context? The international media, for the most part, relegated the speech to simply another “controversial remark” within an already “complex” conflict. This is precisely how genocidal language is laundered – through normalization.
When incitement is reported without urgency, it conditions audiences to perceive such rhetoric as routine, thereby stripping it of its cautionary function and fostering indifference. The media’s silence is not neutral; it is preparatory, allowing dangerous narratives to take root. Diplomatic condemnation followed, but without any substantive consequence. On December 28, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot expressed shock on X, stating: “Extremely shocked by the remarks made today by the spokesperson of the Congolese army, General Ekenge, targeting the Tutsi community. This is absolutely unworthy coming from an official representative. I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. Any hate speech must be rejected under all circumstances. National cohesion can only be built in a spirit of inclusion of all communities.”
While Prévot’s words sounded strong, they lacked any concrete demands for action – no call for President Tshisekedi’s intervention, no demand for prosecution, and no appeal to international law. Belgium, a nation whose colonial policies significantly shaped the ethnic hierarchies of the Great Lakes region, exhibited a form of moral abdication in the face of live incitement.
Prominent human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International often find themselves limited to retrospective documentation, appearing incapable or unwilling to act against live, broadcast incitement. They expertly document the aftermath of atrocities, but when incitement is live, unmistakable, and disseminated nationally, their response is often muted. This raises a critical question: is incitement only deemed worthy of condemnation once it has already succeeded? This pattern is not merely negligence; it reflects a structural failure within the international human rights system, which often prioritizes safe reporting over immediate intervention and diplomatic caution over the imperative of protecting human lives. They meticulously compile reports after the fact, enjoying the comfort of delayed action.
UN Security Council and Global Institutions on Notice
The international system – encompassing the UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the African Union (AU), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) – has been unequivocally put on notice. The pattern is historically familiar: words that precede atrocity are ignored, normalized, or dismissed as routine political discourse. Silence becomes the default policy. A failure to act decisively now constitutes both historical and legal negligence.
The UN Security Council was established precisely to prevent such trajectories. Its members are intimately familiar with this language; they have litigated it and archived its devastating consequences. Silence in this instance will not be mistaken for ignorance. It will be recorded as a clear dereliction of duty. The international system has been warned, once again, by the stark lessons of history: the words that precede massacres are not abstract pronouncements; they are critical signals.
What transpired on December 27, 2025, was not an accident, nor was it a misjudgment or a cultural misunderstanding. History will not misunderstand this broadcast; it will classify it accurately. Major General Ekenge was not reckless; he was precise. President Tshisekedi was not uninformed; he chose silence. The international response was not insufficient by chance; it was deliberately calibrated to avoid discomfort. The global community recognized this very language in Rwanda before 1994 and failed to act. Now, it hears it again, nearly word for word, and feigns novelty. Silence, once more, is not ignorance; it is a choice.
Ekenge’s speech was a threatening pronouncement, delivered clearly, publicly, and with the full weight of institutional authority. The FARDC spokesperson articulated a language that history has already translated into a prelude to exclusion, rape, massacre, and extermination. It is the language that teaches ordinary people to view their neighbors as enemies and women as weapons. President Félix Tshisekedi’s silence transformed that speech into a state-sanctioned ideology. Leadership is defined not only by what is said but also by what is allowed to stand. Silence is complicity. Silence validates the threat. Silence prepares society for the worst.
The international response followed a predictable script: shock without consequence, condemnation without demands, and silence without shame. Belgium protected its alliance. Human rights organizations delayed their engagement. Media outlets normalized the rhetoric. The UN waited. Each institution performed its role with bureaucratic precision, enacting a theatre of moral safety while human lives hung precariously in the balance. This pattern is not tragic because it is unknown; it is tragic because it is a chosen course of action.
Genocide does not arrive unannounced. It sends advance notices through speeches, broadcasts, and silences. On December 27, 2025, such a notice was delivered to over 120 million people. Humanity cannot claim ignorance. The words are recorded. The precedents are documented. The consequences are known. The choice now rests with every institution, every state, and every observer: act to prevent, or do nothing and be complicit. Silence, once again, is not an absence of action; it is a policy. It is authorization. And the world will, one day, be judged for the decisions it makes today.
Unlearned Lessons: The Shadow of Rwanda
The echoes of Rwanda in 1992–1994 are profoundly unsettling. Print media then, broadcast media today; local targets then, a national and international audience today; doctrine then, doctrine today. The amplification effect is immense. In 1992–1994, the world failed to heed clear, threatening signs, resulting in the loss of over one million lives. Today, millions of Congolese, particularly women and children within Tutsi communities, face psychological terror, social fragmentation, and the potential for physical violence precisely because the international and domestic responses remain muted.
Major General Ekenge’s broadcast can be meticulously dissected phrase by phrase:
- “marry a Tutsi woman” – This phrase serves to identify and target a specific group.
- “perfidiously bringing her cousin” – This constructs a narrative of sexualized betrayal and deceit.
- “convince you the race is superior” – This racializes ideology, elevating ethnic identity to a position of supposed superiority.
- “Ubwenge… they are capable of anything” – This absolves potential perpetrators of criminality and prefigures justifications for violence.
This is a classic instance of incitement to hatred, imbued with potent gendered and ethnic dimensions. The normalization of such rhetoric by the media reduces public scrutiny. Belgium and other states issue ceremonial statements devoid of tangible consequences. Human rights organizations delay their interventions. The UN fails to mobilize effectively. Each instance of inaction is not passive; it is an active choice to ignore the well-documented mechanisms of mass violence. To allow such rhetoric to stand unchallenged is to permit history to repeat its most tragic chapters.
The global community must intervene with urgency, demanding:
- Immediate Investigation and Prosecution: Under both Congolese and international law.
- Public Repudiation by the DRC President: To dismantle state-sanctioned ideology.
- Media Responsibility: To contextualize, explain, and warn the population about the dangers of such rhetoric.
- International Pressure: From the UNSC, ICC, and African regional bodies to prevent escalation.
- Support for Targeted Communities: Including protection and psychosocial intervention for Tutsi women and families affected by this doctrine.
Words are not neutral. Silence is not innocent. Hate speech broadcast on state media, with tacit approval, is a direct precursor to catastrophe. History has meticulously documented this pattern: from Kangura to RTNC, from Rwanda to the DRC. Humanity cannot afford ignorance or delay. The warning has been delivered. The choice remains stark: intervene decisively, or be complicit in the ensuing consequences. This is a call for preventive justice, a crucial lesson for media outlets, governments, and human rights institutions, and a profound moral imperative for all who value human life.
Major General Ekenge’s speech is not merely offensive; it is a template for atrocity, a live demonstration of the mechanics of genocidal ideology, and a critical test of collective responsibility. Silence, delay, or half-measures will be remembered by history not as oversight, but as complicity. Immediate action is required – not for the sake of diplomacy, but for the fundamental protection of humanity.
