Rwanda

Seven months after the Washington peace accord between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, the implementation of its terms stands at 23.3 per cent. The accord was signed in June 2025 under the watch of the President Donald Trump administration.

In January 2026, the Barometer of Peace Agreements in Africa reported that, while diplomatic initiatives have advanced, essential security obligations remain unmet, making the core implementation of the peace deal unfulfilled. Released on Feb. 1, the BPAA report reveals that progress remains limited and unequal, and is losing its dynamism. 

The report highlights several positive developments observed between Jan. 1 and Jan. 31, particularly in the institutional and diplomatic context. The African Union adopted a new mediation framework in Lome, and facilitators conducted tours in Kinshasa, Kigali, and Bujumbura. However, these efforts have not resulted in tangible progress. 

The Doha process, designed to complement Washington’s framework, has stalled since November 2025, leaving six protocols unresolved and further complicating coordination between parallel peace efforts, according to the BPAA.

Another key observation of the report is that the AU’s new mediation structure, though innovative, suffers from unclear coordination and lacks a standard methodology, raising concerns about its ability to harmonise Washington and Doha processes effectively.

Angolan President João Lourenço engaged Congolese authorities, opposition, and civil society in consultations to revive dialogue. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress held hearings on the state of the peace process, underscoring Washington’s sponsorship of the accord.

On the ground, however, the BPAA revealed that clashes between the Congolese army and the M23 rebels continued across North and South Kivu, undermining ceasefire commitments despite the group’s withdrawal from Uvira in line with international demands.

The think tank further observed that monitoring structures have weakened, with the Joint Security Coordination Mechanism and Joint Oversight Committee failing to meet in December and January, leaving violations and delays unaddressed.

Humanitarian access remains restricted, with displaced populations and civilians caught in escalating violence, underscoring the urgent need for both governments to prioritise civilian protection and relief.

“The global execution rates remain unchanged at 23.3% without evolution as compared to the level recorded in November and December 2025, and the intensification of fighting continues, exacerbating the already precarious conditions of the civilian population,” the report stated.

Despite the expedited Washington process, the situation on the ground remains troubling, with tensions between the two countries persisting. As the accord enters its eighth month, the gap between diplomatic promises and realities on the ground raises pressing questions about whether regional and international actors can salvage momentum before the agreement slips into irrelevance.

Rwanda began the inter-state arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November.

Rwanda has taken legal action against the United Kingdom’s refusal to disburse payments under a now-scrapped, controversial agreement for Kigali to receive deported asylum seekers, according to a Rwandan official and UK media reports.

Rwanda launched arbitral proceedings against the UK through the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration on Tuesday. It is seeking 50 million pounds ($68.8m) in compensation after the UK failed to formally terminate the controversial agreement about two years ago, The Telegraph newspaper reported.

“Rwanda regrets that it has been necessary to pursue these claims in arbitration, but faced with the United Kingdom’s intransigence on these issues, it has been left with no other choice,” Michael Butera, chief technical adviser to the minister of justice, told the AFP news agency.

Butera added that Kigali had sought diplomatic engagement before resorting to legal action.

The programme to remove to East Africa some people who had arrived in the UK via small boats was agreed upon in a treaty between London and Kilgali. It was intended as a deterrent for those wanting to come to the UK in the same manner.

However, just four volunteers ultimately arrived in Rwanda.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the deal – brokered by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government in 2022 – when he took office in July 2024, declaring it “dead and buried”.

London had already paid Kigali 240 million pounds ($330.9m) before the agreement was abandoned, with a further 50 million pounds ($68.9m) due in April.

Starmer’s official spokesman told reporters on Tuesday, “We will robustly defend our position to protect British taxpayers.”

Last year, the UK suspended most financial aid to Rwanda for backing the M23 group’s offensive in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Kigali labelled the move “punitive”.

The agreement faced a string of legal challenges, culminating in a November 2023 ruling by the UK Supreme Court that it was illegal under international law.

Rwanda began the interstate arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November, according to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s website, which lists the case status as pending.

Immigration has been an increasingly central political issue since the UK left the European Union in 2020, largely on a promise to “take back control” of the country’s borders.

Some 37,000 asylum seekers, including people fleeing Syria and Afghanistan, crossed the English Channel in 2024, and more than 40,000 in 2025 – the highest number since 2022, when nearly 46,000 people crossed. Dozens have died attempting the journey.

The UK government says it has removed 50,000 undocumented people living in the country.

In September, the UK and France implemented a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal aimed at returning asylum seekers to France while accepting those with UK family ties. However, the policy has faced criticism regarding its effectiveness. NGOs and charity groups have also described the scheme as a “cruel” move designed to restrict asylum rights.