CheckPoint Podcast | Did Joseph Kabila Betray South Africa? The M23 Questions That Won’t Go Away | 22 October 2026

When Yesterday’s Enemy Becomes Today’s Ally, Who Pays the Price in Congo?

Political alliances can change overnight. For people caught in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s conflict, the consequences can last for generations.

In a war that has drawn in neighbouring governments, international mediators and armed movements, political loyalty can be difficult to distinguish from political survival. The reported alignment between former Democratic Republic of Congo president Joseph Kabila and the M23 movement exposes one of the conflict’s most troubling contradictions: the people who once stood on opposing sides can find themselves pursuing common interests, even while the human cost of their earlier confrontations remains unresolved.

That contradiction has particular significance for South Africa. Its soldiers took part in operations against M23 while Kabila was president. South African troops have subsequently died during the conflict. Questions about Kabila’s relationship with the movement therefore extend beyond Congolese domestic politics to the obligations political leaders owe countries that have committed people and resources to supporting them.

Political analyst Dr Claude Kabemba offers a stark description of how quickly relationships can change: “Your enemy today can be your ally tomorrow.” His explanation centres on political interest and personal security, rather than any assumption that the objectives of former adversaries have become identical.

The distinction matters. An alliance formed out of immediate political necessity may resolve a problem for its participants while creating new problems for everyone else. A political leader may regard a former opponent as a source of protection or leverage. Citizens and soldiers affected by that opponent’s actions may see the same development as a profound breach of trust.

This does not establish that Kabila secretly supported M23 during earlier fighting. Such questions require evidence, and allegations must remain separate from findings. But the absence of a final answer does not make the question irrelevant. South Africa has a legitimate public-interest reason to seek clarity about the conduct and allegiances of those involved in a conflict in which its soldiers have served.

The wider issue is how governments respond when their security commitments become entangled with political relationships that later change. Diplomacy requires dialogue, sometimes with deeply compromised actors. Accountability requires that the pursuit of negotiations does not erase legitimate questions about past conduct.

Why replacing leaders may not deliver peace

Congo’s political dilemma also reaches beyond Kabila and M23. In Kabemba’s assessment, the country faces a choice between entrenched political power and armed groups seeking influence through force. Neither route necessarily produces legitimate or accountable government.

Peace negotiations frequently bring powerful participants together because they have the ability to stop fighting. Yet that practical necessity contains a risk. An agreement may reward the possession of political or military power without creating stronger institutions to constrain its future use.

The result can be a recurring cycle. Those who obtain authority become dependent on the factions that supported them, while citizens remain without reliable mechanisms for holding leaders accountable. Agreements change the balance of power, but not necessarily the rules governing it.

For a population living with insecurity and poverty, the most important test of any settlement is not simply who signs it. It is whether the agreement creates a credible

path towards functioning institutions, public oversight and political participation without violence.

Congo’s mineral wealth complicates this struggle. Cobalt, copper and coltan are strategically valuable, creating commercial and political interests that extend far beyond the country’s borders. Where governance is contested, competition over resources can become inseparable from competition for influence.

It would be simplistic to attribute the entire conflict to minerals alone. Leadership disputes, insecurity and regional relationships also play important roles. Nevertheless, decisions about who controls valuable resources can affect which political actors attract support and how alliances develop.

For South Africa, the lesson is not that engagement with Congo should end whenever political loyalties change. Regional stability and the protection of civilians remain important objectives. The lesson is that diplomatic relationships need continuous scrutiny, clear strategic goals and a willingness to ask difficult questions, even of former partners.

Kabemba’s most consequential observation is that shifting allegiances carry a human price. The lasting question is whether those exercising power will ever be held responsible for that price.

· CheckPoint: The Podcast, Nkepile Mabuse in conversation with Dr Claude Kabemba, 22 October 2026. Source transcript, particularly the exchanges at approximately (00:00–02:36), (12:43–14:41), (17:14–20:25) and (23:24–25:54).