Only 25% of decisions made during cabinet meetings in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between April and December 2025 have been fully implemented. This critical finding emerges from a recent public action monitoring report, released this Tuesday, June 2, 2026, by a collective of civil society organizations, supported by the Centre d’études pour l’action sociale (Cepas).
The expanded execution index, a broader measure, reached 47 out of 100. According to the report, this score reflects both a “clear political steering intent” and a “significant gap between political impetus and actual implementation capacity.”
Christian Moleka, a member of the civil society collective behind the monitoring initiative, stated that approximately 70 structural decisions were analyzed over the nine-month period. Beyond the 25% fully executed decisions, 45% were partially implemented, while 30% remained undocumented due to a lack of available information.
The decisions under scrutiny spanned various key sectors, including security and institutional stability, economic and financial governance, natural resource management, institutional reforms, strategic diplomacy, and social policies.
The study concludes that the DRC government faces a “persistent challenge in translating decisions into fully observable and sustainable outcomes.”
“Analysis also shows that the most structural decisions, particularly those related to institutional, economic, or social reforms, frequently exhibit the lowest execution rates, whereas conjuncture-specific or security measures tend to advance more rapidly,” Christian Moleka clarified.
A new digital platform, named “Jua 243,” was also unveiled, designed to provide real-time tracking and oversight of government actions.
Father Alain Nzadi, director of Cepas, emphasized that the study’s purpose is not to pass judgment, sanction, or celebrate public action.
“Instead, it aims to contribute to the continuous improvement of governance by offering decision-makers, partners, and citizens analytical insights that foster a better understanding of policy implementation dynamics,” he explained.
He concluded by stating:
“These efforts are part of a constructive accountability framework, grounded in the belief that any public decision gains value when it can be tracked, evaluated, and assessed against its concrete results.”
