DRC’s “Congo is not for sale” Coalition Calls for Transparency in $180M Glencore Deal
The “Congo is not for sale” coalition is criticizing the lack of transparency surrounding the $180 million payment made by Glencore to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) over a year ago.
The coalition is particularly concerned about the involvement of the Prevention Agency and the Fight against Corruption (APLC) in the deal, which they find suspicious.
The coalition is urging the government to release a comprehensive memo outlining the details of the negotiation and the ultimate destination of the funds.
As a reminder, Glencore reached an agreement with the DRC in December 2022 to pay $180 million in compensation to settle ongoing prosecutions against the company. However, the transactional memorandum of understanding between Glencore and the DRC has never been made public, raising questions about the lack of transparency.
The coalition also highlights concerns about the destination of the $180 million, as the Minister of Justice’s letter suggests that various parties, including public officials, expect to receive remuneration from the funds. This has raised questions about the legal basis for these payments.
Furthermore, the APLC’s involvement in the deal is viewed with skepticism. The APLC allegedly gave a mandate to a private company to collect information related to the corruption scandal involving Glencore and Congolese officials.
In return, the APLC agreed to pay success fees to the private company. The coalition argues that negotiating such a contract falls under the exclusive purview of the Congolese government and questions the legitimacy of the APLC’s actions.
Despite these concerns, no disciplinary measures have been taken against the coordinator of the APLC. The coalition calls for a thorough investigation into the matter and suggests several actions, including the publication of the transactional memorandum, details of the fund’s destination, and the opening of a judicial investigation.
The coalition also calls for proof of the government’s authorization for the APLC’s involvement in the deal and the suspension of the APLC coordinator during the investigation
