DRC: New fighting in Masisi as AU delegation rushes to save ceasefire

What happened in Masisi after the African Union delegation arrived in Goma?

New fighting broke out in Masisi on Wednesday, one day after three members of the African Union’s panel of facilitators arrived in Goma. Masisi is in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, a region facing decades of armed conflict. The timing highlighted the gap between diplomatic activity and events on the ground.

The delegation included Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo and Botswana’s Mokgweetsi Masisi. They were received at the office of the M23’s political branch, the Congo River Alliance. A meeting with MONUSCO, the United Nations mission in the DRC, was also scheduled.

The article does not state who caused the new fighting or give casualty figures. It does show that earlier ceasefire and peace efforts had not ended hostilities. A delegation had already been sent in late August to verify the ceasefire between the Congolese army and M23.

What is the M23, and who is it fighting in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo?

M23 is an anti-government armed group in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The article describes it as Rwanda-backed and says it has seized further swathes of North Kivu and South Kivu. Its advance has made it one of the central forces in the region’s current crisis.

M23 has fought the Congolese armed forces during a lightning offensive. That offensive brought fierce fighting and led to the provincial capitals, Goma and Bukavu, falling to M23. The group’s political branch is called the Congo River Alliance, whose office received the African Union delegation in Goma.

The conflict is not limited to M23 and the army. The article says eastern Congo contains myriad armed groups competing over mineral-rich territory. M23 and the Congolese government agreed to a ceasefire commitment in Doha in July 2025, but fighting continued afterward.

How much territory has the M23 captured, and which major cities have fallen to it?

The article does not provide a square-kilometre figure or percentage for the territory captured by M23. It says the Rwanda-backed group seized further swathes of the eastern provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu. That wording indicates a broad territorial advance, but its exact scale cannot be calculated from the supplied information.

M23’s offensive was described as a lightning offensive. After fierce fighting with Congolese armed forces, the group took Goma, the capital of North Kivu, and Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu. These are the two major cities specifically identified in the article as having fallen.

The territorial gains matter because they show that M23 controls or contests important provincial centres, not only remote areas. Fighting nevertheless continued after the gains and after peace commitments. The article does not say how much territory M23 currently holds or whether control has changed since the capitals fell.

Why have fighting and ceasefire violations continued despite separate peace agreements involving the DRC, M23 and Rwanda?

The agreements did not translate into a lasting halt in violence. The Congolese government and M23 committed to a ceasefire in Doha in July 2025, while the DRC and Rwanda signed a United States-brokered peace deal in Washington in December. Despite both steps, fighting continued on the ground.

The article gives two important reasons why implementation is difficult: eastern Congo has suffered decades of conflict, and myriad armed groups fight over mineral-rich territory. M23 also continued its military advance, capturing Goma and Bukavu after fierce clashes with Congolese forces. These facts show that agreements involved major actors but did not remove every armed force or settle territorial control.

The article does not specify individual violations, mistrust or enforcement failures. It does show continuing attempts to monitor and renew diplomacy, including Swiss talks in August and a ceasefire-verification delegation. The renewed fighting demonstrates that signed agreements remain fragile without compliance on the ground.

What consequences does renewed fighting have for civilians and humanitarian conditions in North Kivu and South Kivu?

Renewed fighting in North Kivu and South Kivu places civilians at immediate risk. People may be forced to flee homes, separated from families and exposed to violence. Conflict can also interrupt food supplies, health care, schooling and access to markets. These are established consequences of armed conflict, but the article provides no casualty, displacement or aid-disruption figures.

The article describes fierce fighting around Goma and Bukavu and says M23 seized both provincial capitals. It also reports new fighting in Masisi. When combat reaches cities and surrounding areas, civilians face greater insecurity and humanitarian organizations may find it harder to reach people needing assistance.

The continued violence also threatens the effect of ceasefire monitoring and diplomacy. A verification delegation was deployed in late August, while African Union facilitators visited Goma. Unless fighting stops, humanitarian needs are likely to grow and safe access will remain difficult. The article does not report specific relief measures or conditions.

What roles do the African Union facilitators, Qatar, the United States and MONUSCO play in trying to stop the conflict?

The African Union’s panel of facilitators is helping maintain diplomatic engagement. Three of its five members visited Goma and met representatives of M23’s political branch. The panel’s work forms part of wider efforts to bring the parties toward a ceasefire and political settlement. A separate delegation was deployed to verify the ceasefire between M23 and the Congolese army.

Qatar and the United States have supported peace efforts in different ways. Qatar and the United States led efforts last year and took part in August talks in Switzerland with African Union representatives. Qatar hosted the Doha commitment between the Congolese government and M23, while the United States brokered the December peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda in Washington.

MONUSCO is the United Nations mission in the DRC. The article says a meeting with the AU delegation was scheduled, but does not describe further action by the mission. It therefore establishes contact, not a detailed operational role.

Why has eastern Congo remained vulnerable to armed conflict for decades, especially given its mineral wealth, weak state control and links to neighboring countries?

Eastern Congo has remained vulnerable because conflict has lasted for decades and involves myriad armed groups. The article identifies competition over mineral-rich territory as a central driver. Valuable resources can make control of land strategically important and can help sustain armed competition. The region’s instability therefore reflects both political conflict and struggles over territory.

M23 illustrates the regional dimension. The article calls it Rwanda-backed and says it fought Congolese armed forces while capturing territory in North Kivu and South Kivu. Its seizure of Goma and Bukavu shows how an armed group can challenge state authority across major provincial centres. Weak state control is a recognized wider factor in such conflicts, although the article does not detail it.

The article does not explain every historical cause or identify specific resource networks. It does show that armed groups, mineral wealth and cross-border links remain connected to the crisis. Peace efforts must therefore address fighting and territorial control, not only sign agreements.

Key Facts:

📌 Fighting broke out in Masisi one day after the AU delegation reached Goma.

📌 Three former African heads of state visited Goma.

📌 A ceasefire verification delegation arrived in late August.

📌 M23 is described as a Rwanda-backed anti-government group.

📌 M23 fights Congolese armed forces in eastern Congo.

📌 Its political branch is the Congo River Alliance.

📌 The article gives no exact measurement of M23’s territorial gains.