Kinshasa, March 22nd, 2026 (CPA) – The use of social media and digital platforms (TikTok, Facebook, X, WhatsApp, etc.) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) formally prohibits the use of insults, in accordance with the provisions of the Digital Code, the Penal Code, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Freedom of expression, enshrined in the Constitution, protects criticism, public debate, and freedom of opinion. However, this freedom cannot cover acts constituting criminal offenses, nor serve as a basis for abuses that infringe upon the rights of others and human dignity.
In the digital era, it is easier to express oneself online than to speak in person. In the country of Lumumba, online insults have become commonplace but must not go unpunished. An insult is defined as “any offensive expression, term of contempt or invective.” It is provided for and punished under the Penal Code as follows: “Anyone who publicly insults a person shall be liable to a penal servitude of eight days to two months and a fine not exceeding CDF 50,000, or one of these penalties only.” Online insult exists by the mere fact of using, towards a person, an expression that is in itself offensive or abusive, without referring to any specific fact. For example, calling someone a fool, an idiot, a drunkard, a murderer or a thief on digital platforms.Furthermore, what distinguishes insult from defamation is that insulting remarks do not contain the imputation of any fact. However, defamatory statements may at the same time be insulting.In such a case, the two offenses are in ideal concurrence, and only one penalty will be applied by the court, namely the harsher one—generally that provided for defamation, which carries a heavier penalty than insult.Under Congolese law, two categories of insulting remarks are distinguished: those that undermine honor and reputation, and those containing gross invective.The first category includes allegations likely to harm a person’s honor and reputation. For example, saying of a minister that “he was a former rebel” does not constitute an insult but rather criticism, as it remains within the bounds of acceptable public debate. On the other hand, the expression “incompetent minister,” when applied to the same person, constitutes an insult, as it falls within the category of verbal abuse, whether or not it affects reputation.The classification of an expression as an insult or criticism falls under the sovereign assessment of the trial judge. Moreover, for an insult to be punishable, it must be made publicly, including through social media platforms (Facebook, X, WhatsApp, etc.).
With regard to the mental element, insult presupposes the intent to harm or offend. As in defamation matters, insulting statements are presumed to be made with intent to harm.