In the Great Lakes region, speaking freely is becoming a balancing act - sometimes between freedom of expression and personal safety. Faced with administrative restrictions, political pressure and a tense security situation, journalists and civil society actors are operating in an increasingly constrained environment.

According to CIVICUS Monitor, several countries in the region are among those where civic space is classified as "repressed" or "closed", indicating significant restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), for example, civic space is described as “repressed” in the March 2025 CIVICUS Watchlist – DRC report.

Multiple and structural restrictions

For those interviewed, the constraints take various forms: administrative limitations, intimidation, arbitrary arrests or funding restrictions. “There are numerous restrictions, notably regarding access to information, the freedom to hold an opinion contrary to that of the ruling power, and free exchange of views in a televised debate,” explains one observer.

In Burundi, certain civil society organisations have had their activities suspended or strictly regulated. Whilst organisations such as PARCEM or OLUCOME have attempted to resume their activities since 2020, their initiatives are regularly hampered by refusals to grant authorisation or interruptions to their operations.

Today, organisations can work on issues related to local development or entrepreneurship, but face major obstacles when it comes to governance, corruption or human rights.

A tense regional environment

This trend is not limited to a single country. Across the Great Lakes region, concerns regarding national security are regularly cited to justify restrictions on civil liberties.

According to the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, several countries in the region rank among the lowest in terms of press freedom, reflecting a difficult environment for journalists.

At the same time, organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regularly document cases of intimidation, arbitrary detention or harassment against civil society actors.

Support mechanisms remain limited

In the face of these challenges, alert and support mechanisms do exist, but remain insufficient. Regional networks are setting up early warning systems and legal support, whilst some local organisations offer support to journalists who have been arrested or threatened.

However, as one civil society activist points out, “these mechanisms remain limited given the scale of the needs”.

Self-censorship as a survival reflex

In this context, self-censorship is gradually becoming a survival strategy.

“You have to know when to hold back and fall in line with a narrative dictated by those in power when you need to speak out,” explains Jessé Busomoke. According to him, this dynamic now extends beyond journalists alone: “This self-censorship has become a survival reflex in society.” 

This phenomenon is widely observed across the region. In Burundi, some actors prefer informal discussion forums to address sensitive topics, avoiding more exposed public platforms. In the DRC and Rwanda, the media often sidestep politically sensitive topics or adapt their coverage.

Contrasting national contexts

Despite this worrying picture, contrasting trends are emerging.

In the DRC, some progress has been observed following recent political transitions, with a relative opening up of the media landscape - although these gains remain fragile, particularly in conflict-affected areas in the east.

In Burundi, signs of openness have also been noted, particularly with the gradual return of certain civil society actors. However, the space remains limited and heavily monitored, as highlighted by CIVICUS Monitor – Burundi.

Civil society: between resilience and constraints

Despite the restrictions, civil society continues to reorganise itself. “Burundian civil society is attempting to reclaim its place in the public debate, even if there is still a long way to go,” says a local actor.

For many observers, it is essential that civil society organisations be recognised as development partners rather than opponents. “Where CSOs cannot work freely, the risk of social fragility is real,” stresses an analyst.

A fragile balance

The evolution of civic space in the region will depend largely on the ability of states to reconcile security imperatives with respect for fundamental freedoms.

But in a context where speaking out can expose people to real risks, one question remains:

who can still speak freely — and at what cost?

Disclaimer: This article is written as part of the Forus journalism fellowship programme. Learn more here