Kinshasa, August 26, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has made a major move: a national investigation is now underway into the highly controversial Vantara project, funded by billionaire Anant Ambani’s Reliance Foundation. Meanwhile, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a cooperation agreement signed with this same project remains hidden, locked away, inaccessible — even to the supervising ministries.
On August 26, 2025, India’s highest court ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former Supreme Court judge Jasti Chelameswar. https://www.heraldgoa.in/globe/supreme-court-forms-sit-to-probe-functioning-of-anant-ambanis-vantara-project/426568This investigative committee has been tasked with fully uncovering serious allegations against Vantara: suspicious acquisition of wild animals, violations of wildlife protection laws, animal trafficking, money laundering, questionable detention conditions, and suspicions of turning a rehabilitation center into a private luxury park. Indian authorities deemed the complaints, citizen petitions, and media revelations serious enough to trigger this exceptional legal procedure.
And in the DRC? Silence. Opacity. Complicity? A memorandum of understanding (MoU) does appear to have been signed between the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN) and Vantara, as reported here: https://thecsrjournal.in/corporate-social-responsibility-csr-news-vantara-organises-international-wildlife-welfare-training-for-congolese-delegates/. Yet no copy has been made public. Worse still: the ministries directly concerned — Environment, Finance, Foreign Affairs — claim they do not have the document. How can such an agreement, potentially involving the ecological sovereignty of the Republic, be concealed from state institutions? Who is protecting whom? And why?
While India launches an investigation into Vantara’s actions, the DRC turns a blind eye. Yet disturbing signs are mounting: internal sources report discussions have begun regarding the potential transfer of iconic animals like elephants or even the okapi to India. Is this what modern international philanthropy looks like? An organized extraction of our wildlife under the guise of rescue? Where are the impact assessments, legal authorizations, local community consultations, CITES validations? What is happening here goes far beyond a simple administrative disagreement: it is a modern form of predation, disguised as partnership. When a country as vast and strategic as the DRC allows a project now under international investigation to operate in the shadows, it raises a central question: who benefits from the silence?
Some sources close to the conservation sector believe it is unacceptable for the ICCN — a public institution meant to safeguard Congo’s natural heritage — to sign a secret protocol with an actor now accused of serious offenses by its own country. The fact that ministries are unaware of the MoU’s contents is not only an administrative scandal but a clear violation of state authority. This suggests that officials or leaders acted outside any legal or institutional framework. The Mahadevi case in India, in which an elephant was transferred under suspicious circumstances from a temple to the Vantara park, triggered a media storm. There, civil society mobilized. Here, things are hushed. Permitted. Even facilitated.
For several activists in the DRC, the time for discreet questioning is over — it is time for public outcry. Where are the members of Parliament? Where are the environmental NGOs? Where are the investigative journalists? Who will stand up and say that Congolese wildlife is not for sale? Who will demand that this MoU be made public immediately, and that all cooperation with Vantara be suspended until the Indian investigation concludes?
What is considered serious enough to warrant a judicial investigation in India must be considered serious here as well. Some Congolese nature advocates are calling for the immediate mobilization of the nation’s vital forces. This is not a technical matter. It is a moral, ecological, and institutional crisis. Nature cannot be negotiated in secret. It is not a gift to be handed to billionaires seeking prestige. “This is not an open-air luxury zoo. It is our heritage, our sovereignty, our future,” they say.
By Kilalopress