THE WEEKLY POST

Biya Will Not Stand In 2011

President Paul Biya would not stand for re-election come 2011 when his last seven-year term runs out. Very reliable sources in the Elysée told our contacts in the French capital and within Biya’s entourage during his recent trip to Paris that French president Nicolas Sarkozy bluntly told Biya during their discussions not to resort to the usual undemocratic practice of African leaders amending their constitutions to enable them stay in power until their deaths. “It was virtually an ultimatum. In fact I can even say categorically that it was a threat. It was a sort of ‘you either leave in 2011 or…’ sort of thing”, our sources revealed. However, it would appear the French leader did not need to threaten Biya for him to make up his mind not to stand in 2011. He had already made up his mind many years back and had since started scouting for a possible successor. “Whatever accusations that may be made against Biya, he remains a gentleman and religious person with a very strong attachment to constitutionality and decorum. He does not see amending the constitution for his own interest as gentlemanly behaviour so even if the constitution is amended, he would still not stand”, a highly placed source in the presidency told this Reporter last week. It would appear Biya had originally decided to hand over power to a northerner when his time is out. He wanted to repay the magnanimity of a northerner (former President Ahidjo) who single-handedly thrust the presidency on him by handing it back to a northerner. “At the time he decided to give the presidency to a northerner, many voices within his close entourage were raised against the option, pointing out the 1984 coup attempt against him by the northerners as an excuse. Some of these people insisted that northerners are unforgiving and should he hand over the presidency to them, they would use the opportunity to revenge against the Biya clan for the mass killings that followed the April 6 coup attempt”, one insider revealed. Biya however insisted then that the presidency would go to a northerner which accounts for why the northerners remained low on exigencies from the national cake. The scenario is different today and the northerners know it that is why northerners have been asking for the post of Prime Minister to be given to them. “Even at the height of his inclination to hand over power to a northerner, Biya had a clansman alternative in case of any last-minute exigencies. That clansman has always been Réné Sadi whom he pulled out of diplomacy and brought to the presidency to be near him”, our Etoudi source revealed. “Biya has finally decided he would go after 2011 and has settled on handing power to a clansman. In the absence of any last-minute hitches, the choice is Réné Sadi”, our source added categorically. The WEEKLY POST has learnt that the restive attitudes of one-time presidential hopefuls such as Prof. Joseph Owona and Abah Abah Polycarpe made Biya decide on the discreet diplomat who is also a workaholic like Biya himself. The signs are very clear for everybody to see although some power-hungry crumbs aficionados are so overwhelmed by their covetousness that they are unable to open their eyes wide enough to see. “First Biya brought Réné Sadi by his side at the presidency as Assistant Secretary General so that he could study the ropes of leadership and how to handle complicated dossiers. Then he brought him by his side in the hierarchy of the party to give him the opportunity to master the political game from a vantage position. The inculcation process is in high gear and Biya believes the next three and a half years would be enough to groom Sadi enough to take over from him both as Head of State and party leader”, an unimpeachable source at the presidency told the WEEKLY POST. “Those who are today falling head over heels and shouting at the tops of their voices for an amendment of the constitution to enable Biya stand for another term are just wasting their time. Biya will not stand and he knows it himself that demagoguery is a favourite pastime of Cameroonian politicians so these gesticulations mean nothing to him”, one of our sources revealed. “Rather than ruining their chances with the impending new leadership of both the party and the nation, perhaps those now clamouring for Biya to remain in power should start positioning for better places in the post-Biya era”, a knowledgeable political scientist told the WEEKLY POST.

RUNAWAY SCNC FAMILY ATTACKED

By Wansi Ngnia Desiré Armstrong in Douala

The wife and children of one Mr. Ojong Thomas, a Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) activist who has been on the run for quite some time now due to threats, intimidation and brutality by security operatives were recently molested by unknown individuals in their Douala Industrial Zone neighbourhood. The SCNC activist’s wife told the WEEKLY POST in Douala that in the evening of Friday November 23, 2007 at about 21 hours, three men pushed open the door of their residence and started molesting she and her children. Asked to narrate exactly what happened, Mrs. Ojong told this Reporter that on the fateful day, she saw through the window of their Douala Industrial Zone residence, three thoroughly angry-looking men advancing towards the house. They eventually pushed open the door of the house, entered uninvited and started threatening her. They told her not to shout, as if she alerted neighbours, she and her children would be killed. The men eventually wanted to know the whereabouts of her husband and when she told them she did not know where her husband was, one of them quickly retorted: “Your husband was seen in America on October 1, 2007 amongst SCNC protesters”. The man added: “He is gone but you and his children will face the consequences” which declaration was immediately followed by an aggressive kick and push and when the woman tried to free herself from the grip of the unknown individual on her dress the commotion woke her sleeping children who started shouting and crying. Neighbours who were alerted by the screams of the children came out and on hearing the approaching footsteps of the neighbours, the men ran away. Mrs. Ojong was wounded on the head and her dress was also torn.

Open Letter to President Paul Biya

Dear Mr. President, I have, for so many years, been closely monitoring political and economic developments in Cameroon. I have been encouraged by the news that our economy has been growing at an acceptable rate. This is, indeed, good news for many Cameroonians who are sincerely looking forward to better days in their country, although many still contest the reports because of widespread poverty in the country. Cameroon, as we all know, has gone through a lot of political and economic turmoil and any little piece of positive information is always a welcomed relief. The last parliamentary and municipal elections point to the fact that the people of Cameroon are determined to live in a country wherein there is peace, the numerous economic challenges notwithstanding. Though the outcome of the elections was highly contested and the elections themselves considered as flawed by many observers, they however underscore that democracy was gradually developing in our country, albeit slowly. Mr. President, I have personally been pleased with your recent declarations indicating that you would like to make all regions and segments of our society part of your government. This move, I trust, is designed to strengthen the little peace that reigns in our country. Strangely, Mr. President, many parties were still not included in the government you have recently formed. While the prerogative to appoint people is clearly yours, like most Cameroonians both at home and abroad, I think it would be appropriate to get all parties or segments of our society on board in order to have genuine and sustainable peace in our country. Cameroon needs peace in order for it to continue challenging poverty and every segment of our country has a huge role to play in the realization of the country’s objective. Mr. President, one of those segments that has been completely forgotten is the Diaspora. The Diaspora has been playing a huge and commendable role in the development of our country. Remittances from Cameroonians living abroad have helped to alleviate poverty in the country and they have also helped to reduce the economic pressure on the government. Your government, Mr. President, will stand to gain if it sees the Diaspora as a useful partner in the fight against poverty. If Diaspora remittances are well channeled, they could serve as a reliable source of resources for infrastructure development in our country. Besides its remittances, the Diaspora comprises men and women with highly specialized skills working for huge corporations abroad. Their skills and experience are an asset for our country. They constitute an exceptional resource for a country that is in the throes of a severe economic crisis. Many countries in the world have gained a greater understanding of the role the Diaspora can play in lifting many people out of poverty and boosting the economies of their countries of origin. But from all indications, Cameroon is yet to tap into this valuable resource and there seem to be no plan to integrate the Diaspora into the economic and political life of our country. I think it is time to have this people represented in your government. Their resources should be better channeled so that Cameroonians, regardless of their social background, can also benefit from the huge Cameroonian population living abroad. Cameroonians stand ready to serve their country in any capacity; after all, their dream is to see their country grow economically. Ideas to make this a reality abound and there are many people who stand by for any input you may need in this regard. Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind attention. Sincerely, Joachim Arrey The African Development Bank Group Tunis-Belvedere, Tunisia.

As Even Importers Flout Presidential Orders: Is This The End Of Biya’s Power?

By Chief Bisong Etahoben

A group of international human rights activists based in Belgium is planning to take the Biya government to court if its plea to President Paul Biya to release the twenty-two SDF detainees held in the Kondengui prison, Yaounde since May 2006 yields no positive results. A diplomatic contact who revealed this to the WEEKLY POST in Yaounde last weekend said the human rights activists are outraged at the fact that the 22 detainees have been held with no criminal charges brought against them in a court of law and before a magistrate where they would have defended themselves. The human rights activists hold that under Cameroonian law, only a magistrate can determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person. It would be recalled that in May 2006, a free-for-all brawl broke out in the Olezoa neighbourhood of Yaounde between two factions of the Social Democratic Front (SDF) struggling to occupy the party’s headquarters in the national capital. The factions were led by John Fru Ndi and Barrister Bernard Muna. Many party operatives were wounded in the brawl and eventually hospitalized. A supporter of Bernard Muna’s faction, Theophile Diboule died during the commotion. Twenty-three SDF militants, all of whom are of the Fru Ndi faction were arrested and have been detained in Kondengui since May last year without specific charges brought against them. One of the detainees has since died and since no autopsy was conducted on the corpse, it is not known what caused his death. Penitentiary and hospital authorities say the man died of natural causes. Two of the detainees, retired Colonel Angafor and Mr. Philip Che, a businessman, our source revealed, are aged above 65 and the long detention is said to be wrecking havoc on their health. The human rights activists are asking the Cameroon government to allow qualified medical practitioners registered with the Cameroon Medical Council to examine the detainees, to release them or charge them to court. Some senior government officials spoken to in Yaounde who elected to remain anonymous said Cameroon is receiving bad publicity abroad because of the continued detention of the SDF militants. Two years ago, some 250 CPDM militants from Bamenda, including Fon Angwafor the First National Vice President of the CPDM dragged the Cameroon government to the African Union Human Rights Court claiming that the said government had refused to compensate them for their houses which were burnt down during the presidential election in 1992. The Cameroon government pleaded for an out-of-court settlement and the litigants were paid in silence. In 1994, the late Albert Mukong, a well-known human rights activist won a case against the Biya government in the U.N. Human Rights Court for illegal detention in the notorious Mantoum and Tchollire prisons. The Cameroon government eventually paid Mukong more than 100 million FCFA in costs and damages.

“Constitutional Amendments Should Not Emanate From The Evil Intentions Of Those Who Govern But From the Expressed Desires Of The People” *Electoral Law Does Not Mention ‘Gap’ In The Proportional Distribution Of Seats, Jurist/Journalist Says

Following the very instructive article on the case for a constitutional revision by journalist, jurist and political scientist, Ashu Nyenty, published in our issue of October 5-11, 2007, the WEEKLY POST met Mr. Nyenty for a chat to enable him make pertinent clarifications on some of the salient issues raised in the article. Excerpts of the conversation:

WEEKLY POST: Why do you think a constitutional revision is necessary at this time? ASHU NYENTY: The American Supreme Court judge Marshal C.J. in the cause celebre on constitutional law, Marbury on Madison stated inter alia, that “the constitution is the basic law of the land”. It is this supreme law that creates the various institutions of the state, defines their attributes, regulates their relationships and sets limits to their applicability. Because the human society is essentially dynamic and in constant metamorphosis, there is a need to revise this basic law of the land from time to time so as to adapt it to the changing needs of the society and the exigencies of the hour. It is best when this need emanates not from the evil intentions of those who govern, but rather from the expressed desires of the ultimate beholders of political power that is, the people. All constitutions in the world have provisions for a revision to take into account the changing circumstances of the society. But how often a constitution is revised depends on the vision and selflessness of the initial drafters. Therefore, it is not the revision of the constitution per se that poses problems but the motive or the rationale for such changes. I think in the present state of evolution of our country, Cameroon needs a constitutional revision in the spirit and in the direction of my proposal. WEEKLY POST: This is not the first time we are hearing about calls for a constitutional revision. Is your own just another one of such calls? ASHU NYENTY: You are right when you say that others in their time have had to propose a constitutional revision in Cameroon. But what I have done is not a copy work of what has already been said. Neither is it a superfluous proposal. On the contrary, the proposal I have made goes in the direction of curing the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that are present in the proposals that have this far been sold in the market place of ideas. For example, if you look at the proposal made by a group of ten CPDM MPs during the last legislative period, it hinges on the presidential term alone. It failed to address other related issues like whether the incumbent president will be re-eligible after his second mandate expires. This is evidence that there was a political agenda that motivated the authors of the ill-fated proposal that up to this day has not really prospered in popular opinion. The proposals I have made go in the direction of helping to move our democracy forward; a proposal that ushers in democratic liberty, which according to the Greek philosopher Aristotle entails the limitation of a presidential term of office. So, in essence, what I am saying is that my proposal is not a move too many, but rather a substantial evolution of the ideas that have been traded this far. WEEKLY POST: A provision in your proposal states that the policy of the nation will be determined by the government and not just the president as it is currently the case. How is this feasible? ASHU NYENTY: It is possible. You know in politics and in every sphere of national life, we are not re-inventing the wheel. All the theories and concepts that are being traded around had been postulated before by other thinkers and or countries. But you can always improve what others have done. There is nothing wrong in copying a good example from elsewhere. For those who do not know, Cameroon’s public law, and I mean issues pertaining to the constitution, politics, administrative law etc, is largely sourced from what goes on in France. It beats my imagination that quite often we copy only those things that have either become obsolete in France or we apply them in a manner that defeats the plausibility of the French original. Section 20 and 21 of the French constitution are to the effect that the policies of the nation as concerns internal affairs are determined by the government and the government is headed by a prime minister. Well, to be honest, this distinction is not very clear when the prime minister comes from the same party as the president as it is the case now. The president’s prerogatives are well defined in the constitution and those of the prime minister too. This bicephalism (not synonymous with anarchy) becomes glaring when the prime minister comes from a party different from the president’s. Even today in France, even though the plan of action of the government largely reflects the wishes of President Sarkozy, these issues are discussed with the prime minister and even the ministers who come from different parties. The beauty here is that President Sarkozy would accept contradictions and criticisms from his own government when that is clearly the better option. More to that, there are constant meetings between the president, prime minister and the other cabinet ministers. In Cameroon ministerial council meetings are few and too far in between, so much so that some members of government do not really have a grasp of what the vision of the president is. The president does not make matters easy for them because he does not come out with clear cut policies on what he intends to do: how many schools he wants to create; by what percentage he wants to reduce unemployment in say one year; what he intends to do concretely to improve the plight of workers. Everything around the president’s vision in Cameroon is a mystery. Nobody knows anything until it happens or pretends to happen. This is not a very health atmosphere for governmental work. It seems to me that cabinet meetings and ministerial council meetings today are merely for reports from ministers and instructions from the president or prime minister and very little debate and contradiction. WEEKLY POST: But there are some people who think that the 1996 constitution should fully be implemented before there can be any talk about another revision. ASHU NYENTY: It is rather unfortunate that eleven years on, most of the institutions created by the 1996 constitution: Senate, Constitutional Council, Regions etc have not fully come into existence even as we write. Be that as it may, their implementation and the exigency of a constitutional revision now are not actually exclusive. They could all happen at the same time. We must not wait until all the institutions see the light of day. May be if these institutions had gone into existence a long time ago, we could have been in a position to detect their weaknesses and then try to perfect them with a constitutional revision. I think if there is a clamour for a constitutional revision today, it is because the contentious provisions have been applied and we have seen the weaknesses in them. That is why any potential revision must make sure it does not repeat the errors of the past. Coming back to the non functional institutions created in the 1996 constitution, it seems to me that there is no water-tight technical argument holding back their implementation. The only plausible explanation, it would seem, is political. WEEKLY POST: When you say those institutions have not been implemented for political reasons, what do you mean? ASHU NYENTY: I did not say conclusively that political reasons were behind the reticence to make those institutions functional. I said the delay gives that impression. And, a compendium of factors have led some analysts to hold that impression. I will take just one of them. Section 67 (4) of the constitution states that: “The Supreme Court shall perform the duties of the Constitutional Council until the latter is set up. Eleven years after that constitution itself came into force, what is holding back the “setting up” of the Constitutional Council? Is it the manpower or the structures? None of these could be seriously said to be the problem. And mark you that when the Supreme Court is sitting as the Constitutional Council, it applies the procedure of the Constitutional Council so why not simply graduate the present crop of Supreme Court judges into the Constitutional Council and appoint new judges to the Supreme Court? When you turn all these questions in your brain, then you are left with only one possible conclusion. That the reluctance to set up the Constitutional Council is advised by political ends. What then are these ends? Political analysts think that they have identified the ends when they read together the laws regulating functions at the Supreme Court, Constitutional Council and the duties of the Constitutional Council. To this date, the most notable duty of the Constitutional Council is that which is provided for by Section 48 (1) of the constitution to wit: “It shall ensure the regularity of presidential, parliamentary elections… It shall proclaim the results”. As you know, this role has so far been played by the Supreme Court and the ruling CPDM party has won every one of these elections since 1992. And it would appear the powers that be are comfortable with the situation instead of risking setting up the actual Constitutional Council whose members have a different status. It should be recalled that members of the Constitutional Council have a fixed term of nine years non renewable and cannot be removed from office. That makes them more independent and more assertive than members of the Supreme Court whose job security depends on the whims and caprices of the president. Is that why the Constitutional Council has not been set up to this date? Difficult to say but that is the reasoning of some political analysts. WEEKLY POST: Let us now look at another political issue. After the parliamentary elections re-run of September 30, the CPDM has confirmed its master grip on the political scene in Cameroon. ASHU NYENTY: If we go by the official number of seats that the CPDM won in the parliamentary elections (about 153) then the party has confirmed what we have known all these years (at least officially) that the CPDM is the major political party in Cameroon. Of course that is the only basis for determining the strength of a political in any democracy: its electoral strength. However, given the special circumstances of Cameroon, it will be too risky to make such an unqualified claim. For political analysis to be potent, it must take into consideration local variables. It is doubtful if those parties that were said to have won seats would have actually won those seats were the election more transparent and organised by an independent election body run by serious minded and I repeat serious minded people. Why do I say so? I will use just one example to illustrate this point. Take the case of Wouri East. In the main election conducted on July 22, the CPDM allegedly won all the four seats with an absolute majority. The same election was repeated 39 days later and the same CPDM would not even have a relative majority. So what happened between July 22 and September 30? Your guess is as good as mine. Let me remind you that it was just by a stroke of luck that election results were cancelled in Wouri East in the first place. First of all, the post election petitions filed by the UPC and SDF did not respect the stated legal procedure and thus were inadmissible ab initio. But the dummy of the Constitutional Council benefited from a legal provision that allowed it to examine the substantive matter suo moto, that is, on its own motion, notwithstanding the procedural lacunae. So, what if the court did not go to that length? The CPDM would have gone away with the four seats. You see why I am reluctant in the present circumstances to use election results, from an analytical point of view, as a yardstick in determining the relative strength of the various political parties. WEEKLY POST: There seems to be some confusion as to whether the UPC has won a parliamentary seat in Douala and the SDF winning one in the Far North. What actually is the situation? ASHU NYENTY: As far as I am concerned, there ought to be no confusion on this issue. Except we want to embark on some kind of zombie interpretation of the electoral law, then the UPC has won one seat in Wouri East and the SDF one seat in Mayo Tsanaga. Let me give to you the relevant provisions of the electoral law in paraphrases. First of all, one of the provisos of Section 6 (2) is to the effect that where no party obtains an absolute majority, half of the seats rounded off to the nearest whole number above, if need be, are awarded to the party with a relative majority, in this case the SDF and CPDM respectively. By some coincidence, the two constituencies have an even number of seats (4) each, which means that the party with the relative majority takes two. How do we then proceed with the sharing of the remaining two seats? The law says that the other seats are allocated proportionately to the other lists with the highest votes. And then finally, and this is the bane of contention, Section 6 (3) stipulates that in this sharing, lists that have less than 5 percent of the votes are not eligible. This means that all lists that have above five percent of the votes are taken into consideration, now depending on the number of seats available. If there are three parties in this category and there are only two seats, of course the two parties with the highest votes will get one seat each and if there are only two of them, they will share the seats without problems. The law-maker is very clear on the plural of “lists” with highest votes. This is a significant detail which has to be taken into consideration in construing the exact intentions of the legislator. The golden rule of construing legal texts has to be used here. I have heard officials of MINATD being quoted as saying that the gap between the second list and the third in each case is so wide that the third cannot be taken into consideration and that to me is an interpretation that runs traverse to the intentions of the law-maker. Nowhere does the law mention the issue of gap between the second and third lists or parties. The law-maker in introducing a proportional system beside a majority system, wanted all significant political shades of opinion to be represented in parliament. And clearly the legislator considered as significant, any political shade of opinion that scored more than five percent of the votes.

LAND/SEMI-COMPLETED HOUSE FOR SALE