Our Products

For about five years now, the Biya government has been dishing out pittances to the private media, ostensibly as subvention to enable it blossom. This newspaper has been receiving the hand-outs ever since but it is yet to blossom. If it continues dangling on the national media landscape, it is because of the resilience of the people behind it and not because of the subvention, which has not helped it blossom.

What amounts have those who merit the subventions been getting? From 800.000 FCFA the first year to between 1.3 million FCFA and 1.2 million FCFA the last three years, the amount is barely equal to income from a single press run of a newspaper that may be perceived as blossoming in this country.

And what are the criteria for getting the subvention? As in all Cameroonian things, one has to compile a dossier of more than ten official documents showing the media outfit concerned has acquitted itself of all taxes, is commercially registered, pays social insurance, has a permanent location etc. Of course, in the usual Cameroonian way, an armchair technical committee sitting in Yaounde usually scrutinises the documents and decides which media organ qualifies for the subvention. I say armchair because no effort has ever been made to ensure that applicant media houses really exist and that the documents presented are authentic.

Over the years since this pittance thing was instituted, it has been established that more than 50% of the news organs awarded the subventions have no legal existence. Others have never been published and some of those that publish at all, operate from suitcases with no known office locations. Yet these are some of the pre-requisites for being considered for the subvention. The thing has become a sort of outlay for some individuals to reward tribal and political cronies with pocket money.

Honestly speaking, which are those media organs that really merit the subvention? Are they the financially healthy media outfits sponsored by political, regional and tribal interests, to which the subvention as it is now means nothing, or the struggling media houses which REALLY meet the plethora of criteria set forth by regulations?

One is not saying here that media houses sponsored by interest groups should not be given the subvention when they fulfil the requirements. No. In fact, some of these media houses are so well off that they hardly even apply for what they consider a pittance.

Some voices have been raised recently opining that qualification for the handout should have as one of the pre-requisites, regularity on the newsstands for the print media. This is one of the areas where I differ with some of my compatriots. And I am sure some readers would say I differ because this newspaper is not as regular on the newsstands as it should be. Yes.

You see, no media organ solidly on its feet would allow for the humiliation of receiving a handout from any government, talk less of one which would want to breathe down the throat of private media houses, especially the ones to which it gives handouts. That most private media houses in Cameroon apply for the subvention heralds the pitiful state to which the fourth estate has been reduced in this country.

For a government that bends the ears of citizens with rhetoric about the advanced state of its democracy, a healthy and competitive media does not seem to be one of the components of its democracy.

For all we and the world know, Cameroon is one of those countries in the world that has been doing everything possible to squeeze the private media from its democracy file. I say this because, whereas almost all third world countries have political and fiscal legislation that create the enabling environment for a health press, Cameroon still has in place, the most prohibitive financial laws against the press. About two years ago, this country added a proviso in its finance law reducing excise duty on some media production materials. But twelve months afterwards, as if rising from sleep, it rescinded the proviso and reinstituted the prohibitive taxes.

Going back to the subvention we have been talking about. What does it amount to as compared to what obtains in other countries even less endowed than Cameroon? In the Ivory Coast, for instance, the yearly amount budgeted and approved by that country’s parliament for disbursement to the private media is about two billion (2.000.000.000) FCFA. Senegal puts about one and a half billion (1.500.000.000) FCFA at the disposal of the private media yearly. The same obtains in countries like Burkina Faso, Gabon, etc. What amount is made available to the private media in Cameroon?150.000.000 FCFA! Only two years ago did it rise to 250.000.000 FCFA. Even so, the then Minister of Communication, Biyiti bi Essam (himself a journalist) felt it was too much so he slashed out 100.000.000 FCFA ostensibly for the setting up of a media house in Yaounde! How that media house was supposed to benefit media outfits in the regions is what has been baffling us to date. And has the media house even gone operational? That is the million dollar question.

In the final analyses, what I have been trying to say here is that the subvention package should be raised to what obtains in other third world countries. And too, that rather than favour healthy media houses that have already found their feet such as Cameroon Tribune and CRTV (the WEEKLY POST pays 24.000 FCFA yearly that goes to CRTV), the struggling press organs should be given a bigger slice of the money in order to enable them be strongly implanted. In this way, they would employ more compatriots and contribute their own quota towards fighting unemployment and alleviating poverty.

Suing Diplomatic Missions That Mutilate Cameroonian's Passports.

Individuals who have had the occasion to pass through the passport services of the General Delegation for National Security in Yaounde or in the ten provincial headquarters of Cameroon would notice an ever increasing number of Cameroonians lining up for passports. More than half of those applying for new passports have been issued passports before which were not completely used, i.e. the pages were not completely covered by usage stamps.

One maybe forced to ask: Why should these Cameroonians apply for new passports when the old ones were unused? The answer in most cases is simple: the old passports have been mutilated by American and European embassies where they applied for visas! These mutilated passports are always rejected by other embassies when the same individuals apply for visas elsewhere and so Cameroonians are left with no other options than to apply for new passports.

Another disturbing question thus arises: Must diplomatic missions which refuse Cameroonians visas mutilate their passports after refusing them visas? The truth is that there is no legal provision for diplomatic missions handling visa applications to tamper with the passports of individuals to whom they have refused visas. In fact, diplomatic missions have no right whatsoever to write anything in the passports of visa applicants. All they are empowered to do is paste visas in them or return the passports as they were handed over to them. It is even clearly stated on page 20 of the new CEMAC passport, Note N°. 2 that: "It is forbidden to make any mark on this document or any erasure, correction, deletion, or written addtition, or to add extra blanc pages. Any correction not made by the competent authority on issuing this passport will invalidate the document". Thus, anything done to the passport, which are strictly individual possessions owned by the issuing country outside the pasting of visas is illegal and should give rise to legal redress by offended Cameroonians. It is a flagrant violation of their rights to individual ownership.

If this is the case, why then do western diplomatic missions, which have always been bending our ears about respect for individual rights, mutilate the passports belonging to those to whom they have refused granting visas? The answer is that western embassies so despise Cameroonians and infact, Africans in general, that they are not satisfied with refusing them visas but must virtually destroy their passports before handing them back to their owners.

Besides imposing prohibitive visa fees and punitive reception facilities on those applying for visas, they must further humiliate Cameroonians by arrogating to themselves the right to mutilate the private property of Cameroonians. This is impunity at its worst.

What should abused Cameroonians do in order to rid themselves of this ultimate infringement on their private property? Two options are open to them, all of which are legal:

1. Sue subsequent rejecting diplomatic missions for refusing to use available space in the mutilated passports for their own visas or,

2. Sue the diplomatic missions which mutilate their passports for rendering them unusable. Either way, the Cameroonian would be saved the extra expenditure of paying for a new passport and the erring diplomatic missions would learn to respect Cameroonians who commit no offence by wanting to travel abroad.