Author: Frank Maxime Yankam Lemdjo
Researcher, Peace and Security Department, African Union.
Cameroon will soon elect its next President. Whilst preparation of this important event is underway, the country is facing one of its greatest social crisis known as the Anglophone crisis. This reflection aims to point out the fact that the Constitution adopted on 18 January 1996 and revised by law 2008/001 of 14 April 2008cemented a constitutional system that has failed to achieve one of the principles that the same Constitution guarantees: the principle of equality between Francophone and Anglophone. Article 1(3) of the Constitution states that ‘the official languages of the Republic of Cameroon shall be English and French, both languages having the same status’. The Constitution sets out the principle of linguistic equality in Cameroon, without further explanation on how this principle would be guaranteed. The same article further states that ‘the State shall guarantee bilingualism throughout the country. It shall endeavor to promote and protect national languages’. In the meantime, the preamble of the Constitution states that: ‘the State shall ensure the rights of minorities […] in accordance with the law’. But the Constitution does not provide a definition for the term ‘minorities’.
Stop the human rights violations in the South-west and North-west regions of Cameroon now: A call on all relevant stakeholdersPosted: 3 July, 2018
Authors: Basiru Bah, Essa Njie, Theophilus Michael Odaudu and Urerimam Raymond Shamaki on behalf of the 2018 class of the Master’s Programme in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa (Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria)
|Basiru Bah||Essa Njie||Theophilus Odaudu||Urerimam
For the Centre for Human Rights latest press release on the human rights violations in Cameroon, please visit www.chr.up.ac.za/StopCameroonViolations
Since 2016, the human rights situation in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon has been deteriorating. It all started with peaceful protests organised by lawyers, teachers and students in the region demanding the appointment of Anglophone Cameroonians to key positions in the judiciary, civil service and educational institutions. The state responded with brutal force killing at least 10 people and injuring hundreds. This crack down increased agitation in the region and further calls for reform and even secession. The government militarised the area and conducted series of operations against protesters killing even more people. Amnesty International has reported arson attacks, torture, incommunicado detentions, arbitrary and extra-judicial executions, murder and other inhumane acts against civilians. These atrocities are committed by both the Cameroon security forces and armed separatist movements. The end of 2017 to date has seen more than 150,000 people being internally displaced and over 20,000 fleeing to neighbouring Nigeria in the wake of increased violence in the region. Cameroon is edging closer to civil war every day as the world watches in silence.
Political killings and related violence have found expression in public discourses and have shaped the political-legal landscape in Cameroon since the re-introduction of multi-party democracy in 1990. The post-1990 constitutional state that Cameroon has become recognizes the universality of human rights; especially the right to life and security of the person. While these progressive laws further distinguish Cameroon as a state with outstanding legal commitments towards the universality of human rights, they have failed to find expression in the implementation process.
Creating such a strong visibility of human rights within the law is not enough. How the law is implemented determines its real worth and effectiveness. Accountability for crimes in a fair and expeditious trial remains the hallmark of an efficient criminal justice system.
This post examines how the state responded to cases of political killings and related crimes in Cameroon from the dimensions of legal and policy frameworks; legal processes; legal innovations; and institutional issues. It focuses on three key actors; the courts, the Legal Department, and the Police, and uses such assessment indicators as prosecution, conviction, and acquittal rates.