The legality of the abduction of Southern Cameroon Leaders from Nigeria and their court-martial in Cameroun raises critical issues in International Law; in particular in times when the world is confronted with an acute refugee problem.  International Criminal Justice in which I have been involved these twenty years, has elaborately litigated this issue with my participation regarding its suspects who sought and obtained refugees status in different parts of the world prior to their arrest and surrender.

On the acquittal of the former commander of the reconnaissance battalion of the former Rwandan Army, Major Nzuwonemeye who was arrested in Cameroun and transferred to the ICTR Detention Centre in Arusha Tanzania, whom I defended at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, there is an ongoing litigation for him to be returned to France from where he sought refugees status prior to his arrest and trial at the ICTR. Prior to this case, the Court of Appeal of the Centre Province in Cameroun rejected a Rwandan request to arrest and return to Rwanda, Colonel Theoniste Bagosora, Laurent Semanza,  Francois-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, Jean Baptiste Barayagwiza and others who fled to Cameroun after the fall of Kigali to the Rwanda Patriotic Front led by Paul Kagame. The Cameroun court decided was based on the grounds that it would be illegal to return them to Rwanda where there was a prospect of the death of penalty pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its additional protocol. There was no extradition treaty between Cameroun and Rwanda. Nevertheless the Cameroun Court found unpersuasive, the invocation of the principle of reciprocity in the absence of an extradition treaty by Rwanda to obviate the legal protections afforded by the 1951 multilateral refugee treaty.  For the record, Colonel Bagosora was then alleged to be the mastermind of the genocide in Rwanda although the prosecution at trial at the ICTR failed to prove this serious allegation.  It should be emphasized that the transfer of the suspects then to the ICTR was done pursuant to the UN Security Resolution establishing the ICTR which mandated UN member states to cooperate with the court.

The case of Sisiku Ayuk Tabe and 9 others and the decision of the court-martial before whom they stand trial to assume jurisdiction overruling challenges to the jurisdiction of the court-martial must be viewed from the perspective of the multilateral regime on which the objections were based.  It  must  also be premised on the treaty obligations of the abducting state-Nigeria. The court-martial is a consequential danger that multiple international multilateral treaty regimes expressly interdicted. Nigeria is a state party to the ICC. There is an ICC preliminary examination in Nigeria since 2010. The crime of abduction is one of the crimes in the Rome Statute which is currently under preliminary examination is a multiplicity of crimes committed in the territory of Nigeria for which a preliminary examination was initiated.

Cameroun signed the Rome Statute but did not ratify it. Nevertheless, the recent Rohingya jurisprudence at the ICC establishes that where a crime committed in a ICC state party continues to a non state party, the ICC shall extend its jurisdiction to the non state party. I led the Rohingya delegation to the ICC Prosecutor to press their case on December 4, 2018.

France has not returned Mr Zang Ambassa to Cameroun due to his refugee status despite the existence of an elaborate extradition treaty and judicial cooperation between Cameroun and France.  By its own appellate jurisprudence and well established state practice, Cameroun has not established a jurisprudential regime of abductions, kidnapping and trial of alleged suspects in court-martials in foreign states, although its systematic abduction of Southern Cameroons nationals in their thousands from their territory and their submission to the jurisdiction of the Yaoundé court-martial has risen to the status of war crimes. The abduction and court-martial of Southern Cameroonians should not be dignified as cognizable due processes. The court-martial is a weapon of collective punishment, torture, cruel and degrading treatment of real and perceived opponents.

The international law elaborate treaty regime against the return of refugees to countries from which they fled when doing so, could subject them to grave danger or torture and other crimes outlawed  by international law strongly eviscerates the reasons advanced by the Cameroun court-martial for assuming jurisdiction in this case. Cameroun has litigated international cases in which it charged civilians before court-martials and lost. It was decided that on no account should civilians be court-martialed:  (1) Akwanga Vs Cameroun at the UNHRC (2) Akwanga Vs Cameroun ( African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights (3) Dinka Vs Cameroun ( UHRC).

A random search of the international treaty regime, its commentary and jurisprudence militates against the abduction, and trial of civilians who acquired refugee status under the protection of international law, in particular in judicial proceedings and court-martials where they may face the prospect of the death sentence. Lest we forget, if the interpretation and implementation of international law favoured the abduction and return of refugees to the countries from which they fled to face the dangers from which they fled, millions of refugees fleeing across international borders would simply have been returned to the countries from which they fled without due process. Armed militias and terrorists caught in battle who did not acquire the status of refugees may be detained pursuant to the laws and customs of war. As prisoners of war, they are afforded the protections in international law, and these include due process of the law. Subjecting civilians abducted and returned from foreign countries to a court-martial is not a legally recognized due process of the law. The court-martial in Yaoundé is a mockery of international law in every respect and should not be accorded a cloak of legality in any manner whatsoever.

Chief Charles A. Taku

French Cameroun political elites including opposition parties in Cameroun are viewing President Paul Biya and Senate President, Marcel Niat’s latest impromptu visits to Europe-Biya to Geneva and Niat to Paris for medical check-ups as a sign that both nonagenarian Francophone leaders can no longer cope and should step down and pave way for some new and energetic blood to take over in French Cameroun.

A cream of French Cameroun political elites have recently opined that President Biya, Senate President Marcel Niat and House Speaker Cavaye Yegue Djibril’s old age issues are costing Cameroun heavily and their frequent visits to Europe for medical care are draining the already dry state coffers because the trio including other barons of the CPDM crime syndicate spends millions of Euros on every trip, and all that money is taken from a country where people are dying from mosquito bites and thousands are being killed in Southern Cameroons.

Cameroon Intelligence Report correspondent in Yaounde said Amadou Ali who moonlighted as Vice Prime Minister in charge of Relations with the Assemblies was forced to leave the cabinet due to a lot of health-related challenges. Martin Belinga Eboutou reportedly left the country for Canada and we gathered from family sources that his time on earth is drawing to a close.

After his 86^th birthday celebration in Mvomeka’a, many French Cameroun CPDM barons were heard murmuring privately that Biya must rest because at 86 – he cannot keep up with the demands of the highest office in the country.

We understand Biya and Niat trips to Europe to seek treatment for their age-related health problems are costing the country millions of dollars. Europe is the most expensive destinations in the world but the ruling CPDM crime syndicate spends the tax payers’ money without any shame.

Speaking after seeing a picture of Senate President Niat on social media and that of President Biya recently, our senior international correspondent Chi Prudence Asong pointed out that old age has no cure and Biya, Niat and Cavaye should realise that and do themselves and Cameroon a favour by retiring now.

“Biya, Niat and Cavaye are not doing anyone a favour at this moment. They are doing Cameroon a major disservice. They have become major national liabilities and we say they should call it a day. Biya’s Beti Ewondo kinsmen and women are looting with passion and he has no control over them that is why they want him to die in office.”

In his 36 years in power, Paul Biya has been spending more time out of the country than in and this is a national security threat because Cameroon can no longer afford to have a commander-in-chief who is always absent.

By Rita Akana and Kingsley Betek in Yaounde

Cameroon’s main opposition leader, Maurice Kamto, has been charged in a military court with rebellion and other offences, his lawyers have said. The former government minister was arrested in Douala on 28 January after his MRC party organised protests contesting last October’s election result. France says it is “worried” by the charges.

Kamto faces charges including “hostility against the homeland, incitement to insurrection, offense against the president of the republic, destruction of public buildings and goods.” If found guilty, he could face the death penalty, his lawyers said Wednesday.

The opposition leader, who says he was cheated out of the presidency in elections last year, was transferred to a prison in the capital Yaounde during the night by a military court.

Twenty-eight members of his Cameroon Renaissance Movement (MRC) are also on trial for the same charges.

Meanwhile, 100 other supporters were due to appear before the Yaounde military court Wednesday to find out if they too will face a similar fate.

The fact that a military court is the one bringing the charges against Kamto has rattled critics.

Military justice

“How is it that someone who has never carried a weapon against the government, someone who has never called for armed struggle is judged by a military court?” asks François Ndengwe, Chairman of the African Advisory Board.

“Professor Kamto being judged in a military court is an outrage to the people of good will not only in Cameroon but all over the world,” he told RFI.

For Ndengwe, the charges against Kamto illustrate the challenges facing Africa’s justice system, often in the hands of autocratic governments.

“It is impossible to have a fair judgment in Africa,” he comments, blaming this failure on the “interference” of the International Criminal Court in African matters, most recently in the trial of the Ivory Coast’s former president Laurent Gbagbo.

“Africans complained about the ICC trying Laurent Gbagbo but they shouldn’t complain. Africans are not able to judge themselves according to the minimum standards of justice and equity, and this is regrettable,” he said.

On the domestic front, the charges against Kamto risk aggravating the country’s post-electoral crisis.

Restricting democratic space

They are a “clear sign of a new step in the restriction of public liberties that the government of Cameroon has crossed,” explains Hans de Marie, a senior researcher at the International Crisis Group (ICG) in Nairobi.

“The charges could increase tribal and ethnic tension in the country, as well as social tension,” he told RFI. Implicit in de Marie’s remarks is the fear of a potential civil war.

“The anger and bitterness from opposition members and civil society groups is more and more expressing itself along ethnic lines between the Beti tribe of [president] Paul Biya and the Bamyleke tribe of Maurice Kamto,” he comments.

Cameroon is already grappling with unrest in its troubled western Anglophone region after residents there were repressed.

“We know from past experience that it is the restriction of liberties that has triggered the Anglophone crisis,” states de Marie.

Kamto has called for an end to the two-year conflict. The opposition leader and his supporters demonstrated in several cities and towns on the 26 January urging an end to the crisis and for a recount of October’s election result in which he came second.

Bogus charges

It was shortly after this demonstration that Kamto was arrested in the economic capital Douala and how we got to today’s charges.

For human rights lawyer Agbor Nkongho, the charges are all too familiar. “The charges are bogus. These are the same charges that they [the government] brought against me. It’s a way to fight against dissent, repress people, and to perpetuate Mr Biya’s reign as they have been doing for the last 36 years,” he told RFI.

RFI was unable to reach the Cameroonian government for a response, but their position is that Kamto is a an “outlaw” after he defied warnings and declared himself the winner of last October’s election results.

French foreign ministry spokeswoman Agnes von der Muhll said Wednesday the government was “worried” by the charges against Kamto and urged Paul Biya to allow the opposition to “express itself freely.”

Risk of conflict

That may not be enough. “We find it very low compared to the gravity of the situation,” says de Marie.

“None of the key partners of Cameroon has clearly condemned the arrest and detention of Kamto or asked firmly the Cameroonian government to release him,” he said.

Rights groups though have condemned the attitude of the Cameroonian government, with Amnesty International saying the arrest of Kamto and his staff signalled an escalating crackdown on the opposition.

“For the sake of peace if not democracy, the international community must act,” argues Hans de Marie. The risk of conflict in a country already affected by Boko Haram attacks and grappling with unrest in the Anglophone regions stands to be high, he concludes.

RFI