Out of shame and embarrassment, the operations manager of the French Cameroun war machinery in Southern Cameroons, Joseph Beti Assomo has said in a press release that the Francophone army captain Jacques Tchenem Valkossa who carried out the massacre at Ngarbuh has been disarmed and forced back to Yaoundé where he will be tried at the Military Court next week.

The Defense boss also revealed in the communiqué that Captain Valkossa of the Fourth Amphibious Rapid Intervention Battalion led a team of seven soldiers who opened fire on a farm mother of three and beheaded a civilian suspected of being a leader of a separatist group.

Mr Joseph Beti Assomo concluded his flat press release that was made public on state radio and television by offering his condolences to the families of the bereaved and warned the military to remain professional in accordance with a recent presidential order punishing crimes by soldiers.

If you have been following the war in Southern Cameroons, you will know Mr. Joseph Beti Assomo who said that French Cameroun soldiers would implement President Biya’s war decision without batting an eyelid.  He seek and gotten a longer timeframe to submit a fake Ngarbuh Massacre report to the international community on the numerous atrocities committed by French Cameroun army soldiers in that locality and in Southern Cameroons in general.

Beti Assomo’s statement came out on the same day that the French Cameroun army staged another massacre operation in Bafut, in the Mezam County. Cameroon government military trucks loaded with soldiers entered Bafut via Metap village firing shots and explosives. Several Southern Cameroons houses were set on fire in Mankwi, followed by the arrest of 10 civilians.

Cameroon Intelligence Report thinks it is of vital importance to state that this new massacre comes just days after the publication of the report on the Ngarbuh incident, following a so-called independent investigation by the Head of State, Paul Biya.

All military judges and army and gendarmerie commanders are from President Paul Biya’s Beti Ewondo tribe whose main goal is to keep Biya and his tribal setting in power and plunder Southern Cameroons wealth.  The Yaoundé government will not allocate any resources required to pursue another investigation in Bafut as they have done in the past.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

The meeting President Paul Biya granted to the French ambassador to Cameroon last Thursday continues to captivate the attention of oppositionists from the Yaoundé regime, who dispute that it ever took place. Fuelled by rumours and conspiracy theories, the country is caught up in a political thriller-like storyline as a health crisis looms in the background.

The meeting between Paul Biya and the Ambassador of France to Cameroon Christophe Guilhou was supposed to answer questions surrounding the Cameroonian president’s health status and quiet rumours, with some people even maintaining that he was dead. However, the Etoudi Palace resident’s reappearance on the small screen after not being seen in public since 11 March, when Cameroon had merely two cases of COVID-19, hardly reassured sceptics.

Nevertheless, Ambassador Guilhou said that his meeting on Thursday 14 April was with a “still alert” Biya.

“We had a very long discussion,” he added in a brief statement after leaving the presidential palace, during which he also brought up issues relating to French-Cameroonian cooperation, the focus of his conversation with Biya.

Ultimatums and persistent rumours

On Wednesday, the day before the meeting, Maurice Kamto, a figure who has condemned the president’s silence on several occasions, caused a media uproar when he announced that he had asked the National Assembly to “establish the vacancy of the presidential office.”

The move was the climax of a series of ultimatums declared by the dissident of Cameroon’s head of state whose “extended and unexplained absence” has been described as “unacceptable” by the leader of the Mouvement pour la Renaissance du Cameroun (MRC).

Despite Biya’s resurfacing (it is noteworthy that he has still not spoken about the COVID-19 pandemic in Cameroon), rumours continue to shake up the public arena. Images from the meeting have not dispelled doubt among the most ardent sceptics. On social media, some people are quick to call the video “fake.”

Franklin Nyamsi, a Cameroonian professor based in France, even claims that the communications department of the Embassy of France in Yaoundé – which he asserts he contacted – “had no knowledge of such a meeting” and that Guilhou “likely went to the meeting without informing his own department.”

Since then, Nyamsi has initiated a petition calling for the departure of the French ambassador to Cameroon on the grounds of “serious interference and flagrant manipulation of public opinion.”

To date, 9,700 people have signed the petition. However, off the record, a source within the Embassy of France denies that Nyamsi ever tried to contact the embassy.

Reversal of position

In recent days, a reversal of position has occurred. The same opposition groups that once praised Emmanuel Macron’s comments on Cameroon’s socio-political crisis during a video recorded on the sidelines of his appearance at the Paris Agricultural Show, are now criticising France’s position.

On the other hand, the party in power in Yaoundé, which had become vocal after the French president’s comments, is now defending Paris as its ambassador contends with an onslaught of criticism over the meeting.

“The offensive remarks and inept conduct of certain comrades should in no case discourage our friends,” said Grégoire Owona, Secretary General of the ruling Rassemblement démocratique du Peuple Camerounais (RDPC) party.

Complete the form for your free download of The Africa Report’s special feature “The Sahel trap”. Get your free PDF by completing the following form.

In light of the controversy, Guilhou broached the subject on Sunday during a political programme broadcast on national television. During the interview, the French ambassador was careful to downplay his positions, particularly regarding the Cameroonian president’s “alertness.”

“The media asked me how President Biya seemed and I responded that he was the same as he had been during previous meetings,” he said, without elaborating any further on the issue.

Sceptics are still not convinced.

“We’re concerned that Guilhou went along with a sick farce,” said Christian Penda Ekoka, an economist close to Kamto.

At a time when Cameroon has crossed the threshold of 1,000 COVID-19 patients, the health crisis underway in the sub-Saharan African country with the second largest number of infections still seems to be taking a back seat to the endless political sparring matches taking place in the public arena.

Culled from The Africa Report

That Ngarbuh Commission Report: Vindication of Impunity

My initial reaction to the Cameroun Government report on the atrocity crimes committed against armless civilians in Ngarbuh in Donga Mantum was focused on the Commission recommendations on criminal responsibility for the crimes.  I concluded that, to the extent of the Commission recommendations, the report is a whitewash intended to insulate superior civilian and military commanders who planned and authorized the attacks and crimes from individual and superior command responsibility.

The applicable threshold for establishing criminal responsibility is that of “persons bearing the greatest criminal responsibility” and not subordinates physical perpetrators. The report in this case, established that subordinate perpetrators submitted a report to their superiors which was skewed to mask their responsibility for the crimes. Does this justify the exclusion of every commander in the chain of command from criminal responsibility? The answer is no.

Apart from the outcry from the surviving victims and human rights and humanitarian assistance personnel operating in the area which should have warranted the superior commanders including the Senior Divisional Officer and the Governor to initiate investigations, the entire governmental and military higher command structures praised the professionalism of the army and its affiliate militias who committed the crimes. They did not conduct an investigation of the crimes prior to praising them and harrassing witnesses, first responders, national and international human rights and humanitarian organisations personnel who raised the alarm.

The report did not address this conduct and the rationale for the cover up of the crimes. The Commission did not address the false claim that the civilian settlement was an operational base for armed combatants. Even if was, that did not change the civilian character of the civilian settlement.  The high command of a professional army should responsibility for failing to establish rules of engagement that protect civilians in armed conflicts. It should define the army in clear terms that do not include civilians. The report did not address this critical matter in the law and customs of war. From the Commission report, the High Command of the Cameroun Army appeared to endorse the justification for the crimes provided by physical perpetrators whose account it has discredited in other significant respects

The voices of the victims in the report are muted or ignored whereas the investigation ought to be about them in order to meet the minimum threshold of credibility. 

The report rather than  address the  crimes,  responsibility for the crimes and mechanism for accountability, makes recommendations which if accepted and implemented will celebrate impunity and international criminality.

The report recommends the establishment of a military camp in the affected civilian settlement. This recommendation may knowingly or unintended provide a troubling rationale for the attacks and the crimes.  It may be reasonably inferred as a rationale for the attack and that the crimes were ordered to vacate the victims from their ancestral lands to make room for a military encampment. Furthermore, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to establish a military camp in a civilian settlement. Worse, it may amount to a crime of deportation to vacate civilians from their ancestral lands and their subsistence economy to establish a military camp.  This may amount to interference with a crime base, supporting reasonable suspicion that the report may be a whitewash. The recommendation that the victims be exhumed and given a decent burial may appear reasonable at face value but begs the question.  What was the nature and extent of the forensic pathological and ballistic investigation conducted to ascertain the cause of death of each victim and who was responsible for the deaths.  This investigation would have provided an answer to the weapons used that caused the death of some or all of the victims. This would have established or rule out the allegation of death by cross fire floated by some Government officials.

Additionally, it would have established the causes of death by gunshots and/or by fire which the report established was set by Cameroun Government soldiers. It appears from this report that no expert or scientific investigation was conducted.  There also appears to be no technical intelligence investigation to ascertain the communication chain and content between the subordinate forces deployed to conduct the attack and superior commanders.  The identity of the victims both dead and alive appears not to have been the focus of the Commission, so also the identity of the alleged 5 combatants who were allegedly killed in the alleged operation.  The alleged members of the militia who participated in the attack are not identified by organization or as individuals.  It is not enough to state that they were ten in number.  What is important is who they are. What is their relationship with the Government and military operational command?

Finally,  I am unpersuaded that rather  than  recommend physiological treatment for surviving victims for the trauma of the attacks and loss of loved ones, the  report recommends celebrating impunity through  building a military camp for the military that has admitted responsibility for the attack and the crimes.  In similar circumstances, in other situations, monuments are built to honour the memories of the innocent victims and not the impunity of the military establishment responsible for the atrocity crimes. 

For these reasons, I strongly urge the international justice and human rights organisations to establish an independent investigation into the Ngarbuh massacres and all other crimes committed in the prosecution of the war in which the Ngarbuh massacre is a component.  Failing to do so will give tacit blessings to impunity and a fig leaf of contempt for human life.

By Chief Charles A. Taku

The communique from the Secretary General in the Presidency of Cameroon on the outcome of the findings of the Government appointed Commission that investigated the Ngarbuh massacres is problematic. In other to ascertain the independence, professionalism, expertise and integrity of the Commission, the Commission itself should have made their findings public in a public event convened for that purpose and in the presence of the surviving victims, families of deceased victims, national and international NGOs, the Bar Association, National and International press.

The Commission should have submitted its findings to public scrutiny and answered questions from the press and stakeholders that include the Bar about its terms of reference, its composition, the expertise of members on forensics, pathology, ballistics and the methodology it used in its investigations or enquiry. The reason why I have raised these wide ranging issues which a competent, informed and credible enquiry and/ or investigation must consider in order to be useful, is based on the   recommendations made relating to criminal responsibility and military discipline.

 The Commission found the alleged physical perpetrators criminally responsible for the massacres and their superior commander liable for dereliction of duty warranting disciplinary action only. In the context of war crimes of this magnitude and gravity, this finding is nonsensical. There is a distinction between individual criminal responsibility of a commander and superior command responsibility of a commander.

The superior commander, who ordered the operation in a civilian settlement that led to the massacre, bears individual and superior command responsibility for the crimes perpetrated by his subordinates for failing to prevent or to punish his subordinates for the crimes. I am not persuaded by the fact that he was misled by a faulty report submitted by his subordinate that concealed his criminal responsibility for the crimes.

In the face of the persistent outcry from victims, national and international human rights organizations, the civilian and military superior commanders engaged in the cover up, harassment and disappearance of witnesses and disgraceful contradictory explanations or justifications for the crimes, there is a reasonable basis to believe that the report is a cover up.

 The alleged cross fire in a civilian settlement fails to meet the proportionality threshold under the Geneva Conventions and should not form part of a credible investigation or enquiry. A professional army should not conduct an armed operation in a civilian settlement.

The alleged suspicious presence of alleged armed combatants in the civilian settlement didnot alters the civilian nature of the settlement. This is one important reason why the superior commanders who ordered the operation must bear individual and superior command responsibility for the crimes committed by their subordinates.

For me, and unless the complete report establishes otherwise, the communiqué of the Secretary General in the Presidency appears to be a damage control effort intended to conceal the crimes of superior commanders rather than establish a credible basis for accountability and justice …

By Chief FUATABONG Charles ACHALEKE TAKU

A damning admission of guilt in Cameroon where government authorities have admitted that soldiers acting alongside a militia shot dead 13 civilians, including 10 children, in Ngarbuh, the restive north-west of the country in February. Officials had initially denied the army was involved in the killings.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Cameroon’s presidency said three soldiers along with members of a vigilante group had stormed a separatist rebel base killing five people, before “discovering that three women and 10 children were killed” in the firefight. It suggested the deaths were accidental but soldiers tried to cover them up. The February 14 massacre in the village of Ntumbo stirred huge public reactions and condemnation.

The United Nations described it “a shocking episode in the ongoing crisis that has afflicted Cameroon’s North-West and South-West regions for the past three years”. And a tally by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in total, 21 civilians were killed, including 13 children and a pregnant woman. Its version had blamed the attack on at least 10 troops from an elite army unit who were backed by “at least 30 armed Fulani” militiamen.

All of these, the government had denied, particularly that the army was involved. But President Paul Biya responded by ordering an investigation. And now, what do we have? A U-turn for the government, perhaps an embarrassing one, which still leaves doubts about the official version.

Source: Africa News

President Biya on Friday the 17^th of April appointed former Prime Minister, Philemon Yang to the post of Grand Chancellor of National Orders.

The Southern Cameroons politician with too much blood on his hands reacted by saying that “I am very pleased, I would like to sincerely thank the Head of State. This gives me another opportunity to serve the President of the Republic and also serve the Cameroonian people.”

Yang who spent 20 years in Canada as Cameroon’s ambassador was recently the Head of the permanent delegation of the Central Committee of the ruling CPDM crime syndicate to the North West Region.

The former Prime Minister also observed that he knows nothing about his new mission.

“I guess these are the big challenges. I think that in the coming days I will be able to learn and know what it is all about and that way I can make my small contribution,” he said.

Thus, less than two years after his exit from government, Philemon Yang rebounded at the Grand Chancellery of National Orders. He replaces Peter Mafany Musonge who spent 13 years in this high office.

By Oke Akombi Ayukepi Akap in Glasgow with files from CIN