Inside the failed mediation between Afriland and Cameroon’s Deposit Fund ⁰

More details have emerged about the failed mediation attempt in the dispute between Cameroon’s Deposit and Consignment Fund (CDEC) and Afriland First Bank over a guarantee of about CFA4.3 billion. Initiated at the bank’s request, the effort ultimately collapsed, even as it sought to prevent the forced recovery of funds linked to a public contract worth more than CFA14 billion awarded to BOFAS Sarl for the rehabilitation of the Babajou-Bamenda road. Despite the involvement of financial authorities, the talks broke down over fundamental legal disagreements.

A mediation push led by Afriland First Bank

On July 10, 2025, Afriland First Bank’s chief executive, Célestin Guela Simo, formally requested mediation from Pierre Emmanuel Nkoa Ayissi, secretary-general of the National Economic and Financial Committee (CNEF).

In a letter reviewed by Business in Cameroon, the bank warned that enforcement measures targeting its assets could trigger panic, lead to mass withdrawals, and destabilize the financial system. It also cautioned that “such a situation could create lasting mistrust between banks and public contracting entities, undermining future commitments to finance major projects.”

The bank further argued that “the use of enforcement measures outside legal channels, or in disregard of court decisions, would weaken confidence in how state guarantees are managed, with consequences for the banking sector’s ability to support public projects.”

Behind the initiative was a clear objective: to de-escalate a dispute that had become sensitive due to both the sums involved and its implications for relations between banks and public institutions.

A draft agreement that stalled

Less than a month later, on August 7, 2025, a meeting was held at the national headquarters of the BEAC in Yaoundé. At the end of the session, a mediation agreement was signed by Afriland’s deputy CEO, Youssouf Bouba, and the CNEF secretary-general.

But the process stalled. The agreement was never finalized, as it lacked the signature of CDEC Director General Rivard Evina Obam, effectively blocking the mediation.

The draft deal included a partial payment of CFA900 million and the creation of a working group, under the Ministry of Finance, to define how provisions linked to the guarantees would be handled before CDEC’s intervention.

The legal barrier

To explain his refusal to endorse the agreement, Rivard Evina Obam wrote on September 10, 2025, to the CNEF secretary-general, noting that “legal proceedings initiated by Afriland First Bank against CDEC have led to a contentious phase.”

By that point, the dispute had already moved into the courts.

Afriland First Bank had filed an urgent application before the president of the Yaoundé Administrative Center Court of First Instance, naming Orange Money Cameroon and BGFIBank, with SCB Cameroon brought in as a third party. The bank sought to suspend the effects of the third-party seizure order (ATD) issued by CDEC as part of its recovery process.

However, following the December 3, 2025 hearing, the judge ruled, under Order No. 887/D/HH, that the court lacked jurisdiction to halt the ATDs. Despite this, Afriland First Bank continued the legal fight by filing a motion to challenge the enforcement of that decision.

Why CDEC considers mediation ineffective

The shift to litigation had a direct impact on the mediation process. According to CDEC, once legal proceedings are underway, the matter enters a formal dispute phase governed by Article 71 of Law No. 2023/011 of July 25, 2023, on the recovery of public debts.

In such cases, mediation can only occur within a judicial framework—either at the request of the parties or at the invitation of the competent court. In other words, any mediation conducted outside that framework loses its legal effect. This is the basis of CDEC’s position.

The institution argues that Afriland First Bank’s decision to pursue court action effectively rendered any out-of-court settlement attempt void.

A red line: full recovery of the debt

In the same letter, the CDEC chief also raised substantive objections to the draft agreement, going beyond procedural concerns.

“The proposed mediation agreement provides for a transfer of CFA900 million against a claim of CFA4.296 billion and puts an end to all actions by CDEC related to contract No. 131/M/MINTP/CSPM-PFC/CCM-TR/2022, from which this claim arises. It is essential to note that this measure violates Article 5 of the aforementioned law, which states that debts owed to public entities benefiting from Treasury privilege are sovereign state claims, imprescriptible and inalienable, except by decision of the President of the Republic,” he wrote.

For CDEC, it is therefore not legally acceptable for a partial payment of CFA900 million to settle a dispute involving CFA4.296 billion, nor to abandon recovery actions without full repayment, given the sovereign nature of the claim.

Criminal liability raised

Rivard Evina Obam went further, stating that “unlike other parties (…), Afriland First Bank continues to hold these funds, which are treated as public funds under current regulations, thereby engaging the criminal liability of the bank and its executives under the offenses provided for in Article 184 of the Penal Code.”

This position significantly raises the stakes. Beyond a civil or administrative dispute, CDEC is introducing a criminal dimension by classifying the funds as public money.

Despite this firm stance, the CDEC director general said he remained open to a settlement, provided it strictly complies with the law. “I remain willing to consider any solution consistent with applicable legislation,” he wrote.

According to the letter, this would require Afriland First Bank to withdraw all ongoing legal proceedings, while the full CFA4.296 billion would need to be repaid, with the option of a payment schedule starting with an immediate CFA900 million installment. The remaining balance would have to be settled no later than December 31, 2025.

In other words, a resolution remained theoretically possible, but under one non-negotiable condition for CDEC: full repayment and the end of all litigation.

BGFIBank and Orange Money targeted as third-party holders

On February 26, 2026, CDEC issued two payment orders to BGFIBank Cameroon and Orange Money Cameroon. According to documents reviewed by Business in Cameroon, the institution is seeking a total of CFA3.68 billion, including CFA3.58 billion in principal and CFA101 million in late payment interest.

CDEC gave the institutions eight days to comply. Failing that, it reserved the right to seize bank accounts, securities, movable assets, and other property.

However, the amounts in question correspond to funds belonging to Afriland First Bank. They are distributed across accounts held with BGFIBank and Orange Money, meaning each entity is not being asked to pay CFA3.68 billion separately.

These institutions are targeted as third-party holders of Afriland’s funds, not as original debtors in the contract.

According to CDEC, failure to comply with the payment orders could expose them to joint liability, on the grounds that they held funds linked to Afriland and the guarantees tied to the disputed contract without releasing them.

Beyond the standoff

As more details emerge, the failed mediation appears less like a procedural setback and more like a reflection of deeper disagreements over the nature of the funds involved. It also raises questions about how much room a bank has to negotiate when a claim is treated as sovereign.

Based on the available evidence, Afriland First Bank’s strategy appears to have reached its limits. The bank sought to ease pressure from recovery actions while simultaneously pursuing litigation, undermining the basis for de-escalation.

What began as a dispute tied to a strategic road project has now moved beyond a simple standoff between a bank and a public institution. It highlights a rarely documented tension point at the intersection of public project financing, guarantee mechanisms, Treasury privilege, and legal certainty in the banking sector.

The Babajou-Bamenda case could set an important precedent—not only in court, but in how such disputes are handled going forward. It also raises a broader question for future state projects: how far can a bank negotiate when disputed funds are no longer treated as financial obligations, but as public money?

Source: Business in Cameroon