Communication 266/2003 decided at the 45th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights - Kevin Mgwanga Gumne et al vs. Republic of Cameroon (Excerpts)
Violation of Article 2 of the African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
"Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status."
The Complainants submit that Southern Cameroonians are discriminated against by the Respondent State, in various forms. These include underrepresentation of Southern Cameroonians in national institutions, economic marginalisation through the denial of basic infrastructure; such as roads, persistence high levels of unemployment and illiteracy in Southern Cameroon. It is submitted that Southern Cameroonians are discriminated against in the legal and judicial system...
…it was wrong for institutions, such as banks to force Southern Cameroon based companies to change their basic documents into French. The banks and other institutions could have dealt with the companies without imposing the language conditionality. Banking documents should have been translated into English. The Commission finds that the Respondent State failed to address the concerns of Southern Cameroonian businesses, which were forced to re-register under OHADA, and as such
violated Article 2 of the African Charter.
Violation of Article 4
Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.
“Complainants allege violations of Article 4, the right to life, inviolability of the human being, and the integrity of the person. They submit that the Respondent State committed violations against individuals in Southern Cameroon. The communication gives account of people who were killed by the police during violent suppressions of peaceful demonstrations, or died in detention as a result of the bad conditions and the ill-treatment in prison.”
Pointing out that Cameroon “ did not deny the alleged violations”, the Commission stated that “The Respondent State did not conduct such investigation and redress the victims, it thus failed to protect the rights of the alleged victims. The Commission finds that it violated Article 4 of the African Charter.”
Violation of Article 5
Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.
On the complainants claim that Southern Cameroonians “were subjected to torture, amputations, and denial of medical treatment by the Respondent State’s law enforcement officers, in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter.
The Respondent State responded by stating that some SCNC and SCAPO members had perpetrated terrorist acts in the country, killing law enforcement officers, vandalising State properties, stealing weapons and ammunitions.
The Commission holds the view that even if the State was fighting alleged terrorist activities, it was not justified to subject victims to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and treatment. It therefore finds that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the African Charter.
Violation of Article 6
Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained.
The communication further gives details of victims who were arrested, detained for days, sometimes for months without trial before being released in violation of Article 6 of the Charter.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 6 as alleged by the Complainants.
Violation of Article 7
1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 2. No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender.
The Complainants alleged that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1), on the right to fair trial. They allege that individuals were transferred from Southern Cameroon to Francophone Cameroon for trial by military tribunals and that other victims were tried in civil law courts, without interpreters.
The Commission stated that “trial by military courts does not per se constitute a violation of the right to be tried by a competent organ. What poses problem is the fact that, very often, the military tribunals are an extension of the executive, rather than the judiciary. Military tribunals are not intended to try civilians. They are established to try military personnel under laws and regulations which govern
the military.
The accused persons were not military personnel. The offences alleged to have been committed were quite capable of being tried by normal courts, within the jurisdictional areas the offences were allegedly committed. The Commission finds that trying civilians by the Yaoundé and the Bafoussam Military Tribunals was a violation of Article 7(1) (b) of the Charter.
On the lack of English interpreters in court, “it is the State’s duty to make sure that, when a trial is conducted in a language that the accused does not speak, he/she is provided with the assistance of an interpreter. Failing to do that amounts to a violation of the right to a fair trial. 131. The Commission therefore concludes that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(b) (c) and (d) of the Charter.
Violation of Article 11
Every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law in particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety, health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others.
The facts before the Commission depict cases of suppression of demonstrations, including the use of force against, the arrest and detention of people taking part in such demonstrations.
The Respondent States admits that it detained demonstrators, applied excessive force to enforce law and order, and in some cases lives were lost. The Commission concludes therefore that Article 11 of the African Charter was violated.
Alleged violation of Article 19
The Commission states that the relocation of business enterprises and location of economic projects to Francophone Cameroon, which generated negative effects on the economic life of Southern Cameroon constituted violation of Article 19 of the Charter.All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.
Alleged violation of Article 26.
States parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the Courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter
The Complainants alleged violation of Article 26. They submitted that the judiciary in the Respondent State is not independent. They allege that the Executive branch influences the judiciary through the appointments, promotions, or transfer policy. It is also alleged that the President of the
Republic convenes and presides over the Higher Judicial Council.
The composition of the Higher Judicial Council by other members is not likely to provide the necessary “checks and balance” against the Chairperson, who happens to be the President of the Republic. The allegations by the Complainants in this regard are therefore substantiated. The Commission does
not hesitate to find the Respondent State in violation of Article 26.
The Commission concluded by once again poking the Republic of Cameroon with a series of recommendations that asked it to clean up its act towards Cameroon’s English language community.
The African Commission therefore recommends as follows;
That the Respondent State
- Abolishes all discriminatory practices against people of Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, including equal usage of the English language in business transactions;
- Stops the transfer of accused persons from the Anglophone provinces for trial in the Francophone provinces;
- Ensures that every person facing criminal charges be tried under the language he/she understands. In the alternative, the Respondent State must ensure that interpreters are employed in Courts to avoid jeopardising the rights of accused persons;
- Locates national projects, equitably throughout the country, including Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, in accordance with economic viability as well as regional balance;
- Pays compensation to companies in Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, which suffered as a result of discriminatory treatment by banks;
- Enters into constructive dialogue with the Complainants, and in particular, SCNC and SCAPO to resolve the constitutional issues, as well as grievances which could threaten national unity; and
- Reforms the Higher Judicial Council, by ensuring that it is composed of personalities other than the President of the Republic, the Minister for Justice and other members of the Executive Branch.
THE ACHPR IS NOT COMPETENT, THE OAU /AU
ALSO ISNT, THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE VENUE, SOUTHERN CAMEROONS IS NOT A COMMUINTY, NOT A POLITICAL PARTY, NOT A TRIBE, BUT A GEOGRAPHICAL. REALTY OF HISTORICAL PROPORTION. SOUTHERN CAMEROONS IS A COUNTRY, JUST LIKE CAMEROUN , WITH A SEPERATE HISTORY, CULTURE. TRIBE, LANGUAGE, LAW, WORLD VIEW. ALL IT LACKS IS ITS OWN MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT, IF THE UN WAS THE ORGAN THAT RECOMMENDED FOR A PLEBESCITE IN 1961 FOR (INDEPENDENCE BY JOINING) WITH CAMEROUN(FRENCH) IN 1961, AS A FEDERATION, AND CAMEROUN RUSHED IN ITS ARMY AND ANNEX SOUTHERN CAMEROONS, RAPING AND BRUTALLIZUNG IT, FOR 47 LONG YEARS, THE SUFFERING 7M PEOPLE JUST WANT CAMEROUN TOLEAVE THEM ALONE, TO WITHDRAW ITS MILITARY AND ITS ILLEGAL ADMINISTRATION TO ITS OWN BORDERS, NO SOLUTION ,NO COURT CAN RENDER ANY JUSTICE OTHER THAN THIS.
ALL COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD TODAY, START THEIR EXISTENCE BY THE DATE OF INDEPENDENCE . AS SUCH CAMEROUN HAD HER INDEPENDENCE FROM FRANCE ON JANUARY 1ST 1960, WITHOUTH SOUTHERN CAMEROONS, WHICH HAD HERS FROM GREAT BRITAIN OCTOBER 1ST 1961. CAMEROUN HAVE A MILITARY AND SOUTHERN CAMEROONS HAVE NONE, SOO ,TO ASK CAMEROUN WHO IS THE PERPETRATOR OF THIS EVIL TO MAKE BETTER
BY TALKING IS BLIND. CAMEROUN(FRENCH) WILL PAY SOME SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS AND LOCAL CHIEFS TO WEED OUT SCNC AND SCAPO
MEMBERS FROM THEIR HOMES AND KILL THEM,
ANY COMPETENT COURT MUST INSIST THAT CAMEROUN IS GUILTY FOR BREAKING THE 1961
PLEBESCITE VOTE TERMS BY HAVING ITS MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATION ON SOUTHERN CAMEROONS SOIL, AND TO SOLVE THIS IMPASSE, CAMEROUN MUST PULL ALL ITS ADMINISTRATION AND MILITARY, GERDAMES AND POLICE BACK, SOO THE TRUE CITIZENS OF SOUTHERN CAMEROONS COULD REBUILD THEIR COUNTRY .AND BE PROUD OF AS WELL AS PRACTISE THEIR ENGLISH CULTURE WITHOUT
FEAR OF BEEING ARRESTED, RAPE AND TORTURE BY CAMEROUNS GERDAMES.
Posted by: dango tumma | October 06, 2009 at 07:39 PM