Barely hours after the self-proclamation of victory in the just ended October 7th presidential polls by opposition candidate Maurice kamto, many have taken to social media, television and other news platform to decry the illegal move from the renowned legal heavyweight which is threatening to bring instability in the country.
Law professor of international repute, Maurice kamto had on the 8th of October in Yaoundé declared he is winner of the country’s elections as he called on his voters to remain calm, and be vigilant
The call was roundly condemned by the country’s ruling party the CPDM and other opposition parties like SDF who accuse the legal mind of breaking the law and attempting to cause an uprising
Kamto critics says he wants to rush his way to the presidency and accuse him of using “mobocracy” as government scrambles to diffuse a ticking time bomb.
But amidst the debate, one point remains central to the entire discussion, how can a law professor with in-depth knowledge of the country’s electoral code break the law with such impunity as the detriment of the entire nation.
But according to Barrister Bezankeng Esq, Maurice kamto might not have broken the law after all, but rather have exploited a major weakness in the country’s electoral code, he writes
On a sensitive digest of our Darling Electoral Code of law No 2012 in Cameroon , it is the law that by virtue of section 137 (1) of the said code, which is to the effect that” The Constitutional Council shall adopt and proclaim the result of the presidential election within no more than 15 days of close of polls”.
It goes without saying that the proclamation of results of the presidential election shall be or is the sole prerogative or reserve of the Constitutional Council.
In a bid not to read the law in isolation, a frog leap reading of section 113 of the Electoral Code which ordains that “Once counting is over the result obtained in each polling station shall be proclaimed”, inspires a very fluid expansion or flexibility of the law which may be construed as giving a presidential Aspirant the legal force to make premature proclaimation victory of results owing to the holistic observation of the entire wordings of section 113 above.
By dint of Logical reasoning and from all legal inferences, what the legislators perhaps seeks to achieve in section 113 above is that no Presidential Aspirant is restricted from making such premature proclamation of an election victory as section 113 does not specify or provide the exact place and legal time frame within which the said proclamation should be made after counting of votes are over at each polling centers and by who.
On the strength of the foregoing therefore, the issue for determination that runs on my mind in a hurry is whether Maurice Kamto’ s premature proclamation of victory is hinged on the provision of section 113 above which makes it legal and legitimate or a blatant violation of section 137 (1) which makes it illegal and untenable at law? Or the proper interpretation of both sections of the law above should be kept in the fine wisdom of the constitutional Council?Courtesy http://www.tebopost.news/2018/10/08/dissecting-cameroons-porous-electoral-code-did-legal-juggernaut-kamto-exploit-a-weakness-in-the-law/
Prof Maurice Kamto flanked by CRM officialsesterday Sunday, the 7th of October, 2018, Barrister Agbor Balla, the initiator of the Anglophone struggle, proposed a lasting solution to the Anglophone crisis which has taken hundreds of lives and displaced thousands of Anglophone Cameroonians.
The solution was made public via an article published on the official website of the Aljazeera TV
.
SEPARATION IS NOT THE SOLUTION AND VIOLENCE IS NOT THE SOLUTION.
This is what Barister Agbor Balla said…
The steps to take are simple. What is hardest is to find the courage to take them. Yet in these times, we must all find courage; there is no other way.
Firstly, Cameroonian President Paul Biya must rein in government security forces from violently repressing civilians. He must demilitarise the anglophone regions and order government forces to respect the right of Cameroonians to peacefully express themselves and assemble. Crucially, he must guarantee that justice is delivered to anyone who has committed violence and atrocities.
Secondly, President Biya must publicly commit to engaging in a mediated dialogue with Anglophone leaders to find a peaceful way out of the present crisis. He must allow Anglophone leaders from the diaspora to travel to Cameroon to participate in an Anglophone General Conference, as proposed by Cardinal Christian Tumi.
A dialogue won’t be possible without involving Anglophone leaders because they are influential, and their participation is crucial for the success of any peace initiative. These leaders should be granted immunity from arrest and a general amnesty should be granted to those who are imprisoned.
Thirdly, Anglophone leaders must commit to using nonviolence to fight for their cause. Leaders in the diaspora must order their followers in Cameroon to stop attacking schools, villages, and government forces. The right way to advance their cause is to convene together, commit to a ceasefire, and to make concrete proposals that can form a sound basis for a mediated dialogue with the government.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, international community leaders must support efforts for a mediated dialogue. They can do this by publicly calling for it and using their leverage to compel Cameroonian government and anglophone leaders to mediation.
The United Nations must continue offering mediation support and so must the United States and France.
France, whose legacy in Cameroon extends to colonial times, must insist with President Biya that he accept mediation efforts; the US government must press anglophone diaspora leaders living there to engage in a dialogue.
We understand that our country’s divisions cannot be healed overnight. There is no magic solution for the wounds that have been inflicted on us by colonialism, wounds that have deepened since our independence in 1961 and since the establishing of a unified federal government in 1972. It is only through an all-inclusive dialogue, between us Anglophone and Francophone Cameroonians, that a solution can be reached.