The news of recent has been the
condemnation of Yves Michel Fotso to life imprisonment for alleged embezzlement
of public funds. The news was being distilled to us at the same time that
newspapers like “Mutations” (No. 4132 of April 25, 2016) were questioning why
barons of the regime like Paul Atanga Nji, Jean Tabi Manga, Max Ayina Ohandja,
Roger Moise Eyene Nlom, Marc Samatana and many others, whom reports of
“commissions of enquiry” have since presented as suspects to face trial for
embezzlement of public funds, have never been charged with embezzlement.
Further, a group called
“REA-Mouvement Réaliste” said to be composed of grassroots militants of the
CPDM (Génération Libre No. 221 of April 27, 2016), in a 10-year analysis of
“Epervier” launched in Y2006, has concluded that the whole process seems to
have been improvised because it was launched without adequate preparation and a
clear intention to really fight against corruption.
The group named G11 that seems to
have suffered the most from the operation has since had presumed members
publishing books from their prison abodes. The books have been unanimous in
claiming that “Epervier” is a politico-judicial exercise to eliminate the
perceived political rivals of the man of November 6, 1982.
Many have criticized them for
writing about the woes of Cameroon only when there was a divorce between them
and the regime. To such criticism one can say that there is always a time and a
reason for writing – to praise, admonish, propose, or some other – all of which
are valid. In the end, we can only read the mind of characters like the
taciturn and introverted man of November 6, through windows opened by those who
worked closely with him – like Marafa, Olanguena, Edzoa, Mebara, and others –
who write for any reason at all.
Invariably, “rebels” always assume
the posture of attack to alter psychological situation of their adversaries to
force them to lose their sense of security. The windows they have opened by
doing this seem to be comforting the suspicion that indeed, “Epervier” is a
political gimmick, and what is euphemistically called “Tcs” – or the Scc if you
like - seems to be a kangaroo court to put icing on the cake of
“Epervier. Those who use the tired argument of sour grapes as an excuse to
avoid reading the books of the “rebel” writers as attentively as they deserve,
miss facing the challenge of the comprehension that each of the books
represents.
It is obviously interesting that
when “Epervier” came to being, article 66 of the constitution of 1996 meant to
protect public funds and resources from embezzlers was a dead letter, and is
still a dead letter today! “Epervier” was launched when all press condemnations
of the corruption of regime barons were met with calls for evidence – “où sont
les preuves?”
It was therefore interesting to read
a report titled: “Presidency rubbishes supreme state audit report implicating
CAMTEL GM” (Guardian Post No. 0907, 13/04/16). The report says that allegations
of misappropriation, mismanagement and outright embezzlement of the
general manager covering the period 2010-2015, and the recommendation of
special proceedings against him by the Special criminal court (SCC) were
“rubbished” by the presidency because: CAMTEL is not yet using OHADA rules and
cannot be judged by those standard; that much work of restructuring was carried
out before the GM’s tenure; and that CONSUPE was rather hard when it reviewed
the human, material and health resources management - consequently there was a
bias in the way the review was done by CONSUPE!
These are most obviously supposed to
be judicial decisions, not decisions of “the presidency”! The decisions leave the perception that they are for
entirely partisan, if not personal reasons, and call into question the
institutions on which “Epervier” depends.The man of November 6 wants to
keep power by all means, so the presidency is seen as a partisan structure, and
should not have the final say on issues of corruption.
The “rubbishing” of the report by
“the presidency” is wrong for several reasons. First, one would think that the
government of Cameroon has what the government of West Cameroon had -
"General Orders" and "Financial Instructions"- that guide
governance activities and the work of commissions of enquiry.
Second, in Africa, – especially in
Cameroon - all power is secured and preserved through opacities and
duplicities; indeed, power or the seeking of power is always the cause of
corruption. Political power always trumps and stifles justice, development and
even commonsense.
Third, the courts have a technical
way of playing idea-games with concepts related to questions
of fact and questions of law, to reach the verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”.
In the process, some people are declared “guilty,” even though they did
nothing; and others “not guilty” even though they committed the act! Each case
depends on the ability to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is wrong
for the presidency to allow the courts to do this for some people, while
protecting other people from facing the challenge.
Fourth, corruption always starts
with the subversion of due process allegedly for the greater good. It is this
power to “rubbish” reports of duly constituted commissions or to “doctor” them,
that CPDM militants in prison are describing as politico-judicial
manipulations. It is this exercise of power at the presidency that feeds the
suspicion that the fight against corruption is a fight for the preservation of
power. Subverting due process is tantamount to subverting the authority of the
judiciary.
It is the people - all the people -
that prosecute all successful fights against corruption. In this, the executive
arm of government should be the facilitator, not a constitutive power. The executive
should see to it that the fight is well prosecuted, not prosecute it itself!
The fight against corruption as
presently prosecuted by the presidency leaves the impression that it is more concerned
with “prevention” rather than “cure”. The evidence gathered during the last 10
years of “Epervier” permits a serious government to pursue curative measures,
rather than “rubbish” findings in their pretentious effort to “cure”
corruption.
