Re: Persecution Not Prosecution of Marafa

The Communication unit of Justice Ayah should do him a favour by
rendering his communication accessible to all, since he is a
politician. What he is saying in his paper is of utmost importance but
the language in it will fit but for a professional Journal. It sounds
inappropriate for an ordinary Newspaper because it is full of legalese
which is not a language for the average reader in Cameroon.
Justice Ayah will not be surprised to see a credible Newspaper
reporting about his paper and quoting it extensively without having to
publish it verbatim.

If it is Justice Ayah speaking to his legal peers, fine but as a politician...

All the best

Aaron

On 8/1/12, National Strategic Team <presidentayah@gmail.com> wrote:
> Breaking News: AYAH Wrestles Cameroon Judiciary to the Ground --The
> Persecution not prosecution of Marafa: (The Marafa versus Fru Ndi and
> Marafa versus Cameroon court cases!) In this must read article written
> by PAP National Chairman, Hon. AYAH Paul Abine and member of
> parliament for Akwaya, the learnt Lord Justice strips bare and makes
> nonsense of the way Cameroon's judiciary operates. He dissects the
> flaws of court timing ... his focus is the Marafa versus Fru Ndi case
> and the Marafa embezzlement case. Please continue reading ....
>
> The PERSECUTION NOT PROSECUTION
> By AYAH Paul ABINE, PAP National Chairman.
>
> Cameroun was awash a few days back with press information that Mr.
> Marafa had been summoned up by two courts on the same day. Not any
> less was Cameroon! Mr. Marafa was to be before one of the courts to
> plead to a charge of defamation consequent upon a complaint lodged in
> 2008.
>
> By the laws of Cameroun, prosecution is time-barred if a complaint on
> defamation is lodged more than four months from the publication of the
> defamatory material. Prosecution is equally time-barred if four months
> elapse between two actions in preparation (investigation) or in
> prosecution.
>
> The summons must have issued on the legal ground that a complaint had
> been filed not later than June 2008 as the defamatory material is said
> to have been published during the "hunger strikes" of February, 2008.
> But what remains inscrutable is how the judge issuing the summons
> could have conducted investigation every four months at the least for
> more than four years for an offence least complicated. Is not it true
> that nothing was required beyond recording statements from witnesses
> and from the suspect? Necessarily therefore must the judge show that
> he recorded those statements every four months for over four years!
>
> The judge in question knew or is, at least, presumed to know, that if
> the contrary is true, then the withdrawal of the complaint was
> nugatory. Surely does he know that it is a matter of law that even
> where the complaint is filed within the legal time frame, the lapse of
> four months without the judge performing an act in investigation or
> prosecution automatically leads to prescription. Was there any matter
> legally before that judge at the time the summons issued?
>
> Let us begin by supposing that the judge recorded one statement a
> week, (which is quite a good record for a diligent Camerounese judge),
> then there should be at the least 200 witnesses for the prosecution.
> In that event, the learned judge must redefine the ingredient of
> corroboration that entailed the hearing of such an astronomical number
> of witnesses for corroboration to be found in a matter least
> complicated. Even that granted, one would not be apprehensive of being
> contradicted in suggesting that, by taking four years to record a
> statement from the suspect,such a judge has not done much honour to
> the Camerounese judiciary, on the ground that the prolonged delay
> smacks of apprehension.
>
> Again, the coincidence between the trial of Mr. Marafa by the
> so-called Special Criminal Tribunal and the order for him to appear on
> the same day before a common law court does lead those familiar with
> the Camerounese judiciary to perceive instruction from the executive
> arm of government to the judiciary. That raises the whole issue of the
> independence of the judiciary in a country notorious for a domineering
> executive. It is an affront to common sense that the subjugation of
> the judiciary to the all-powerful executive over the decades has met
> with beneficial complacency from those calling themselves learned. It
> is all the worse that such is the situation in spite of the
> constitutional provision that the judiciary is an independent power,
> and, additionally, that the oath of office of a member of the
> judiciary enjoins the member, inter alia, "to do justice to all manner
> of people without FEAR or FAVOUR…"
>
> One should easily understand that the oath absolutely precludes a
> member of the judiciary from operating under the apprehension of
> incurring possible adverse consequences from his acts. Submission to
> apprehension does equally contradict the legal duty to determine
> issues solely in accordance with the "law and (the) conscience" as
> stipulated in the oath formula. Few bold jurists would hesitate to
> read perjury into a judge's compliance with unlawful orders from
> whosoever. It is immaterial that a member of the judiciary only
> indirectly seeks to curry favours because the President of the
> Republic determines his promotion, appointments and transfers.
>
> A member of the judiciary must be a person of character: impartial,
> honest, fearless and disinterested. Anyone lacking in any one of these
> minimum prerequisites falls short of attaining just the threshold of
> the realm of the "learned profession". If there can be no democracy
> without democrats as Mr. Paul Biya once declared, one could by analogy
> proclaim without fear or favour that there is no judiciary without
> judges. Assailing Mr. Marafa upon the foundation of extra-legal
> dictates inevitably leads to the conclusion that Cameroun, in the
> main, is still in search of judges – independent judiciary much more.
>
> It is difficult in the circumstance to hold otherwise than that Mr.
> Marafa is being persecuted and not prosecuted. Verily my brother, was
> not he arrested on the same day with Chief Inoni Ephraim for the same
> offence? Why is Marafa's case being rushed when even persons arrested
> close to five years earlier on are still awaiting trial? Could some
> learned lawyer explicate whether it is within the law these special
> expeditious actions by the Special Criminal Tribunal behind the
> celebrated international principle of "equal protection of the law"!
> Or is it one of the exceptions à la Camerounaise?
>
> PERSECUTION! PERSECUTION! PERSECUTION!
>
> --
> The National Strategic Team,
> People's Action Party, PAP
> National Working Secretariat,
> Buea, South West Region,
> Cameroon.
>
> SLOGAN: A New People A New Cameroon
>
> *Tel:* (00237) 78 35 80 29 / 94 99 87 43
>
> *E-mail: presidentayah@gmail.com
> *Official Website: www.paprc2011.com OR www.ayahpaul.net
>
> *Facebook Page: *www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100001912645245
>
> --------------
> "I profoundly believe all Cameroonians will some day speak the same
> language, sing the same songs, dance to the same rhythm, dine and wine at
> the same table. When the rich shall cater for the poor and the strong shall
> help the weak, the law shall be supreme, justice and peace shall forever
> reign, if we are honest and believe we can get there. God bless
> Cameroon."Hon. Paul AYAH Abine, Cameroon 2011 Presidential aspirant
> ------------------------------
>


--
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Telephone +237 73 42 71 27