Raymond,
Thank you for letting us know what Honorable Ayah intended to say publicly before the National Assembly in Yaounde, though he was denied the golden opportunity to do so. However, I doubt if Honorable Ayah reasonably believes that his speech (if he had been allowed to make it) would have made any difference. How many people in the 180 mostly Francophone member chamber would have taken his address seriously. I think it is high time Honorable Ayah and the rest of the 35 MPs from the NW&SW out of 180 member body can make a dent on anything in the present Cameroon political dispensation.. If the Fonchas, Munas, ET Egbes, Achidi Achus, Inoni Ephraims, Musonges etc could not change anything, it is time the Ayahs realize that what they are trying to do is an exercise in futility.
Mbeseha
From: "gamya39@yahoo.com" <gamya39@yahoo.com>
To: "SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com" <SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com>; "SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com" <SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com>; camnetwork <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; cameroon politics <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "cameroons_sdf_party@yahoogroups.com" <cameroons_sdf_party@yahoogroups.com>; edenmedia <edenmedia@yahoo.co.uk>; thepostnp <thepostnp@yahoo.com>; bhc.yaounde <bhc.yaounde@fco.gov.uk>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:04 PM
Subject: RE: AYAH PAUL : THE BITTER TRUTH
Thank you for letting us know what Honorable Ayah intended to say publicly before the National Assembly in Yaounde, though he was denied the golden opportunity to do so. However, I doubt if Honorable Ayah reasonably believes that his speech (if he had been allowed to make it) would have made any difference. How many people in the 180 mostly Francophone member chamber would have taken his address seriously. I think it is high time Honorable Ayah and the rest of the 35 MPs from the NW&SW out of 180 member body can make a dent on anything in the present Cameroon political dispensation.. If the Fonchas, Munas, ET Egbes, Achidi Achus, Inoni Ephraims, Musonges etc could not change anything, it is time the Ayahs realize that what they are trying to do is an exercise in futility.
Mbeseha
From: "gamya39@yahoo.com" <gamya39@yahoo.com>
To: "SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com" <SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com>; "SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com" <SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com>; camnetwork <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; cameroon politics <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "cameroons_sdf_party@yahoogroups.com" <cameroons_sdf_party@yahoogroups.com>; edenmedia <edenmedia@yahoo.co.uk>; thepostnp <thepostnp@yahoo.com>; bhc.yaounde <bhc.yaounde@fco.gov.uk>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:04 PM
Subject: RE: AYAH PAUL : THE BITTER TRUTH
Is the systematic treatment of Ayah Abine, Southern Cameroons MP from Akwaya in the National Assembly of Cameroun, not an exercise in futility? the state that annexed Southern Cameroons by a Constitution enacted by the latter body in August 1961 - one month before its independence, is an exercise in futility. After having acknowledged in the recent past that there was no legal association enforceable under then governing international law between the Republic of Cameroun and Southern Cameroons when the latter obtained independence, Hon. Ayah should, as a lawyer and a former judge, have drawn the only reasonable legal conclusion that he is a foreigner advocating and striving to enforce a right to which he is not entitled. He knew or should have known that as an MP representing part of Southern Cameroons in Cameroun's legislature, he is like a slave or kidnapped person nagging for habitual abuse at the master's dining table. He knows or should know that such was the case of some French colonies and the trust territory of French Cameroun that were given token representation in the legislature of the occupying power. He knows and should have known that his treatment is similar to that of slaves in the United States of America before Emancipation: they, including their, spokesmen, had no rights that the slave master was bound to respect.
Is Judge Ayah's spiteful treatment by the Cameroun Parliament not far worse than the marginalization of the minority people of Southern Cameroons, as reflected by their representation in the different branches of the federal and Eastern Regional governments? Was their last act of assertion of rights not the decision to resign from their positions in all branches of government in Nigeria and return home to assert heir autonomy? In face of discrimination, did they decide to remain in Nigeria to seek equal opportunity and justice? Did they not return to their territory to organize a government instead of complaining and whining in Nigeria for equal protection and treatment on the rationale that their territory and Nigeria had been governed by Britain almost forty years - longer than the German occupation (about 30 years) of some of the territories of tribes that today serve as a rationale of the constitution of the one and indivisible fatherland of Cameroun annexation by Cameroun of Southern Cameroons b assert their unalienable right of self-determination before returning home to Buea in 1954 to institute governmental institutions of a self-governing state?
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Akoson Raymond
Sent: January 5, 2013 3:14 AM
To: SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com; SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com; camnetwork; cameroon politics; cameroons_sdf_party@yahoogroups.com; edenmedia; thepostnp; bhc.yaounde; ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Subject: AYAH PAUL : THE BITTER TRUTH
Sent: January 5, 2013 3:14 AM
To: SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com; SobaAmerica@yahoogroups.com; camnetwork; cameroon politics; cameroons_sdf_party@yahoogroups.com; edenmedia; thepostnp; bhc.yaounde; ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Subject: AYAH PAUL : THE BITTER TRUTH
AYAH PAUL : THE BITTER TRUTH
When the Speaker of Cameroun's National Assembly prevented Hon Ayah Paul Abine from addressing the House for the third time in five years, the PAP Communication and Public Relations Department resolved to publish what Hon Ayah was prevented from saying. But the Hon Member of Parliament did object to our resolve for undisclosed reasons. But from Mr. Biya's desperation in rushing senatorial election in the belated hope of ensuring smooth transition, we find it instructive to publish Hon Ayah's contention which the Speaker abhorred to hear. We are convinced that the Speaker was appraised of what Hon Ayah had to say. This stems from the ground that other Members of Parliament often discuss legal issues in a Bill with Hon Ayah prior to debates. It would be recalled that the Bill in question sought to extend the term of office of the present parliament just again…
Excerpts from Hon Ayah's arguments follow:-
Ayah: Thank you Hon Speaker for recognising me!
Mr. Speaker,
Honourable Members;
The Bill before us raises, inter alia, two issues of great moment. The one leans on the interpretation of the wording of the law the Bill seeks to amend; and the other, which to my mind is of crucial momentum, relates to a lacuna in the constitution. The latter has gone for over a decade and a half without attracting the attention it deserves thanks to our complacency in representing the people who voted us into parliament so we could enact laws that would better their lives.
Let me begin by stating in superfluity that some six months ago we extended the mandate of the members of this House for "six months renewable". May I hasten to assert that the operative terms here are "six months renewable". The question is whether in interpreting that phrase we have to bank on a conjunction or disjunction. I have resorted to the application of ordinary parlance in order to spare honourable members, who are laymen in the realm of law, the inconvenience of semantic digestion. I would otherwise have talked about the applicability or non-applicability of the maxim "noscitur associ". Only a mere distraction!
Honourable Members,
I am of the strong conviction that the intention of this House was that the phrase "six months renewable" be considered closely knitted and consequently un-seperable. My conviction is further boosted by the fact that even ordinary semantics would be whittled down if those words are not taken together. To put it otherwise, it is the extension of six months that is renewable. As a matter of fact, the mere application of the phrase "the extension" would automatically mean "extension of six months" by virtue of the definite article "the". This can only be so in that the mandate had been extended, and it is the extension that is renewable. That appears to me to be palpably clear from a simple question and answer process: What extension? The extension of six months! It follows that renewing the extension of six months by three months would be inconsistent not only with the spirit of the law, but even in logicality.
That raises the momentous issue of whether Section 15(4) of the Constitution permits an extension of the extension. To my mind, and that makes good sense and sane judgement to me, the use of the term extension in the singular as per the Constitution allows for only one extension. One should therefore be bold enough to assert that an extension of the extension is unconstitutional. I urge this honourable House to subscribe to that opinion and to reject the Bill for non-confromity with the constitution.
May I now in the second place draw the attention of the House to a lacuna that is inimical to peace and dangerously undermines the sovereignty of the fatherland! As we all know, Section 15 of the constitution as per the constitutional amendment of 2008 provides that, where the mandate of the members of the National Assembly has been extended, the election of the new parliament shall hold "not less than 20 days and not more than 120 days after the expiry of such extension".
Flowing from that necessarily is that, if the present Bill was enacted into law, the next parliamentary election would hold any day between June 11, 2013, and September 18 of that year. If we suppose that it would take about a month to proclaim the results, and close to two weeks for the new parliament to hold its first ordinary session "as of right", then Cameroun would go for close to six months without a national assembly. And this at a time that there is no senate! Can anything be more dangerous, Honourable Members?
I know you know the right answer! You also know very well just as I do that if Cameroun was in a state of law, there would be no bureau of the National Assembly upon the expiry of the extension for want of mandate. Outside our lawlessness, the Speaker should desist forthwith from conducting any official business. In the ordinary course of things, the Speaker should quit the official residence as he ceases to be the Speaker, or even a member of parliament. He becomes an ordinary citizen with no immunity. The danger of such a vacuum has its foundation in the constitutional provision that state authority is exercised by the President of the
republic and Parliament. Even as I have always opined that our parliament is "a formality institution" and that Cameroun is a one-man rule, the mere existence in fact of some semblance of a national assembly could save a situation in that the President of the Republic would in the absence of the National Assembly find constitutional justification for perpetrating the one-man rule. That would be even more so as per the provision in the constitutional revision of 1996 that the National Assembly supplants the Senate until the latter comes into effective existence.
In saying all this I take cognisance of the blurred demarcation lines between the three arms of government, and the fact that the President of the Republic is the head of everything in Cameroun. But as God alone knows the day and the hour, what happens where there is vacancy during the six months Cameroun is without parliament? Disaster! Total chaos! Suffering! Deaths! Why would anyone hold otherwise? When the country would be without a head of state! When the army would be without a commander-in-chief! When no institution would constitutionally exercise state authority! What would happen? CALAMITY!
Honourable Members,
That is the Cameroun we would be giving legal stamp to if we voted this Bill... As I look straight into your eyes I do demand an answer to this question: is that what the voters gave us their votes for? Ponder over it; and quickly too... Do, please, raise your heads and repeat the big "NO" after me... Truly indeed, the least anyone with an
iota of patriotism even just as big as a mustard seed should do is to vote against this Bill! And I do so submit! I beg to retire to my seat, messieurs/dames les députés!
--
Communications & Public Relations,
People's Action Party, PAP
National Working Secretariat,
Buea, South West Region,
Cameroon.
Motto: Work - Peace - Justice
Tel: (00237) 78 35 80 29 / 94 99 87 43
*E-mail: papcameroon@yahoo.com
When the Speaker of Cameroun's National Assembly prevented Hon Ayah Paul Abine from addressing the House for the third time in five years, the PAP Communication and Public Relations Department resolved to publish what Hon Ayah was prevented from saying. But the Hon Member of Parliament did object to our resolve for undisclosed reasons. But from Mr. Biya's desperation in rushing senatorial election in the belated hope of ensuring smooth transition, we find it instructive to publish Hon Ayah's contention which the Speaker abhorred to hear. We are convinced that the Speaker was appraised of what Hon Ayah had to say. This stems from the ground that other Members of Parliament often discuss legal issues in a Bill with Hon Ayah prior to debates. It would be recalled that the Bill in question sought to extend the term of office of the present parliament just again…
Excerpts from Hon Ayah's arguments follow:-
Ayah: Thank you Hon Speaker for recognising me!
Mr. Speaker,
Honourable Members;
The Bill before us raises, inter alia, two issues of great moment. The one leans on the interpretation of the wording of the law the Bill seeks to amend; and the other, which to my mind is of crucial momentum, relates to a lacuna in the constitution. The latter has gone for over a decade and a half without attracting the attention it deserves thanks to our complacency in representing the people who voted us into parliament so we could enact laws that would better their lives.
Let me begin by stating in superfluity that some six months ago we extended the mandate of the members of this House for "six months renewable". May I hasten to assert that the operative terms here are "six months renewable". The question is whether in interpreting that phrase we have to bank on a conjunction or disjunction. I have resorted to the application of ordinary parlance in order to spare honourable members, who are laymen in the realm of law, the inconvenience of semantic digestion. I would otherwise have talked about the applicability or non-applicability of the maxim "noscitur associ". Only a mere distraction!
Honourable Members,
I am of the strong conviction that the intention of this House was that the phrase "six months renewable" be considered closely knitted and consequently un-seperable. My conviction is further boosted by the fact that even ordinary semantics would be whittled down if those words are not taken together. To put it otherwise, it is the extension of six months that is renewable. As a matter of fact, the mere application of the phrase "the extension" would automatically mean "extension of six months" by virtue of the definite article "the". This can only be so in that the mandate had been extended, and it is the extension that is renewable. That appears to me to be palpably clear from a simple question and answer process: What extension? The extension of six months! It follows that renewing the extension of six months by three months would be inconsistent not only with the spirit of the law, but even in logicality.
That raises the momentous issue of whether Section 15(4) of the Constitution permits an extension of the extension. To my mind, and that makes good sense and sane judgement to me, the use of the term extension in the singular as per the Constitution allows for only one extension. One should therefore be bold enough to assert that an extension of the extension is unconstitutional. I urge this honourable House to subscribe to that opinion and to reject the Bill for non-confromity with the constitution.
May I now in the second place draw the attention of the House to a lacuna that is inimical to peace and dangerously undermines the sovereignty of the fatherland! As we all know, Section 15 of the constitution as per the constitutional amendment of 2008 provides that, where the mandate of the members of the National Assembly has been extended, the election of the new parliament shall hold "not less than 20 days and not more than 120 days after the expiry of such extension".
Flowing from that necessarily is that, if the present Bill was enacted into law, the next parliamentary election would hold any day between June 11, 2013, and September 18 of that year. If we suppose that it would take about a month to proclaim the results, and close to two weeks for the new parliament to hold its first ordinary session "as of right", then Cameroun would go for close to six months without a national assembly. And this at a time that there is no senate! Can anything be more dangerous, Honourable Members?
I know you know the right answer! You also know very well just as I do that if Cameroun was in a state of law, there would be no bureau of the National Assembly upon the expiry of the extension for want of mandate. Outside our lawlessness, the Speaker should desist forthwith from conducting any official business. In the ordinary course of things, the Speaker should quit the official residence as he ceases to be the Speaker, or even a member of parliament. He becomes an ordinary citizen with no immunity. The danger of such a vacuum has its foundation in the constitutional provision that state authority is exercised by the President of the
republic and Parliament. Even as I have always opined that our parliament is "a formality institution" and that Cameroun is a one-man rule, the mere existence in fact of some semblance of a national assembly could save a situation in that the President of the Republic would in the absence of the National Assembly find constitutional justification for perpetrating the one-man rule. That would be even more so as per the provision in the constitutional revision of 1996 that the National Assembly supplants the Senate until the latter comes into effective existence.
In saying all this I take cognisance of the blurred demarcation lines between the three arms of government, and the fact that the President of the Republic is the head of everything in Cameroun. But as God alone knows the day and the hour, what happens where there is vacancy during the six months Cameroun is without parliament? Disaster! Total chaos! Suffering! Deaths! Why would anyone hold otherwise? When the country would be without a head of state! When the army would be without a commander-in-chief! When no institution would constitutionally exercise state authority! What would happen? CALAMITY!
Honourable Members,
That is the Cameroun we would be giving legal stamp to if we voted this Bill... As I look straight into your eyes I do demand an answer to this question: is that what the voters gave us their votes for? Ponder over it; and quickly too... Do, please, raise your heads and repeat the big "NO" after me... Truly indeed, the least anyone with an
iota of patriotism even just as big as a mustard seed should do is to vote against this Bill! And I do so submit! I beg to retire to my seat, messieurs/dames les députés!
--
Communications & Public Relations,
People's Action Party, PAP
National Working Secretariat,
Buea, South West Region,
Cameroon.
Motto: Work - Peace - Justice
Tel: (00237) 78 35 80 29 / 94 99 87 43
*E-mail: papcameroon@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"…Time has come, I believe, for our leaders to start training the youths to take over the mantle. Effective, efficient and rigorous training does not constitute issuing subservient roles; rather, it involves sitting side by side on the round table for policy and decision making and thorough brainstorming on the normative values that undergird progressive issues. Ayah Paul of PAP takes great pleasure in working with the youths. I am proud to work with him..." Akoson A. Raymond.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 comments:
Post a Comment