The assassination of Ernest Ouandie: Neo-colonial justice on the mirrow
Jean Forchive: C'est a dire par ceux que nous appellons les rebelles,les criminels….quio, sous maquis,les faux types….hein?
Ouandie: Vous n'allez pasme preter votre langage.
Confrontation at the BMM Yaounde in August 1971.
The Republique du Cameroun is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and it's Optional Protocol 1.
Article 2 of this Covenant mandates all state parties to ensure that its national laws are compliant with the Covenant. To the extent that the Covenant. Article 56 of the UN charter makes the respect for human spelt out in article 55 of the Charter a member state international responsibility.
Republique du Cameroun attained farcical independence on January 1, 1960 and promptly annexed and colonized Southern Cameroons with the complicity of Great Britain and France on October 1, 1961. According to Pierre Fabian Nkot in ' Usage Jurisdique du droit en Afrique; Cas du Cameroun p35, this annexation was carried out through the instrument of " Loi no. 61-24 du 1 er Septembre 1961 portant revision constitutionelle et tendant a adapter la Constitution du 4 Mars 1960 aux necessities d'un Cameroun reunifie". "Cela dit, I faut convenir que cette loi de Septembre 1961 constitue, a n'en douter, la bse meme du problem pose par le referendum de 1972" Lekene Donfack in his doctoral thesis " L'experience du federalisme Camerounais: Les causes d'un echec", presents the most scholarly work on this subject. Lekene provided many reasons why the so-called federation, was a charade. One stands out clearly. The entire life of the purported federation was under a state of emergency.
Many Southern Cameroonians underwent the same degree of terror that was administered on members of the UPC in which what may be characterized as genocide was perpetrated in the Bamileke Beti and Bassa lands. I was privileged as his student in the University of Yaounde to accompany him on one of his field research trips to Victoria and am proud of its outcome.
One of the greatest problems that arise with the annexation is that the so-called Constitution of March 4 1960 was never voted by the sovereign people of Republique du Cameroun. According to Daniel Yagnye Tom (in L'UPC face au Marasme Camerounais) " La France decida de ' donner l' independence' c'set bien le terme qui correspond a l'acte de passation-cessation-a ceux qui collaborent activement au maintien de sa suprematie sur notre pays après s'etre opposee a toute idee d'election avant cette echeance alors que partout en Afrique les nationalistes l'avaient remporte"
It was simply a French neo-colonial imposition. To the extent that the said Constitution which operates till date was never ever conceived and voted by Republique du Cameroun, and to the extent that the neo-colonial territory accepted and accepts to lays claims to putative independence on this French imposed piece of emergency instrument with which authority was founded to eliminate visionary and progressive leaders like Mpodol Um Nyobe, Ernest Ouandie, Moumie, Kingue and others the country, I submit that Cameroun is not free. Attempts therefore to habilitate Ahmadou Ahidjo must be vigorously opposed for he was the puppet whom the French and Great Britain relied on to build a so-called "one and indivisible Cameroun" on a foundation of sand. This ostensibly was done to nib in the bub the negotiations which were ongoing between the UPC historic leaders and the leaders and people of the Southern Cameroons on the possibility of a genuine independence of their respective people under an arrangement that was to be freely negotiated and accepted without constraints.
President Paul Biya will in a few weeks be in Buea to celebrate what he has characterized the anniversary of re-unfication. This celebration which I have questioned before, will take place at a time when many citizens of the Southern Cameroons remain in jails and hundreds of them facing court proceedings for alleged crimes ranging from secession to unauthorized assemblies for claiming the respect of international legality in the resolution of the Southern Cameroons. Many more are in jail simply for celebrating October 1, as the date of the independence of the Southern Cameroons.
He will celebrate and make provocative speeches which may incense the people even more. When he will leave, what the people of the Southern Cameroons mobilized for his celebratory event will wonder even more than previously, will be where do we move from here? What has changed? Without a dialogue to discuss historic wrongs and with our people in jail or in court proceedings how can we suddenly forget the sense of shame and humiliation to which we have been subjected since that fateful day on October 1, 1961?
Today, I dedicate this piece to Ernest Ouandie ,whose contributions to resolve this and other crisis of identity facing Cameroun were cut short by neo-colonial intrigues.
I salute the memory of this great man. I have in other circumstances characterized his assassination as a crime which must be investigated and punished in its time and his heirs compensated adequately. I hereunder provide my reasons why. In so doing, I have also provided an answer that Cameroun will never ever be free and independent when the liberticidal laws that were imposed by neo-colonial France to regiment and eliminate the emergence of a genuine leadership are in place. Finally, that unless a genuine discussion about historic wrongs and injustices take place and redressed, true independence, freedom and progress can never be attained.
The assassination of Ernest Ouandie must be placed within the global context of the crimes perpetrated by France in neo-colonial Cameroun. Yagnye (p45) paints this gruesome list of victims " tout Beti n'allant pas a la messe", " tout Bamileke Barbu" and " tout Bassa en tenu blanche"; and that " malgre l'heroisime de Ouandie, qui continuait a deriger la ressistence armee, le people Bamilke est decime- sans reaction du monde civilise".
The abduction and assassination of Ouandie is closely linked to the crimes perpetrated against the Southern Cameroons. The ideological differences concerning the future of Southern Cameroons was at the forefront of the French and British conspiracy against the territory as well as the UPC. Had the motion of Um Nyobe Mpodol argued on the 17 December 1952 prevailed, it would have led to negotiations conducted between the two territories under the auspices of the UN and prevent the annexationist ambitions of France that materialized on October 1 1961 with the complicity of Britain using the proxy of neo-colonial puppet Babatoura Ahidjo. They got La Republique du Cameroun to vote against unification, only to annex the territory. With the assassination of Mpodol, Moumie and others, Ernest Ouandie represented the greatest danger to French neo-colonial interests.
The neo-colonialists strategically took advantage of the Nigeria/ Biafra war, to arrest and promptly execute Ouandie in 1971as a prelude to intimidate Southern Cameroons and imposed the so-called May 20 1972 complete grip of colonial rule under terror.
Jean Forchive the neo-colonial executioner defended himself subsequently in Federic Fenkam (Les revelations de Jean Fochive: Le Chef de la Police Politique des Presidents Ahidjo et Biya) p 129 " Que s'etait passé? J'ai toujour garde a propos de cette affaire des doutes profonds….. cette affaire nous avait ete revelee par les services secret Francais…".
It is submitted that the case of Ouandie, Ndongmo and others did not meet international standards; in particular, the standards established by international conventions of which Cameroun is a state party.
First the confidentiality of the investigative process was violated rendering a fair trial impossible.
Prior to the mockery of the trial, the puppet regime of Babatoura Ahidjo mobilize the captive nation to demonstrate urging that the accused should be executed. Then the investigation reports were recorded and broadcast on radio, La Presse du Cameroun and the French Press.
In the UN Human Rights Committee judgment in Pierre Desire Engo V Cameroon I successfully argued that such press blackmail rendered a free and fair trial impossible and vitiated the entire trial. Engo is still in jail since this decision was rendered in 2009, making his prolonged detention manifestly illegal.
Also, in Engo's case the denial of his right to be represented by counsel of his choice was a violation of his right to a fair trial under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Like Engo, Ouandie was denied a right to be tried by counsel of choice. The court appointed counsel whom he rejected did not participate in the proceedings to ensure the fairness of the proceedings.
The trial, conviction and execution of Ouandie who was present at trial without the court taking measures to safeguard his fair trial rights and the integrity of the Proceedings was an egregious violation rendering the trial null and void. In Prosecutor V Jean Bosco Baragyagwiza, at the UNCITR the court appointed counsel to participate in the proceedings notwithstanding his refusal to cooperate. Counsel participation in criminal trials of the magnitude Ouandie faced, goes beyond the fair the right of the accused. It concerns the integrity of the trial process as well. There was therefore no effective mechanism in place to test the credibility of witnesses and co-accused who adversely mentioned Ouandie in the trial. Also there was none to advice the court on points of law that arose in the course of the entire judicial process concerning Ouandie.
One of such matters concerns the use of torture chambers like BMM and CENER to conduct judicial proceedings.
In Ebenezer Akwanga V Cameroon, Dinka V Cameroon and Womah Mukong V Cameroon, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Cameroon violated its international responsibility under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in subjecting these victims to cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment which constituted torture.
Ouandie like Ndongmo and others were detained and interrogated in this torture chamber and the records of the interrogation published to blackmail them prior to being submitted to a tainted judicial process.
In the case of Ndongmo, his lawyer sought psychiatric evaluation because he was allegedly tortured and drugged in detention and was not in a state of mind to appropriate participate and contribute to his trial. This may explain the reason why he allegedly apologized even when the allegations made against him did not constitute any criminal offense. Providing food and accommodation to alleged rebels is not a criminal offense because even in combat, the laws and customs of war impose such an obligation to the warring armies towards their adversaries.
There was no credible evidence that he contributed to the war effort and in particular Ouandie during the so-called confrontation defended Ndongmo "Parler de soutien et d'appui depuis que je suis au maquis de la part de Mgr. Ndongmo ce serait vraiment l'accabler. J'ai dis depuis que je suis entre dans vos locaux, que j'ai eu contacts d'abord avec Monsieur L'Abbe Ndongmo en 192, par la suite avec Mgr. Ndongmo deja devenu Eveque en 1966 et deux fois en 1970".
The charge of attempted coup was laughable to say the least. There was clearly no evidence to support this charge and yet people were convicted and executed on it.
The trial of civilians in the Military Tribunal in Cameroun has been widely criticised and condemned. The latest judgement was in respect of Chairman Akwanga who successfully obtained orders from the United Nations Human Rights Committee directing Cameroun to review its laws to that effect and adequately compensate the victim Chairman Akwanga for the very dehumanizing processes he underwent in this Court-martial. Again the Cameroon government is still to execute this judgment even after it was diligently served.
Neither Ouandie nor Ndongmo nor any of the accused were soldiers. Even is Ouandie was the leader of the Army for the Liberation of Cameroun, he was hors de combat when abducted. He was entitled to all protections afforded by international conflicts under those circumstances. He was not.
Therefore his execution is a dagger on the conscience of Cameroun. His case needs to be reviewed posthumously and mistakes made accepted and his heirs compensated. That is the only way the blood of this man who was executed without uttering in a decent, free and fair trial process can assuage the national wounds. He died in part because he advocated an international forum at the UN to discuss the Southern Cameroons case rather than the annexation that happened. May the memory of this African hero be eternalized.
Chief Charles A.Taku
Read hereunder the excepts of the UNHRC judgements referred to.
Communication No. 458/119 of 10/8/94
Mukong V Cameroon
6.3 The State party categorically denies that Mr. Mukong was, at any time during his detention in June 1988 or in February/March 1990, subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. It submits that the burden of proof for his allegations lies with the author, and that his reference to Amnesty International reports about instances of torture in Cameroonian prisons cannot constitute acceptable proof. The State party includes a report of an investigation into the author's allegations carried out by the National Centre for Studies and Research (CENER), which concludes that the prison authorities in Douala actually sought to improve the prison conditions after the arrest of the author and a number of co-defendants, and that the "excessive heat" in the author's cell (above 40°C) is simply due to the climatic conditions in Douala during the month of February.
7.3 According to the author, the report of the CENER (see paragraph 6.3 above) is unreliable and "fabricated" and points out that in fact the CENER "report" consists of no more than a written reply to some questions provided by the very individual who had threatened him at the camp in Douala.
9.3 As to the conditions of detention in general, the Committee observes that certain minimum standards regarding the conditions of detention must be observed regardless of a State party's level of development. These include, in accordance with Rules 10, 12, 17, 19 and 20 of the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners [ Adopted by the First U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by ECOSOC in its Resolutions 663C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.] , minimum floor space and cubic content of air for each prisoner, adequate sanitary facilities, clothing which shall be in no manner degrading or humiliating, provision of a separate bed, and provision of food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength. It should be noted that these are minimum requirements which the Committee considers should always be observed, even if economic or budgetary considerations may make compliance with these obligations difficult. It transpires from the file that these requirements were not met during the author's detention in the summer of 1988 and in February/March 1990.
9.7 The Committee considers that it was not necessary to safeguard an alleged vulnerable state of national unity by subjecting the author to arrest, continued detention and treatment in violation of article 7. It further considers that the legitimate objective of safeguarding and indeed strengthening national unity under difficult political circumstances cannot be achieved by attempting to muzzle advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights; in this regard, the question of deciding which measures might meet the "necessity" test in such situations does not arise. In the circumstances of the author's case, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 19 of the Covenant.
Gorji-Dinka Vs Cameroon Communication No. 1134/2002 of 17/3/2005
5.3 The Committee notes that the author's claim that he was initially kept in a cell with 20 murder convicts at the headquarters of the Brigade mixte mobile has not been challenged by the state party, which has not adduced any exceptional circumstances which would have justified its failure to segregate the author from such convicts in order to emphasize his status as an unconvicted person. The Committee therefore finds that the author's right under article 10(2)(a), of the covenant were breached during his detention at the BMM headquarters.
Communication No. 1397/2005 of 22 July 2009
Pierre Desire Engo V Cameroon
7.3 Concerning the author's allegations that he was not promptly informed of the charges against him in each of the trials, the Committee notes that the State party has not replied specifically on this point, but that it merely states that the author was placed under a detention warrant and taken to prison after being indicted, on the basis of a judicial inquiry properly opened against him, and that his imprisonment cannot therefore be termed arbitrary. In the absence of detailed information from the State party establishing that the author was informed promptly of the grounds for his arrest in each of the cases, the Committee must give full weight to the author's claim that he was not promptly informed of all the charges against him. In this respect, the Committee finds a violation of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Covenant
7.5 In the present case, the State party has not demonstrated that it has provided the medical care appropriate to the author's condition, despite the author's requests. In the Committee's view, this constitutes a violation of the provisions of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
7.6 The Committee recalls that the accused's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court is guaranteed by the Covenant. The fact that, in the context of this case, the State media repeatedly portrayed the author as guilty before trial and published articles to that effect, is in itself a violation of article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
7.8 With regard to the obstruction of the author's preparation of his defence, the Committee notes that the State party replies that a lawyer from Paris received two visas in order to assist his client at two hearings in 2002. The State party does not, however, respond to the allegations that two of the lawyers from the Paris Bar appointed by the author were prevented from travelling to Cameroon to assist their client in May 2001 and May 2002, which prompted the Cameroonian lawyers to refuse to represent him in court. Neither does the State party challenge the authenticity of the letter dated 4 May 2001 in which one of the author's accusers requests the Ambassador of Cameroon in Paris to stop the lawyers coming. Persons charged with a criminal offence have the right to communicate with counsel of their own choosing; this is one guarantee of a fair hearing provided for in article 14, paragraphs 3 (b) and (d), of the Covenant. The State party does not contest the author's right to be represented by French lawyers or that those lawyers were authorized to represent him in the State party's courts. The fact that the author encountered considerable obstacles in his efforts to communicate with these lawyers therefore constitutes a violation of the procedural guarantees provided for in article 14, paragraphs 3 (b) and (d).
Communication No.1813/2008 of 18/9/2011
Akwanga V Cameroon
7.2 The Committee notes the author's detailed description of the torture he suffered in
different places of detention, particularly at the time of his arrest, at the Jakiri Gendarmerie
Brigade and at the Kumbo Gendarmerie. It notes the State party's argument that torture and
ill-treatment are matters of criminal law and that the onus of proof therefore lies on the
author. In light of the information provided to the Committee and, in particular, the detailed
allegations of torture suffered by the author and the impact on his health shown by the three
medical certificates submitted, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated
article 7 of the Covenant
7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the information
concerning the author's conditions of detention and ill-treatment by fellow prisoners, and
particularly the ill-treatment to which he was subjected in detention. The Committee recalls
that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint
other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated in accordance
with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.24 It considers,
as it has repeatedly found in respect of similar substantiated claims,25 that the author's
conditions of detention, as described, violate his right to be treated with humanity and with
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and are, therefore, contrary to article
10, paragraph 1 of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Committee finds that the fact the author
was detained with convicted prisoners during his pretrial detention constitutes a violation of
article 10, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
7.5 The Committee notes the State party's argument that the author's trial was
conducted according to the legislation in force and that he benefited from an official
interpreter during the hearings. It also notes the author's argument that the court was not
independent, that he had little opportunity to communicate with his lawyer, who had no
access to the indictment and was therefore not able to prepare his defence adequately, and
that the written evidence on which the indictment was based was not produced in court. TheCommittee recalls its general comment No. 32,27 in which it considers that the State party
must demonstrate, with regard to the specific class of individuals at issue, that the regular
civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials, that other alternative forms of special or
high-security civilian courts are inadequate for the task and that recourse to military courts
is unavoidable. The State party must further demonstrate how military courts ensure the full
protection of the rights of the accused pursuant to article 14. In the present case, the State
party has not shown why recourse to a military court was required. In commenting on the
gravity of the charges against the author, it has not indicated why the ordinary civilian
courts or other alternative forms of civilian court were inadequate for the task of trying him.
Nor does the mere invocation of conduct of the military trial in accordance with domestic
legal provisions constitute an argument under the Covenant in support of recourse to such
courts. The State party's failure to demonstrate the need to rely on a military court in this
case means that the Committee need not examine whether the military court, as a matter of
fact, afforded the full guarantees of article 14.28 The Committee concludes that the trial and
sentencing of the author by a military court discloses a violation of article 14 of the
Covenant.
0 comments:
Post a Comment