Limbe Court
dismisses case on technical grounds
- Apparently
undaunted and dissatisfied, Chief Nkemayang files in yet another suit
By
Essan-Ekoninyam in Yaounde with reporting from Limbe
The legal battle
pitting Chief FoanyiNkemayang Paul, and Ndi Eugene Ndi and Franklin SoneBayen
has ended with a non-suit or dismissal by the Limbe Court of First Instance.
But just before the learned judge passed the ruling on 2 December, an agent for
a bailiff served Ndi and Bayen fresh summonses within the court premises to
report to the Limbe Gendarmerie Brigade for another interrogation.
No reason was stated on the
summonses but Nkemayang boastfully told Bayen’s lawyer that he prompted the
summonses to reopen the same legal file for a retrial of Ndi and Bayen for
defaming him.
Contacted for comment, Bayen
said, “It looks like Nkemayang has not said his last word. I may only comment
later. But Nkemayang knows I never wrote anything about him. He knows better
than me because he’s been in this thing for decades, that if he is convinced
that Eugene Ndi’s story is untrue, the law requires that he submits a rejoinder
stating his side of the story even before taking any legal action and he knows
better than me that any truth in his side of the story will do him more good
than his resort to legal battles that may only be more damaging.”
For his part, Ndi Eugene said he
could only be happy that the court dismissed the case. He however refused to
comment further, saying he has not had time to settle down after the court
ruling especially as Nkemayang has brought a fresh suit against him. By press
time yesterday, we did not succeed to get Chief Nkemayang on phone. He also did
not reply to the SMSs we sent to him.
Surprised that they were
expected at the Gendarmerie at 2pm the same day they were awaiting a court
ruling on the same matter, Bayen and Ndi, on the advice of their lawyers, noted
on their summonses that they would honour the summonses that same day if the
court session ended before 2pm. Their lawyers later negotiated a new date for
their appearance at the Gendarmerie. Ndi and Bayen are expected at the Limbe
Gendarmerie this Monday, 7 December for what could be the start of Act 2 of the
case.
Nkemayang, publisher of The Star
newspaper first dragged the two younger journalists to court following an
article by Ndi on 5 May 2014 claiming that Nkemayang and another journalist,
John MbahAkuroh did not give full account of donations made to the Commonwealth
Journalists Association (CJA Cameroon chapter) which Nkemayang heads and the
Cameroon Anglophone Newspaper Publishers’ Association CANPA which Akuroh heads
for 2014 World Press Freedom Day celebrations in Buea. Akuroh doubles as
secretary general of CJA-C. The story was posted in the email group and
Facebook page of the Cameroon Association of English-speaking Journalists
(CAMASEJ). It was later culled from Facebook and published in Bayen’s Media
People newspaper which traditionally reports on media practitioners and issues.
Reacting to the story in an
email on 14 May 2014, Nkemayang said, “Dear All, Because of my tight schedule,
I hardly come on this forum. I read Ndi Eugene Ndi's concocted, biased and
distorted report about the World Press Freedom Day in Buea after I returned
from Fontem, Lebialem, for celebrations marking the disappearance of our Fon
after numerous calls to me. Ndi, I am shocked and dismayed that you accused me
of collecting an envelope from Source du Pays and only announced Supermont
water and drinks. You also said I and John MbahAkuroh organized the World Press
Freedom Day to line our pockets! You said, again, that there were only 50
Journalists during the WPFD at Parliamentarian Flats Hotel, Buea, on that May
3. You are requested to, within 24 hours, contact the authorities of Supermont
and publish your findings on this same forum as well as retract all the lies
you published, else, you risk prosecution. HRH Chief FoanyiNkemayang Paul.”
Similarly, Akuroh wrote in an
email also on 14 May 2014, “Dear Ndi/ Amabo, I have read with serious attention
the material you published and the numerous reactions and worse of all, the
fact that it left the forum and went to hard paper on the Media People. I am
not ruled by emotions as Amabo is insinuating, but the accusation is too grave
and deserves to be handled as such. What makes me even more bitter is the fact
that we appeared to have wasted our time in Buea preaching the need to
investigate stories before going to press. I certainly have a reputation to
protect and the only way this shall be done is dragging Ndi and Bayen to court.
Chief FoanyiNkemayang may be soft by requesting a rejoinder, I shall not. If
anyone of you were to know how some of us even managed to get money from those
sources, not necessarily gifts or donations then you shall support my drive to
prosecute the duo. I shall stop at nothing until the entire world that now knows
that I used associations to line my pockets get acquainted to the contrary of
that story, the hard way! John MbahAkuroh.”
Though both aggrieved men
threatened to drag Ndi and Bayen to court to repair damage done to their
reputations, only Nkemayang followed his threat with action. Nkemayang wanted
the court to sentence Ndi and Bayen to five years each in jail plus a 10
million FCFA fine involving Bayen’s newspaper Media People. Akuroh did not
respond to our requests for his comments on why he did not also sue Ndi and
Bayen, though he became a prosecution witness in the case brought forth by
Nkemayang.
Passing her ruling on the matter
that began in July 2014 and ran for 17 months with 29 court sessions,
Magistrate Esther Ayuk said she was dismissing the case following an objection
raised by Barrister Ernest AshuEgbe, counsel for second accused Bayen, because
of non-respect of Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She said though
Nkemayang, the Complainant, opted for a private prosecution, the submissions of
the Legal Department were mandatory for the criminal charge to proceed, but
that was not the case.
Nkemayang had filed for a
private prosecution, implying that hearings took place in the magistrate’s
chambers, not in open court. Observers believe he thus wanted a hasty, secret
trial to quickly and quietly punish Ndi and Bayen, but in that haste he failed
to fully comply with laid down procedure.
Smelling a rat when summonses
were first issued in July 2014, a press release by Bayen’s Media People on 26
July stated: “We find the method of seeking to serve a summons after close of
business on a Friday for a matter expected to come up the following Monday as
simply malicious and evidence that the perpetrators have diabolic intentions.
It looks like a way of denying MrBayen time to brief his lawyers and obtain
proper legal counsel. Their intention may be to take him and the co-accused,
Eugene Ndi by surprise, run them through a hasty kangaroo trial and get them
jailed and silenced!”
Lawyers close to the case say
even besides the procedural flaw in Nkemayang’s case, his efforts to save his
name were doomed. Testimonies by him and his witnesses appeared contradictory
as each of them declared different total sums of cash collected from donors.
While Nkemayang declared having collected over one million francs CFA in
donations, his CJA financial secretary, Francis Tim Mbom who is also The Post’s
Limbe correspondent and Nkemayang’s third prosecution witness, said he only
knew about 300,000 FCFA which he personally collected. He denied any knowledge
of the sums declared by Nkemayang. Likewise, Akuroh’s financial record did not
match Nkemayang’s.
Picking holes in their
contradictory testimonies during cross-examination, Bayen’s lawyer, Barrister
Egbe of Horizon Law Chambers in Limbe said if funds collected by different
officials of the associations could not be pulled together, it was only
probable that general accountability would be questionable. Driving home his
point, Egbe said if the Financial Secretary of Nkemayang’s association did not
have a record of the association’s funds, who would? He said that meant there
was total unaccountability as each individual seemed to have pocketed and spent
or kept donations they each received without a central purse. He pointed out that four associations
including CAMASEJ and CUJ announced they were jointly organizing the event in
Buea but donations were received individually and there were no minutes after
their joint meetings to show how they planned to jointly manage funds
collected.
For Nkemayang those were not the
focus. He pinned his case on Ndi’s claim that Source du Pays donated cash
besides mineral water and soft drinks. He insists there was no cash involved
and challenged Ndi to show proof of the contrary.
Cross-examining Ndi, author of
the story, Nkemayang’s lawyer, Barrister Stanislaus Ajong asked the first
accused if he checked with the juice and water producing company to prove the
veracity of his claim. Ndi said Akuroh told him so at the Musango bus station
at Mile 17 Buea after the event in the presence of two witnesses (Doh James of
The Sun and Gerald Ndikum of The Horizon) who were not brought to court. He
said in Akuroh’s double capacity as secretary general of Nkemayang’s CJA and
president of CANPA which was also a major organizer of the event, he trusted
him as an unimpeachable source.
However, the fourth prosecution
witness Akuroh, presented a bailiff’s report in court attesting that Doh James
had disclaimed ever hearing Akuroh telling Ndi that Source du Pays donated
cash.
Third prosecution witness, Ewang
Manga Bell who is neither an official of CJA or CANPA but was assigned to
collect the Source du Pays donation confirmed Nkemayang’s denial of cash
involvement. But Bayen’s lawyer wondered why a non-official of the associations
was delegated on such an important mission. Barrister Egbe said if Nkemayang
set aside officials of his association and preferred to assign Bell, his
employee at The Star newspaper, to collect cash on behalf of CJA, that was tantamount
to a private arrangement on official business, hence accountability could not
be transparent.
Also during Barrister Ajong’s
cross-examination, Bayen said he considered Ndi’s story as the protest of a
whistle-blower and published it as such. He said if Nkemayang was convinced
that Ndi’s story was false, the law provided for him to send a rejoinder,
stating the truth as a first step towards seeking redress. Bayen said his
paper, Media People was still waiting to publish Nkemayang’s rejoinder.
Bayen said if he wanted to treat
Ndi’s story as a journalist’s report, he would have applied the diligence he is
known for in news editing and reporting. He referred the court to unsolicited
comments made by readers on the beauty of his Media People journalism which he
had compiled and published in his newspaper to demonstrate he was not a
reckless journalist as his accusers claimed.
Further debunking Nkemayang’s
claim that the accusations in the story published by Ndi and Bayen had gravely
damaged his reputation and caused his newspaper to lose readership and
advertisers, Bayen’s lawyer reminded Nkemayang that he was guest speaker at the
2015 World Press Freedom Day conference in Bamenda where he presented a paper
and was moderator of a panel discussion by lawyers in Fako division on 18 April
2015 broadcast on HiTV in Buea. He said a man who had lost his reputation in
the eyes of people of good standing could not be invited by people as
respectable as lawyers and his own colleagues, journalists.
Barrister Ernest Egbe was
further helped in his line of argument when under cross-examination he asked
the second prosecution witness EwangNdumbe Bell who is The Star’s Douala
representative if their newspaper’s sales and advert inflow had dropped. Bell
said not at all. He said the paper was thriving as usual, a response which
gravely angered Nkemayang who could not conceal his disappointment. Nkemayang
murmured his disappointment and waved of his hand at Bell for his responses
which he said were “useless”.
Satisfied with confessions he
obtained from Nkemayang and his witnesses, Bayen’s learned counsel thus prayed
the court to disregard Nkemayang’s grounds for suing the accused with claims
that he and his newspaper had suffered damages.
Barrister Egbe later raised an
objection to the procedure of the case, pointing out violation of Article 160
of the CPC. That was the basis on which the learned judge declared Nkemayang’s
case a nullity.
But apparently aware in advance
that his case was doomed, Nkemayang got Ndi and Bayen served fresh summonses
for the same case even before the judge ruled to dismiss the pending one. It is
left to be seen how a court will entertain a case file that was re-opened even
before the same court had closed it. A lawyer who requested to remain anonymous
told The Median that Nkemayang’s new action is tantamount to bringing a case to
the same court twice while the said court was still deliberating on it. He said
Nkemayang’s new faulty procedure was equally destined for another nullity.
No comments:
Post a Comment