Reflections By The Special Status Working Group
On 15th December 2019 the National Assembly began meeting in
extra ordinary session to deliberate on the bill tabled by Government to
institute the General Code of Regional and Local Authorities, widely referred
to as the Decentralisation Bill. The bill once adopted by Parliament and
enacted into law by the Head of State shall give content to the
much-anticipated Special Status designation for the North-West and South-West
Regions of Cameroon. After four days of deliberations the National Assembly on
Thursday 19th December 2019 passed the bill which has now been forwarded to the
House of Senate for a similar review and adoption.
A few
months ago, a group of Cameroonians living in the country and in the diaspora
came together as a Special Status Think Tank and proposed for adoption, salient
pointers for a content to the Special Status bill that would bring about
long-lasting solutions to the current crisis, in the North West and South West
Regions. The Think Tank is pleased to see some of these suggestions reflected
in the current bill tabled by Government before the legislature. The return of
peace to the North-West and South-West Regions being at all times our
collective pursuit, we still firmly believe, the Quebec Style system of Special
Status, contemplated by the Grand National Dialogue remains to this day, the
most viable compromise. While it must be acknowledged that there can never be
an absolute autonomy for any one Region, place, or persons in a meaningful
union for peace and stability to reign, it is not superfluous to remind various
stakeholders about the urgent need for peace now; as the devastation exhibited
in the mounting loss of lives, lack of shelter inaccessibility to education and
healthcare, hunger and destitution continue to bare their ugly fangs on
innocent women and children in the conflict-affected Regions.. Thus, if peace
is to return, the true meaning of the Special designation contemplated in this
bill to resolve this crisis must be able to withstand the test of time now and
in the future.
Consequently,
as we collectively contemplate the term Special Status for the North-West and
South-West regions, we must note that the strive towards some degree of
autonomy for the people of these Regions to self-manage their interests is not
prompted by an entrenched need to exist in isolation from the rest of the
country, but rather by a desire to preserve and enrich the diversity of
Cameroon with that which makes us unique as clearly expressed in Section 3(3)
of the bill. Thus, we are very encouraged by the attempt of the framers of this
bill to codify some of our long-cherished beliefs and value systems in Sections
3, 6.1, 9, 12,17 and ultimately in Section 328. These in our opinion are constructive
steps in the right direction. However, as we experience this remarkable change
in policy towards devolving more power to the Cameroonian people, we remain
steadfast and optimistic that if appropriately managed, with a Quebec Style
System in mind, the adaptation of which we tabled for consideration, this
transformative event could appease all factions involved in the current crisis
and usher prosperity to Cameroonians as well.
We acknowledge the enormity of
the task at hand taking into consideration the scale and the scope, the
duration and the ramifications of this crisis. These emphasizes why Special
Status as a solution must truly capture the essence of the promised autonomy.
In
Canada, the Quebecers did not ask for a country within a country. So too are
Anglophones only asking for a Special Status where nothing is done for them
without them. This is the spirit with which we examine this bill, nothing more,
nothing less, to ensure at all times, that the Anglophone Regions and their
people are given a seat at the table when matters affecting their lives and
their wellbeing, are discussed.
.In
this vein, we recognize the efforts by the Government to guarantee these
expectations captured in Section 3 and Section 328 of the bill. However, our
examination of other relevant sections of the bill leaves us worrying that the
objective, spirit, and meaning of what has been considered as “Special Status,”
is still elusive. This conclusion was reached not by a desire to undermine the
entire process, but by the weight of the thousands of lives including civilian
and military which have been lost, houses burnt or destroyed, and above all,
the displacement and starvation of hundreds of thousands of our fellow
compatriots, who have eagerly awaited the application of the Special Status to
return home. Thus, we put forth the following comments and suggestions in view
of enriching the process while highlighting some of the concerns many
Anglophones have.
In
Section 9, we hold the view that it will be more helpful for the State to
clearly delineate the parameters of what constitute local assets, the extent to
which procurement is possible, and the percentage of the same. This should also
cater for key issues such as to ownership interest in taxation revenue,
percentage of local revenue, rather than deferring to subsequent regulatory
instruments or decrees.
In Section
12, the term allocation invokes a sour taste in the mouth of most Anglophones
who have in the past complained and rightly so, about receiving
disproportionately less investment funds than their contribution to the
national bread basket. Furthermore, without the codification of this content, a
boulevard is open for the current and future leadership to decide at their
leisure what percentage allocation they ‘personally’ deem necessary to be
forwarded to the Anglophone Regions.
Thus,
at a bare minimum, the law should clearly define within permitted limits what
consideration will go into deciding what is appropriate for the Special Status
Regions. It is the best safeguard against any future arbitrary inclinations of
officials driven by considerations of career advancement or political
expediency.
In
Section 17, the term necessary power remains very ambiguous at best and thus
undermines the very essence of this project. In the interest of peace, we
believe more can be done here to state with precision what powers belong to the
State and what powers belong to the Regions. This will avoid the temptation of
having fluctuating degrees of power dictated in part by socio-political, or the
personal ambition of whoever is in charge and/or the personal attachment or
belonging of the leader to any given Region. Today, we know too well the impact
of nepotism and tribalism. Unfortunately, this section of the bill not only
exacerbates it, but also guarantees to the detriment of other Regions of the
country whose local leadership may receive less power. They shall thus be
unable to inspire the growth their duly elected leaders were elected to fulfil,
especially in Regions where local views are at variance with those held by the
central Government. Worst still, there are no provisions of the proposed law to
successfully deal with this kind of situation.
Section
40 is a welcome provision for all. It is laden with good intentions but falls
short and depends on the largesse of the bureaucratic structure which does not
have a track record of faultless service to the people. As a measure for
fighting against corruption, we believe this section should rather empower any
legal entity or individual to be able to take legal action against a
malfeasance or omission of any local authority, State representative, and to
compel contractors, to perform their contractual obligations. If this is
amended, corruption in Cameroon which remains the number one problem, will be
cut drastically hence attracting much needed investments leading to job
creation.
Sections
45, 72, 73, undermine the essence of whatever regional autonomy is contemplated
in this bill in its entirety. They transfer whatever autonomy has been received
by the people back to the hands of Regional State representatives who will
ultimately have the last word. No one doubts the experience, education, and
training of State representatives who are necessary to help interpret national
interests and thus foster cohesion of purpose. However, if Regional autonomy
should become a reality, the footprints of these actors must not be imposed in
all circumstances. The Regional House, a representation of the people, should
take charge and only consult as to the legality of its decisions if and when
they become so repugnant that their decisions fail to advance unity, peace, and
security, which should remain the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.
Sections
74, 75, 76, 77, 79, and 83, remind Anglophones in general that the loss of
lives, houses, and property for a piece of autonomy has been futile and the
Government is not ready to ensure such autonomy anytime soon. These sections
take back and guarantee absolute power to the government leaving leaders of
Regional structures with a hollow shell i.e. “autonomy” in name only. We remain
troubled in that State Regional Representatives have been further emboldened to
expressly function above every single Regional Council as Chief Executive
Officers. We got here because of this and yet no constructive measure has been
taken to remedy this overbearing authority usually by people who have in the
past exhibited little knowledge about the culture, values, and traditions of
the people they oversee.
In
section 328, we recommend the following changes and adoption in the bill to
truly reflect a Special Status in the North-west and South-west region:
Section
328: (1) In addition to the powers devolved on Regions by this law the,
North-West and South-West Regions SHALL exercise the following powers:
- Participate and ratify national
public policy relating to the Anglophone Education subsystem.
- Set up management Regional
development Authorities in the special status region.
- Have exclusive authority in
defining the status of traditional chiefdoms from customs and traditions.
(2) The NW and SW regions shall be in
charge of the formulation of justice policies in the Common Law subsystem. They
shall equally be consulted and must ratify any national law or policy which may
impede the practice and integrity of the Common Law subsystem.
(3) They shall be involved in the
management of public services in the Region and must ratify any such policy by
a 2/3 majority in the Regional Assembly.
In
Section 355(1)-(2), we recommend a change in the spirit of the law to only
include leadership by merit because the current provision stifles ambitions and
prompts stagnation leaving no room for the injection of new ideas. Thus, there
is no benefit in having only older people or elderly chair the Regional
Assembly especially in an era where youth leaders are making historic changes
around the world and ushering in unprecedented benefits and influence for their
countries. Furthermore, in the interest of transparency, secret ballots have
never advanced accountability. This is particularly crucial in Regional
Councils where the decisions of the Council have direct and immeasurable impact
on the people they serve. Hence, the only way people hold their leaders
accountable is when they can ascertain why and how a leader takes a decision in
their interest. Open ballot is the only way to guarantee this.
Section
336, is not what the Anglophones envisaged. The language of this section
clearly depicts that this was done in abstraction with little consultation with
the people who are the most affected. The House of Chiefs in Anglophone culture
is a place where Chiefs and Fons of all calibre, duly recognized by their peers
and subjects through tradition and prevailing cultural norms, assemble and
discuss matters pertaining to their Chiefdoms and Fondoms. We are not
interested in a political body but a conclave of those we have accepted to be
custodians of our traditions and culture to meet, deliberate, agree, and
propose bills, solutions, policies, for the elected Regional Assembly to
consider and adopt laws on Chieftaincy issues. Anglophones never envisaged
turning their Chiefs and Fons into politicians, which is a deviant practice
that over the years has led to the erosion of our culture and tradition.
Furthermore,
we question the limitation to 20 the number of traditional rulers in the House
of Chiefs and recommend that this be decided by the gathering of Chiefs and
Fons themselves and not by an administrative law or decree. We further have
strong reservations on the idea of an election by laws in force. If there
should be any laws to oversee elections to the House of Chiefs where
applicable, this should be stated in the body of the law rather than through an
administrative regulatory text. Furthermore, in Section 345, we question the
wisdom of the provision that the House of Chiefs, comprised of 20 members shall
have the right to review and or amend decisions emanating from the Regional
Assembly comprised of 70 elected members. This is simply not the way democracy
works.
In
section 362 et al., regarding the Regional Commissioners – the bill does not
specify how these individuals will come to be i.e. whether via elections or
appointment. Nonetheless, to promote accountability, we are of the opinion that
such individuals should run for office and thus be accountable only to the
electorate for the greater good of transparency and the fight against
corruption.
In section 367, we find the
appointment of a Public Independent Conciliator repugnant and antiquated. being
just another front by the Central Government to appropriate for itself the function
of the judicial system. It is unacceptable to imagine that the desires and
wishes of 8 million people to see about adequate implementation of certain
policies which come into conflict should be left in the hands of a single,
unelected, individual. Although this is well- intentioned, a simple alternative
is to empower the courts, the National Commission of Human Rights And Freedoms,
and the CONAC to become the arbitrators they were upon creation intended to be.
Furthermore, while the concept of an Ombudsman is welcomed, their usefulness
could be attached to local councils, companies, and schools, to handle internal
grievances. Anglophones like Cameroonians of the other Regions deserve direct
access to an effective judicial system free from bias to mediate their
disputes. Moreover, to state that the Ombudsman is only limited to providing
recommendations without any enforcement powers, underscores the very point that
they are simply serving a window dressing role and nothing more.
These
are the thoughts of this group of Anglophone Cameroonians who have come
together as a Think Tank on the content of the Special Status for the
Anglophone Regions recommended by the Major National Dialogue and currently
under review by the House of Senate
Bellamy Kravitz , Esq.
Rapporteur for:
Dr. Nick Ngwanyam, MD
Marceline Hoyle
Dr. Lucie Ngongbo
Patience Tamfu
Maryline Ndua Bekima
Geoffrey Mbaku
Nfor Julio Barthson
Mafor Nono Edwan Fon, PhD
Daniel Abwa Akwo
Azong-Wara Andrew
Eno Chris Oben
Joseph Fomba Fombason
Dr. Maxwell Mbah
Sebastin F Epah
Chief Kum Godlove
Francis Ikomey, Esq
James Epo, Esq
John Gwananji
Dr. Mafor Nono Edwan
Dr, Jerry Saliki
Bishop Dr. Leonard Mocali Vando
No comments:
Post a Comment