 |
| Issa Tchiroma Bakary |
Yen Eyoum Lydienne and three others
Lawyer Eyoum Lydienne is a common law criminal
- H.E. ISSA TCHIROMA BAKARY, government spokesman
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Since the 26th September when the Special Criminal Court ruled on the case opposing the Public Prosecutor and the State of Cameroon, on the one hand, and Mr ABAH ABAH Polycarpe, the then Minister of Economy and Finance, Mrs YEN EYOUM Lydienne Épouse LOYSE, lawyer at the Cameroonian Bar, Mr BALENG MAAH Célestin, a bailiff, Mr ENGOULOU Henri, former Minister Delegate at the Ministry of Economy and Finance in charge of the Budget and Secretary General at the Ministry of Economy and Finance at the time of the offence and Mr NGWEM Honoré, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Economy and Finance at the time of the offence, some voices, especially those emanating from the defence of one of the accused, in the person of Mrs YEN EYOUM Lydienne Épouse LOYSE are being raised to denounce what they qualify as a travesty of justice underpinned by a subservience of the Cameroonian judiciary to the Executive Power, as well as a politicization of the case under the cover of a crusade against the embezzlement of public funds.
Fellow Journalists,
The media campaign against the Public Prosecutor and the State of Cameroon and in favour of Barrister YEN EYOUM Lydienne, actually started before the judgment of the Special Criminal Court, when followers and other sympathizers of Mrs YEN EYOUM stormed radio stations and TV channels, one after the other, to denounce the case against their protégé and the living conditions of her detention at the KONDENGUI Central Prison, which according to them, were inhumane.
Certainly, they wished to hoodwink the people, or to gain some support beyond our borders, that could either soften or intimidate the Cameroonian Judiciary, so as to compel it to alter its quest for the truth and fair application of the law.
On 26th September 2014, the Special Criminal Court handed down its judgment, declaring YEN EYOUM Lydienne and NGWEM Honoré guilty of embezzling public funds and complicity in embezzling public funds, offences provided for and sanctioned by articles 74, 97 and 184 of the Penal Code.
Mrs YEN EYOUM was sentenced to a 25 years imprisonment, with a warrant of committal.
Mr NGWEM was on his part sentenced to life imprisonment with a Bench warrant and life deprivation from articles 30 and 31 of the Penal Code.
The other accused, Mr ABAH ABAH Polycarpe and Mr BALENG MAAH Célestin were acquitted for unestablished facts.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in force, the Public Prosecutor and all condemned parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
Given the fact that the case is still pending, no comment will therefore be made on the judicial procedure.
Nevertheless, due to the controversy that is voluntarily created around the conduct of the case, accusations of instrumentalization of the judiciary by the Executive Power in our country, in order to distort the outcome for alleged political motives, the Government has decided to inform the public of the facts of the case.
Facts of the case
In May 1994, the BARRY company, with headquarters in Douala, transferred the sum of 3 billion, six hundred and ninety-seven million CFA francs, into the SGBC liquidation account of the former National Produce Marketing Board (with French acronym ONCPB), corresponding to the repurchase of shares belonging to the State of Cameroon in the capital of former ONCPB.
Under the instructions of the then Minister of Industrial and Commercial Development (MINDIC), a part of this money, that is, 3 billion, two hundreds and nineteen million, CFA Francs, had to be reimbursed to the GORTZOUNIAN company, an operator of the cacao-coffee sector, to settle a debt owed by the State of Cameroon. The rest, that is, four hundred and seventy-eight million, CFA francs, were to be acquired from the liquidation of former ONCPB.
Contesting this ministerial measure, the liquidators of former ONCPB obtained the ring-fencing of the disputed sum that is 3 billion, two hundred and nineteen million, CFA francs, in an internal SGBC account. On June 10, 1994, the Wouri High Court rendered an ordinance compelling SGBC to pay to former ONCPB, the sum of 3 billion, nine hundred and eighty-seven million CFA francs, representing the main ring-fenced sum increased by interests and various fees.
Faced with the resistance of SGBC, contradicting the ordinance, the Wouri High Court rendered another judgment on October 21, 1994 endorsing the said ordinance, which was confirmed by the Littoral Court of Appeal on March 10, 1999.
SGBC, which continued to resist by applying for a postponement of execution, unsuccessfully appealed again before the Supreme Court with the rejection of the appeal and insertion of the enforcement order.
The ruling of the Supreme Court was served to SGBC on July 22, 2000 by Barrister BALENG MAAH Célestin, Bailiff in Douala acting on behalf of the State for an amount of 4 billion, two hundred and twenty-two million CFA francs.
A new tactic of SGBC, compelled Barrister YEN EYOUM Lydienne, in her capacity as State Counsel, to carry out on August 22, 2000 the attachment of funds from SGBC to the Bank of Central African States (BEAC in French) on the initiative of the above mentioned bailiff, namely, Barrister BALENG MAAH Célestin, worth 5 billion, one hundred and twenty-four million, CFA francs, in mainly, interests and various proceeding fees.
After contesting this attachment, considered exorbitant, SGBC ended up by proposing a mutual settlement of the matter, with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Finance to pay the sum of 3 billion, six hundred and thirty-seven million, nine hundred and seventy-two thousands, eight hundred CFA francs to the liquidation of former ONCPB.
On April 02, 2001 SGBC met its commitment and paid the above mentioned sum into the public treasury, upon full and final acknowledgement of the payment of the disputed attachment and settlement of all claims.
For all her services provided, Barrister Yen EYOUM received her lawyer’s fees to the tune of three hundred and seventy-nine million CFA francs.
The case which was then considered settled bounced back on January 29, 2004, that is three years later, when SGBC was convened by the Ministry of Finance to be notified that it is still liable for the sum of 3 billion five hundred millions CFA francs.
SGBC then denied to pay the above mentioned amount, whose requests seems not to be in compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the same Ministry of Finance, under which SGBC had already met its commitment and paid the disputed amount.
Faced with this refusal, Barrister YEN EYOUM Lydienne carried out another attachment on the assets of SGBC located in the Bank of Central African States, for an amount of 2 billion, one hundred and fifty-five million CFA francs through Barrister BALENG MAAH Célestin, in his capacity as bailiff.
Enter Abah Abah and Engoulou Henri
On December 16, 2004, Mr ABAH ABAH Polycarpe, the then Minister of Finance, gave a special power of attorney to Barrister YEN EYOUM, in her capacity as Counsel of the Ministry of Finance in the case, to recover the funds, subject of the second attachment.
Following the ruling of the single-judge, the Bank of Central African States transferred the disputed amount on December 21, 2004.
Two days later, on December 23, 2004, Mr ENGOULOU Henri, the then Minister Delegate at the Ministry of Finance, in charge of the Budget, requested on Barrister YEN EYOUM Lydienne, by means of a fax letter, to transfer only half of the received amount from the Bank of Central African States into the State treasury, that is the sum of one billion, nine hundred and eighty-seven thousand CFA francs, until an agreement was reached on the new fees to be paid to her for her services in the second phase of the proceedings.
It is important to mention here that, by so doing, Barrister YEN EYOUM chose to ignore the endorsement ruling of the Littoral Appeal Court of August 08, 2001, which definitely settled the dispute.
She went on to set her new fees to the sum of eight hundred and twenty-five million CFA francs, out of the three hundred and seventy-nine CFA francs previously paid to her.
In fact, what did Barrister YEN EYOUM do, after receiving the fax-letter signed by Mr ENGOULOU Henri?
Barrister YEN EYOUM first transferred the entire funds from the Bank of Central African States for the second attachment, that is 2 billion, one hundred and fifty-five million CFA francs into her private Bank account Number 01 001 206 676 900 at the Standard Chartered Bank.
Subsequently, she proceeded to a second transfer representing half of the initial sum received into the bank account (number 01 020 112 56 7000) of a certain company OFALY SARL P.O. BOX 2820 Douala, where she had a right to sign. At the same time she transferred the remaining half into the State treasury.
However, it should be recalled that the special power of attorney given to Barrister YEN EYOUM for the recovery of funds representing the second phase of the procedure clearly indicated that all the funds were to be transferred into the State treasury.
Moreover, it is established, in conformity with the law (Article 37 of Law N°90/059 of December 19, 1990 to organize legal practice at the Cameroon Bar), that funds received by a barrister in his capacity as trustee of a client do not belong to him, and have to be transferred into a special account titled « customer-account », and not in a private account.
It is therefore on this basis that the Yaoundé Special Criminal Court established the guilt of Barrister Yen Eyoum (the defendant) and sentenced her to 25 years imprisonment and the payment to the State, in solidarity with the co-accused, also found guilty, of the sum of 1 billion one hundred and fifty-three million CFA francs, as well as the seizure and placement of their assets under judicial custody.
Allegations of illegal arrest, detention
It is worth noting that the arrest and placement under pre-trial custody of Mrs. YEN EYOUM were done in perfect conformity with the Criminal Procedure Code in force in Cameroon.
The allegations of arbitrary detention which her defendants intended to plead on the one hand, and on maintaining her pre-trail detention above the legal period, that is six months renewable twice (that is not longer than 18 months), and the complain against the delay in hearing the case in court on the other hand are ungrounded.
In fact, it is worth mentioning that, immediately after her arrest, Barrister YEN EYOUM and her counsels had multiplied incidents of procedure and pre-judicial exception, all in reality serving as mere tactic.
Allow me to give you few illustrations:
On April 28, 2010, following her arrest, Barrister YEN EYOUM seized the Mfoundi High Court with a request for immediate release based on her unlawful arrest.
The said request was rejected as ungrounded by the court on May 27, 2010. The defendant appealed against this decision before the Centre Court of Appeal, which confirmed the ruling of the previous court.
Moving forward in their tactic, Barrister YEN EYOUM and her counsels went further and appealed against this pre-judicial ruling on September 30, 2010.
On 15th March 2012, the Supreme Court declared this appeal inadmissible.
To further illustrate this dilatory tactic, we should indicate that in addition to the request for immediate release I mentioned earlier, Barrister YEN EYOUM and her counsels, submitted up to five requests for her release, which were all rejected by the Investigating Judge.
On 8th July 2011 that is within the legal time frame of pre-trial detention as provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code in force in Cameroon, the investigating Judge referred Barrister YEN EYOUM to the Criminal Bench of the Mfoundi High Court to be judged on the charges against her.
As we can notice, the referral order from the Investigating Judge was issued within the 18-month time frame provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. It therefore appears that within this time frame, the divested Investigating Judge could not perform any further act.
Moreover, in keeping with the provisions of article 262, paragraph 2 of the CPC: "When the person charged or placed under judicial oversight is referred to court for crime, the referral order does not put an end to pre-trial detention or to the judicial oversight".
- Yet, the charges against Barrister YEN EYOUM and the others are crimes indeed, in as much as they are liable to imprisonment for a term of imprisonment greater than or equal to 10 years.
- Barrister YEN EYOUM and her co-accused were then kept in pre-trial detention until the ruling of the Special Criminal Court before which they stood trial in perfect conformity with the laws of Cameroon ; that is to say, in perfect lawfulness.
- Barrister YEN EYOUM and her Counsels did not undertake to challenge the referral order, but to raise exceptions related to the incompetence of the ruling court, and to request that the proceedings be invalided.
- On 29th February 2012, these exceptions were rejected as being ungrounded, but on the same day, the accused appealed.
- The Court of Appeal of the Centre further confirmed the judgment and ordered the return of the case to the Mfoundi High Court.
- Once again, on the same day, the accused appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court, but refused to pay to the Registry, the funds required for the reproduction of the procedure file as normally required, until the Public Prosecutor finally carried out the reproduction by their own means.
- The Specialized Bench of the Supreme Court that is normally competent in this prior-to-ruling procedure rendered its decision on 29th October 2013 and declared inadmissible the appeals of Barrister YEN EYOUM and others, referring the case to the Special Criminal Court, under the transitional rules provided by the law establishing the said court.
From this succession of incidents and procedures and prejudicial questions willingly raised by Barrister YEN EYOUM and her Counsels, we can therefore conclude that the interested persons were overtly seeking for a procedural defect that could prevent the examination of the file on merit, and to obtain the nullity of proceedings in as much as the embezzlement of public funds were overt in the light of common law, and to themselves as legal practitioners.
Allegations of Political persecution
Wait a minute: Who is Barrister YEN EYOUM in the political landscape in Cameroon? Is she an elected official, a political leader or government minister?
French Nationality of Mrs. Yen Eyoum
It should be noted that the only principle that prevails in matters of judicial responsibility is the territoriality in the commission of the offence. An offence committed in a country is by principle, judged by the courts of that country, and according to the laws of that country, without consideration as to the nationality of the person prosecuted, except in case of force majeure requiring an extradition, or for some conditions that are either established by the law of the country where the offence was committed or by conventions signed between States.
As for the conditions of detention of Barrister YEN EYOUM, the government is striving as much as it can to create acceptable living conditions in our prisons. Yet, even if she is a brilliant lawyer, for now, she is placed under the same conditions like all other detainees of her kind. There is therefore no persecution against her.
No comments:
Post a Comment