The Presidency and “Epervier”
By TazoachaAsonganyi, Yaounde
The news of recent has been the
condemnation of Yves Michel Fotso to life imprisonment for alleged embezzlement
of public funds. The news was being distilled to us at the same time that
newspapers like “Mutations” (No. 4132 of April 25, 2016) were questioning why
barons of the regime like Paul AtangaNji, Jean Tabi Manga, Max AyinaOhandja,
Roger MoiseEyeneNlom, Marc Samatana and many others, whom reports of
“commissions of enquiry” have since presented as suspects to face trial for
embezzlement of public funds, have never been charged with embezzlement.
Further,
a group called “REA-MouvementRéaliste” said to be composed of grassroots
militants of the CPDM (GénérationLibre No. 221 of April 27, 2016), in a 10-year
analysis of “Epervier” launched in 2006, has concluded that the whole process
seems to have been improvised because it was launched without adequate
preparation and a clear intention to really fight against corruption.
The
group named G11 that seems to have suffered the most from the operation has
since had presumed members publishing books from their prison abodes. The books
have been unanimous in claiming that “Epervier” is a politico-judicial exercise
to eliminate the perceived political rivals of the man of November 6, 1982.
Many
have criticized them for writing about the woes of Cameroon only when there was
a divorce between them and the regime. To such criticism one can say that there
is always a time and a reason for writing – to praise, admonish, propose, or
some other – all of which are valid. In the end, we can only read the mind of
characters like the taciturn and introverted man of November 6, through windows
opened by those who worked closely with him – like Marafa, Olanguena, Edzoa,
Mebara, and others – who write for any reason at all.
Invariably,
“rebels” always assume the posture of attack to alter psychological situation
of their adversaries to force them to lose their sense of security. The windows
they have opened by doing this seem to be comforting the suspicion that indeed,
“Epervier” is a political gimmick, and what is euphemistically called “Tcs” –
or the Scc if you like - seems to be a
kangaroo court to put icing on the cake of “Epervier. Those who use the tired
argument of sour grapes as an excuse to avoid reading the books of the “rebel”
writers as attentively as they deserve, miss facing the challenge of the
comprehension that each of the books represents.
It
is obviously interesting that when “Epervier” came to being, article 66 of the
constitution of 1996 meant to protect public funds and resources from
embezzlers was a dead letter, and is still a dead letter today! “Epervier” was
launched when all press condemnations of the corruption of regime barons were
met with calls for evidence – “oùsont les preuves?”
It
was therefore interesting to read a report titled: “Presidency rubbishes
supreme state audit report implicating CAMTEL GM” (Guardian Post No. 0907,
13/04/16). The report says that allegations of misappropriation, mismanagement
and outright embezzlement of the general
manager covering the period 2010-2015, and the recommendation of special
proceedings against him by the Special criminal court (SCC) were “rubbished” by
the presidency because: CAMTEL is not yet using OHADA rules and cannot be
judged by those standard; that much work of restructuring was carried out
before the GM’s tenure; and that CONSUPE was rather hard when it reviewed the
human, material and health resources management - consequently there was a bias
in the way the review was done by CONSUPE!
These
are most obviously supposed to be judicial decisions, not decisions of “the
presidency”! The decisions leave the perception that they are for entirely
partisan, if not personal reasons, and call into question the institutions on
which “Epervier” depends.The man of November 6 wants to keep power by all
means, so the presidency is seen as a partisan structure, and should not have
the final say on issues of corruption.
The
“rubbishing” of the report by “the presidency” is wrong for several reasons.
First, one would think that the government of Cameroon has what the government
of West Cameroon had - "General Orders" and "Financial
Instructions"- that guide governance activities and the work of
commissions of enquiry.
Second,
in Africa, – especially in Cameroon - all power is secured and preserved
through opacities and duplicities; indeed, power or the seeking of power is
always the cause of corruption. Political power always trumps and stifles
justice, development and even commonsense.
Third,
the courts have a technical way of playing idea-games with concepts related to
questions of fact and questions of law, to reach the verdict of “guilty” or “not
guilty”. In the process, some people are declared “guilty,” even though they
did nothing; and others “not guilty” even though they committed the act! Each
case depends on the ability to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is wrong for the presidency to allow the
courts to do this for some people, while protecting other people from facing
the challenge.
Fourth,
corruption always starts with the subversion of due process allegedly for the
greater good. It is this power to “rubbish” reports of duly constituted
commissions or to “doctor” them, that CPDM militants in prison are describing
as politico-judicial manipulations. It is this exercise of power at the
presidency that feeds the suspicion that the fight against corruption is a
fight for the preservation of power. Subverting due process is tantamount to
subverting the authority of the judiciary.
It
is the people - all the people - that prosecute all successful fights against
corruption. In this, the executive arm of government should be the facilitator,
not a constitutive power. The executive should see to it that the fight is well
prosecuted, not prosecute it itself!
The
fight against corruption as presently prosecuted by the presidency leaves the
impression that it is more concerned with “prevention” rather than “cure”. The
evidence gathered during the last 10 years of “Epervier” permits a serious
government to pursue curative measures, rather than “rubbish” findings in their
pretentious effort to “cure” corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment