Opinion: How Article 121 barred Kamto for October 12 poll.

What began as a principled stance against electoral injustice would, five years later, evolve into a legal and political dead end. At the centre of this downfall was a single provision of Cameroon's Electoral Code: Article 121.

A boycott with long shadows

Kamto’s Cameroon Renaissance Movement (MRC) had boycotted the 2020 legislative and municipal elections, citing electoral fraud and a lack of transparency. 

At the time, it was a bold protest move intended to delegitimise a system the party considered rigged. But in doing so, the MRC forfeited all elected representation in parliament and local councils.

That absence of political foothold would prove decisive. Article 121(1) of Cameroon’s Electoral Code makes clear that only parties with current representation in either the National Assembly, a municipal council, or a regional council can nominate a presidential candidate. 

By 2025, the MRC met none of these conditions. Kamto had two remaining options: either run as an independent, or secure nomination through another party. 

The former required collecting 300 endorsements from elected officials and traditional leaders; a virtually impossible task in a political landscape dominated by loyalists of Biya’s ruling CPDM party. Unsurprisingly, Kamto failed to secure the needed signatures. That left one final card to play.

The MANIDEM gambit

In a last-minute strategic move, Kamto sought and received a nomination from MANIDEM (African Movement for New Independence and Democracy), a smaller opposition party with the necessary parliamentary credentials. The party’s leader, Anicet Ekane, endorsed Kamto’s candidacy.

But this maneuver sparked immediate controversy. A rival faction within MANIDEM, aligned with Dieudonné Yebga, submitted a competing candidacy under the same party banner. 

The electoral commission, ELECAM, responded by rejecting both nominations. It cited a “plurality of nominations,” which violated Article 121(2); a clause prohibiting a political party from sponsoring more than one candidate in a presidential race.

Kamto's campaign denounced the decision as a coordinated attempt to silence the opposition. Nevertheless, the damage was done. ELECAM’s decision stood, unless overturned by Cameroon’s highest electoral tribunal, the Constitutional Council.

Legal battle at Constitutional Council

On August 4, 2025, the Yaounde Congress Centre became the stage for one of Cameroon’s most consequential legal hearings in recent political history. 

Kamto himself appeared before the Council, flanked by his legal team, journalists, and a heavy security presence. Riot police cordoned off roads, and tear gas was deployed to disperse demonstrators outside the venue.

Inside, Kamto’s counsel argued forcefully that Yebga had no legal standing, having been expelled from MANIDEM in 2018. They insisted that the nomination from Anicet Ekane’s faction was both lawful and procedurally sound, supported by documentation and party statutes. 

Moreover, they pointed out that ELECAM had not identified any formal defects in Kamto’s application.

In contrast, Yebga’s team accused Kamto of parachuting into a party he had never joined, claiming his nomination was orchestrated without proper internal processes.

Despite Kamto’s objections, the Council joined both appeals into a single hearing, arguing the cases were too intertwined to consider separately. After more than four hours of argument, the Council deliberated overnight.

Final judgment & closure

At 3:00 p.m. on August 5, 2025, Council President Clément Atangana delivered the final verdict. Both appeals were declared unfounded. 

The Council upheld ELECAM’s position: MANIDEM had submitted two candidacies, and neither had clearly demonstrated uncontested party endorsement. 

As per Article 121(2), this was a fatal breach. The decision was irrevocable and not subject to appeal. With that ruling, Maurice Kamto’s 2025 presidential bid was dead.

A nation on edge

The political fallout was swift. Kamto’s exclusion from the race removed one of the few figures with nationwide recognition and a record of electoral challenge against the Biya regime. 

As in 2018, when he placed second in the presidential election with 14% of the vote, Kamto had positioned himself as a legitimate alternative to Biya’s four-decade rule.

But this time, legal and procedural barriers proved more decisive than popular support. Demonstrations broke out in Douala and Yaounde. 

Security forces shut down opposition press events. Independent media like Naja TV were blocked from broadcasting the hearings. The government’s tight grip on the political environment was on full display.

Broader implications: Law as a tool of exclusion

Kamto’s disqualification is more than a personal defeat- it is a case study in how electoral law can be wielded as a political instrument. Article 121, once a procedural safeguard, became a gatekeeping device. The MRC’s 2020 boycott, though morally principled, left the party legally crippled. 

Legislative changes in 2024 then delayed elections long enough to prevent recovery. Even Kamto’s attempt to “borrow” a legal platform through MANIDEM was undone, not because of fraud or public disapproval, but because Cameroonian electoral law does not forgive ambiguity in party representation. One party, one candidate. Two candidates? No one runs. In the end, it was not the people who barred Maurice Kamto from the Presidency, it was the law.

*Dr Paul Chiy is a multi-qualified Barrister, Solicitor-Advocate, Arbitrator, Chartered Legal Executive, and Academic. He holds full rights of audience in England, Wales, France, and Central Africa (including Cameroon), and is a Fellow of both the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. A former Magistrate, he advises government departments, regulators, and private clients across public, regulatory, and commercial sectors. 

This article was first published in The Guardian Post Edition No:3526 of Thursday August 07, 2025.