Tchiroma’s case against Biya in Paris: Impartiality of Cameroon courts on trial!.

To justify his action, the former Minister of Communication and Government Spokesman, today in exile, cites an alleged inability of the Cameroonian justice system to adjudicate cases impartially without meddling by the executive.

By turning to Paris, he is relying on the principle of international jurisdiction concerning issues of inalienable human rights. 

On Monday, however, two government ministers reacted to the decision. Gregoire Owona of Labour and Social Security, who is also Deputy Secretary General of the ruling CPDM, took on the political angle.

He dismissed the complaint in an interview with Radio France Internationale, RFI, as “merely an expression of a need for attention," by a politician whose influence back home is waning.

For the ruling party’s deputy scribe, Issa Tchiroma’s actions are primarily driven by political calculation.

“Tchiroma has a need for existence that justifies what he is doing. The CPDM, for its part, is working on preparing for the next elections. We are far too busy to talk about Tchiroma,” Owona told RFI.

He then added a note of caution: “Now, whether or not this type of case is successful, it often takes time”. 

While he parried away the principle of universal jurisdiction as a mere political survival tactic, Jean de Dieu Momo, Minister Delegate to the Minister of Justice and staunch supporter of Paul Biya, though of an opposition party, raised the broader issue of sovereignty of national legal jurisdiction not only in Cameroon but in Africa.

A lawyer by profession, Minister Momo, in an open letter to Tchiroma, through the social media, posed a number of critical questions: “Beyond the legitimate political differences that characterise any democracy, a fundamental question remains: when an African citizen asks a foreign court to try the highest authorities of their country, what message are they sending to the world?    Universal Jurisdiction or judicial supervision? Can we claim to be building strong States while systematically challenging their legitimacy as soon as a political disagreement arises? Why do we so frequently see proceedings targeting officials from countries of the global South, particularly in Africa; while some major powers seem less exposed to this type of litigation?”.

“We must not also reject any form of judicial dependence that would amount to considering that the truth can only be told in Paris, Brussels, London, or Washington.”

Those are critical questions asked by a professional lawyer, who is also a minister in the justice ministry. Before anyone could provide answers, two outstanding precedents should first be examined.

First, Cameroonians who have taken the Cameroon government to court abroad instead of using “local justice ministry”, to name just two, have been the late Albert Mukong, to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, on February 26, 1991.

He had complained that; on June 16, 1988, he was arrested, after an interview with the BBC, in which he criticised both the President of Cameroon and the government.

He claimed that in detention, he was not only interrogated about the interview but also subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment and convicted by a military tribunal.

Yaounde in its defense said he had not exhausted the local legal process but he argued that even if they existed, they were ineffective, and not impartial. He was awarded compensation.

The second case was that of Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al. vs Cameroon; at the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights; in Banjul, The Gambia, in 2009.

The Commission ruled that there was no independence of the judiciary with the head of the executive branch being the Chairman of the Higher Judicial Council that manages the careers of magistrates.

The Commission called for “reforms” to avoid transferring accused persons from the Anglophone Regions, for trial in Francophone Regions, in a language the accused does not understand.

In at least on two occasions, in two different jurisdictions, the strenuous defence of the impartiality of the country’s judicial system has unequivocally failed to stand on two legs.

Minister Momo, in pondering why cases in Africa are often taken abroad, concedes that “such a logic leads to a dangerous consequence: it gradually transforms political sovereignty into conditional sovereignty”.

He added that “...a nation that no longer believes in its own justice system ultimately loses faith in itself”. 

The minister has proffered a solution, which The Guardian Post shares: “It lies in strengthening its institutions, continuously improving its judicial systems, and fostering trust among citizens in their own dispute resolution mechanisms. Universal jurisdiction arose from a noble intention of the international community: to prevent perpetrators of the most serious crimes against humanity from finding refuge behind national borders”.

President Biya promised “reforms” in his new term and The Guardian Post urges him to ensure that such dynamics should include stepping down as Chair of the Higher Judicial Council, which has been regularly used as excuse for aggrieved parties not to seek national remedies for perceived abuse by government officials.

This article was first published in The Guardian Post No 3820 Wednesday, June 17, 2026