The Special Criminal Court on January 27, 2015 said the certificate presented by his counsel was not authentic.
The second trial involving Yves Michel Fotso, ex-General Manager of CAMAIR, the defunct national airline Company, came up for hearing at the Special Criminal Court (SCC) yesterday January 17, 2015 during which the court rejected a medical certificate from the Medical Head at the Health Centre of the Gendarmerie which revealed that Yves Michel Fotso was sick and could not come to court.
The court session which began about 11:00 a.m. was heard by a Panel of Judges, Headed by Mr. Justice Moukoury Francis and assisted by Mr. Justice Jean Claude Michel Onana and Mr Justice Luc Nyassa. The counsel for Yves Michel Fotso began by presenting two medical certificates signed on December 14, 2015 and January 21, 2016 by the medical Colonel of the Gendarmerie Health Centre. The report revealed that Yves Michel Fotso is sick and hospitalised at the Yaounde General Hospital where he is under intensive medical care. His doctors, in the medical certificate, revealed that Yves Michel Fotso was worrisome and could not be in court. It was also revealed that he is being followed-up by three medical doctors and the medical colonel was one of them.
Advocate General, Jean Claude Taghim told the court not to consider the medical report because it was supposed to be issued by the doctors treating him and not that of the prison where he is found. After serious debates, Mr. Justice Moukoury Francis and his team rejected the medical certificate while requesting for a more authentic medical certificate with a detailed medical report to justify Yves Michel Fotso’s ailment. The defence lawyer Martin Luther King Achet Nagnigni said if the doctor in the prison where the client is found cannot establish that he is sick and hospitalised, who else can do that? He further stressed that producing a detailed medical report on his client’s health state is against the law.
However, Barrister Achet Nagnigni and his team agreed to produce what the court wanted in the next court session but the court rejected their request to adjourn the case and decided to continue with the hearing of the prosecution’s witness. According to the Penal Code, it is prevailed that during the questioning of the Civil Party witness, the counsels of the defence cross-examine the witness. But Achet Nagnigni underlined that the law strictly forbidden the counsel of the defence to intervene in the absence of their client. “I understood that the judges wanted us to be spectators in a court hearing that we are not authorised to speak”, Barrister Achet Nagnigni noted. In protest the counsel of Yves Michel Fotso staged a walk out of the court room while the court continued hearing of the prosecution witness Bekolo, the partner charged with auditing the liquidation of Camair.
