Introductory Statement By H.E. Issa Tchiroma Bakary, Minister Of Communication, At A Press Conference In Yaounde On 24 May 2016.

Distinguished Journalists,

I am highly delighted to wish you all a warm welcome to this press conference in the course of which we shall be discussing on the accusations repeatedly levied against Cameroon, regarding the practice of civil and political rights and the respect for civil liberties. It is the case, just to cite the most recent, with the report published by the NGO named Freedom House, in its 2016 edition, under the title « Freedom in the World 2016. Anxious Dictators, Wavering Democracies: Global Freedom under Pressure ».

In this edition, the facts alleged against Cameroon relate to the year 2015, but other previous reports by the same NGO do not fail to unfairly attack our country on this same issue. Meanwhile, before getting into the crux of the matter, allow me to express my gratitude to you for promptly honoring my invitation. But before getting into the crux of the matter, permit me to express my gratitude to you for having promptly responded to my invitation.

Distinguished Journalists,

In its 2016 report, Freedom House has come out with a world ranking of 195 countries, ranging from "Free", "Partly free" and "Not Free" to qualify the populations of the said countries. According to this classification, the people of Cameroon fall under the "Not Free" category. Other reports on the same issue point an accusing finger on our country, on motives presented as a chronic violation of civil and political rights, as well as public freedoms. The Government considers that such vehemence cannot be the result of a mere coincidence. For how on earth can one understand that bodies which are so varied and diverse, each time end up concluding on counter-truths as obvious as those uttered in their different statements?

Is it as a result of the biased sources consulted by the authors of such reports? Or is it as a result of the univocal character of the choices made with respect to the sources available, provided that only the sources that have an interest in skewing the reality may have been deemed relevant by the authors of such reports? Or better still could we not believe in a lack of investigation by the authors of these reports? Worse, but possible, is it rather a deliberate choice of these bodies at the origin of such indictments to favour, by means of inquisitorial methods, only damning arguments against our institutions?

Whatever the case, and mindful of this gross distortion or deformation of the facts, the Government could not remain adamant, in as much as the denial of reality had become flagrant. You therefore understand that we were left with no other choice than to re-establish the factual truth and expose such ill-fated purposes of misinformation.  In this respect, I would like to roughly present the situation of respect for human rights in terms of civil and political rights on the one hand and civil liberties on the other hand.

First of all on the issue of civil and political rights, I will discuss the major aspects which seem to be of more interest to our slayers with regard to the electoral process, pluralism, public participation as well as governance. With regard to the electoral process in our country, which as you are all aware, happens to be in direct link with plurality and political participation, since the return to multiparty democracy, the said electoral process is involved in the dynamics of improvement to better ensure equity, transparence and fairness of votes.

We will primarily underscore in this regard, that there is no doubt about the neutrality of Elections Cameroon (ELECAM), the independent body in charge of the management of elections and referenda, because this neutrality is not only asserted from the standpoint of legal rules that governed its inception, but better still, it is always translated in the actions of this body.

The importance of major innovations that have been successfully introduced in organizing elections in Cameroon, such as biometrics, the overhaul of voter lists in lieu of a simple revision, or the participation of Cameroonians Abroad in the presidential election, is commonplace. In the same vein, the improvement in quality and quantity of the electoral file, which today counts over six million regularly registered voters, is an indicator of the optimization of the electoral process to which our country is resolutely committed.

The issue of governance is itself to be related with the protection of public wealth and the fight against corruption, which has been a constant concern of the President of the Republic, His Excellency Paul BIYA, since his accession to supreme magistracy on 06 November 1982.

This fierce fight against the embezzlement of public funds has increased over the past years. Administrative bodies have been set up upstream the process of repression, such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC) or the Financial Investigation Agency (ANIF), in addition to the administrative body set up by the Supreme State Audit.

These organs are relayed downstream by judicial institutions, including some specifically devoted to the auditing of the management of public funds and the fight against mismanagement of public wealth. This is particularly the case with the Audit Bench of the Supreme Court, the Special Criminal Court, but also of all other courts of judicial order, whether in courts of first instance and high courts, courts of appeal or Supreme Court.

To speak only of the Special Criminal Court, the number of cases pending before that tribunal has continued to grow since its inception. It has increased from 25 cases in 2014 to 43 cases in 2015; and the number of individuals facing prosecution has increased from 38 to 65 over the same period. At the same time, 31 accused were acquitted and 25 rulings to dismiss certain cases were issued.

Still in 2015, the sums claimed by the State amounted to 4 billion 587 million 756 thousand 658 CFAF, and the sums repaid amounted to 552 million 588 thousand 642 CFA Francs. Regarding public freedoms, we will specifically talk about freedom of expression and opinion, press freedom, freedom of association and assembly, the rule of law, and individual liberties. First of all, I would like to raise some points that specifically derive from the rule of law regarding the suppression of acts of terrorism.

I should emphasize in this regard that respect for fundamental rights remains one of the structuring values of Cameroon’s action in the fight against this scourge at global level. Thus, the State of Cameroon in ratifying various treaties and agreements on the subject, has subscribed to the obligation to respect commitments thereunder, and, in line with the said commitments, our country has adopted a law on the suppression of acts of terrorism, with a principle to prosecute the persons suspected of such acts. These people have the same rights as ordinary litigants, including the presumption of innocence, the rights of defense and appeal.

Moreover, prosecutions do not always result in systematic convictions. Let me give you some enlightening statistics to this effect as of December 31, 2015. At the Yaoundé Military Court, among the three decisions issued by that date, two resulted in acquittals on cases of complicity in acts of terrorism and acts of cybercrime. At the Garoua Military Court, among the 19 cases pending to that date, two decisions were issued, one declaring the extinction of public action. At the Maroua Military Court, 209 procedures were investigated, of which 146 ended with 133 death sentences, 11 life sentences, two sentences to 20 years imprisonment, but 63 rulings to dismiss certain cases and order acquittals.

I therefore affirm here that there is no summary execution of people suspected of terrorist acts in Cameroon.

We must also remember that our Defence and Security Forces enjoy a solid training including the imperative of respect for human rights in the exercise of their profession in matters of suppression of terrorism. To err being human, when cases of abuses are reported, disciplinary procedures are initiated against the authors who subsequently and when necessary appear before competent courts.

In their complaints, our detractors equally mention the non-respect for press freedom in Cameroon. This is strange for a country hosting hundreds of newspapers, more than a hundred radios and over twenty television channels, to which we must add a free access to the Internet. With regard to access to information, we are being told that the media and journalists of the private press do not receive accreditations for the coverage of some major official events. I leave you the leisure to judge for yourself and get an idea of the credibility of such reports that overwhelm Cameroon's failure to comply with human rights.

Better still, though we may agree that the level of State support to private media remains below its minimum target, it is established that the Government has already endorsed this principle and that year after year, the private press benefits from some government subsidy dedicated to matters of general interest in order to contribute to its economic viability and by so doing, sustaining citizen’s right to information.

As far as freedom of assembly and public demonstration is concerned, this freedom is guaranteed by the law. As such, meetings and public demonstrations are subject to prior declaration only. It is therefore important to understand in this respect that the principle remains the freedom of assembly and/or public demonstration, whereas the ban is an exception. However, even when a meeting or public demonstration suffers no ban, the organizers should stick to the subject and the venue declared to competent authorities.

As a general rule, the motives that may lead to the banning of a meeting or public demonstration can only be grounded on the law in force. These must be known by all those who pretend to exercise the freedom of assembly or public demonstration. They include: non-declaration of meeting, established threat to public order, non legal existence of the organization wishing to organize the event, change of initially declared subject, quality defect of the person declaring the meeting, non respect of legal deadlines (it should be noted that the declaration must be done at least three days ahead of the meeting or event).

In any case, every ban should be duly motivated by the administrative authority initiating it. It remains that such restrictive measure is subject to judicial remedy before the competent administrative courts. We do notice however, that notwithstanding this judicial remedy provision, most organizers of demonstrations or meetings subject to ban, certainly being aware of their own guilt, rather opt for the roundabout way of agitation and disinformation through the media than legal remedy.

Distinguished Journalists,

Permit me, before concluding my statement, to let you know that most organizations assuming authorship of such reports on human rights in our country care less about working with State officials tasked with the protection and regulation of these rights, but undoubtedly prefer to consult market criers who in their view seem to be in a better position to tell them what they would like to hear. As for those that are a little bit scrupulous, and who, from time to time, seek official responses from the Government, they are always served. However it is surprising to notice that Government’s contributions are never restituted when publishing the reports.

Even worse, such reports come one after the other and always look like one another, as though nothing ever evolves in the human rights landscape in Cameroon, thereby unveiling the bias and hidden will to undermine the interests and the image of our country abroad. Unfortunately for them, Cameroonians, in their overwhelming majority, can never be misled by such maneuvers. They will continue to fight with every fiber and ounce of strength, as committed as they are, to the dynamics of emergence led by the Head of their Nation, His Excellency Paul BIYA.

Thank you for your kind attention.