Cameroon: still falling short

Maxime Bissay. One of the primary barriers to accessing justice is poverty. Many people simply cannot afford to hire a lawyer to defend their rights or to follow the necessary legal procedures. Corruption permeates the entire judicial system—from the police to the judiciary. Cases do not progress without financial assistance, and favourable decisions are often contingent on bribery. Less affluent individuals are well aware that those with means can circumvent the law. There is a widespread lack of trust in judicial institutions, which are seen as inequitable and inefficient.

Access to justice for people in detention remains largely theoretical. The law provides for legal aid with a court-appointed lawyer for those without resources. However, the fees are ridiculously low and are often left unpaid by the courts. Consequently, these lawyers invest little effort, and their defence cases are rarely prioritised.

Other factors undermine access to fair justice, even though it is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Cameroonian Code of Criminal Procedure. A shortage of judges limits transparency and the effective implementation of procedures—even though professionals are trained in judicial schools. Moreover, the budgets of the courts are not made public.

According to official data, more than half of those in detention have not yet been tried—a figure that civil society organisations believe is underestimated.

Pre-trial detention may not exceed a duration of three to twelve months, depending on the severity of the offence, renewable only once. Yet I have met people in detention who have been awaiting their trials for two, even three years. The sluggishness of the process is also due to the geographical distance between the local courts and the courts of appeal—there is only one appellate court per region.

Those convicted in the first instance can appeal the decision, but cases are not systematically forwarded to the court of appeal. Moreover, if incarcerated people cannot afford to travel to the city where the competent court sits, their cases eventually end up being forgotten. Their only hope then rests on the support of human rights organisations.

The challenges are even greater for those accused of terrorism or of involvement in the Anglophone crisis¹. Their cases are tried by a military tribunal, without the guarantees of rights provided by criminal procedure. The duration of their pre-trial detention regularly exceeds the legal limit of six months, renewable once. Individuals suspected of terrorism are frequently presumed guilty even before being tried.

MB. The consequences affect not only those in detention but also civil society organisations. As long as the Protocol remains unratified, our work within prisons is precarious, as access depends on the relationships built with prison officials. These doors can close at any moment.

The absence of external oversight is particularly detrimental to people in detention. Visits by human rights organisations serve as a deterrent against potential rights violations and can help provide a sense of security to those detained. Without such external surveillance, they are often left in conditions prone to abuse.

Interestingly, despite not having ratified OPCAT, Cameroon has established its own institution—the “National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture”, a sub-commission of the National Human Rights Commission. However, this structure lacks independence from the executive branch. Its members are appointed by presidential decree, and the Commission is directly overseen by the Secretary General of the Presidency. Typically, its members come from the ruling party. The reports it produces are confidential and are addressed solely to the Presidency. Civil society organisations have had access to only one report—one that was notably devoid of substance—since the creation of this body. These shortcomings significantly limit the oversight role that civil society organisations can play.

MB. Cameroonian law still provides for the death penalty, with three stages for its execution: the decision of a judge, a public execution, and its publication in the official gazette. In practice, however, Cameroon observes a moratorium on capital punishment.

Extra-judicial executions continue to occur. For example, the Operational Command initiative¹ was implemented by the government between 2000 and 2001 to eradicate organised crime in Douala. Suspects were summarily executed without being brought before any court—military or civilian.

Today, the continuation of the moratorium depends solely on the will of the President. For human rights defenders, this represents a veritable sword of Damocles. It would only take a new leader coming to power for the moratorium to be lifted. This is a substantial uncertainty as long as this possibility remains enshrined in our penal code. Cameroonian authorities, however, justify the retention of the death penalty as a deterrent against terrorism.

It is essential to continue efforts towards abolition through both national and international advocacy. Abolitionist countries also have a role to play, given their capacity to influence. In Cameroon, ACAT and its partners are actively campaigning with the authorities. These actions intensified ahead of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly held in December 2024, during which Cameroon once again abstained from voting on UN resolutions calling for a universal moratorium on capital executions.

The National Human Rights Commission recently drafted a memorandum in favour of abolishing the death penalty. We contributed to its drafting. However, the document has never been shared—neither publicly nor with civil society organisations.

ACAT is working to share information and raise public awareness. Many Cameroonians are unaware that the death penalty is still in force. We use community radio stations to highlight this issue and help ensure respect for the right to life, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This awareness-raising is particularly important since those sentenced to death are frequently abandoned by those close to them, regardless of the severity of the alleged crimes. Families also fear being associated with the accusations, particularly in cases related to terrorism, leaving the condemned even more isolated.