Personal Blog of Zuzeeko Abeng

Cameroon: Ayah Foundation discriminates against homosexuals -- an affront to humanitarianism

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:48:00 +0000

Homophobia is rife in Cameroon, a majority Christian country where homosexuality is still illegal in 2020 and homophobes take their cues from religion and a colonial law that is at odds with international human rights - and humanitarian - standards. Homophobia in Cameroon is alarming but not surprising. However, it is definitely surprising when homophobia and blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation emanates from a humanitarian non-governmental organization.

The Ayah International Foundation (AIF), commonly known as the Ayah Foundation, is an association described on its website as "a humanitarian organization with neither political nor religious affiliations committed to preserving and/or improving the lives of vulnerable persons around the world." Despite its charitable works - from orphanages to refugee camps and to supporting persons internally displaced by a crisis that broke out in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon in 2016 - numerous posts on the Facebook page of the foundation's president, which doubles as the foundation's Facebook page, from December 2019 into January 2020 reveal that the foundation, or at least its leadership, is homophobic and discriminates against individuals based on sexual orientation.

On December 30, 2019, in a Facebook update titled "Understanding Homosexuals", a photograph of a young girl was posted on the Ayah DeHumanitarian Facebook page and followers were asked to look at the "beautiful African queen" and "give me one reason why a man will go after a man for heaven's sake?" The Facebook page went to ask its audience, "Isn't the woman the best 'thing' God created?"

On the same day, in another Facebook post titled "AIF Doesn't Accept Donations from Homosexuals", the Foundation, through its president, reinforced its so-called "crusade" against homosexuality, which it dubbed "unholy". The organization "categorically" stated that it would "never knowingly receive funds from any homosexual" association or group. The association went on to state that it would refund the donation of an individual "if he proves to us that he is a practicing homosexual" and that he made a donation to the association.

In one of the screenshots of exchanges with the individual who took the association to task, the AIF president referred to the individual as "sick" and in need of "serious help".

At the time of this writing the post had garnered 159 comments, including a slew of homophobic comments -- none of which the foundation or it president disavowed or condemned.

Tripling down on its homophobia, the "DeHumanitarian" asked a question on his Facebook page the next day, December 31, 2019, about "preserving" Africa from homosexuality.

On the same day, he went on to post a piece calling on a ban on same-sex schools in a bid to "combat homosexuality".

On January 1, 2020 the AIF shared a post by a Cameroonian LGBTQ activist, Kiki Bandy, taking the foundation to task for its homophobia. In the post, the activist challenged Ayah Foundation to update its website with information that it does not accept donations from homosexuals, and she predicted that the post will hurt the foundation. In a post the next day, the president of the foundation promised to do so. The foundation also announced that it had reached out to the Cameroonian LGBTQ activist in a bid to refund her donation.

On January 7, 2019 the Ayah Foundation announced that it has updated its website to include a clause that it does not accept donations from "advocates, believers in, and/or practitioners of same sex marriage and/or homosexuality."

MY TAKE

First of all, it is worth stating that the line between the personal Facebook page of the President of AIF and the association's is blurred and posts by the president of the association are in my view attributable to the association.

Non-discrimination constitutes the core of international human rights law, and discrimination on all grounds, including sexual orientation, race, sex, gender, nationality, political or other opinion, religion, color, disability, language and other grounds is prohibited in all key international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child. Regional human rights instrument, including the African Charter on Human and People's Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights

Drawing from the aforementioned Facebook posts, it is plausible to conclude that the Ayah International Foundation is blatantly homophobic and discriminates based on sexual orientation. A catalogue of Facebook posts from December 2019 into January 2020, as examined above, strongly support this assertion.

Some might argue that the Facebook posts in question are not attributable to the Ayah Foundation because there were posted by the president of the Foundation. Those who hold this school of thought are wrong. The words of the president of the Foundation are attributable to the Foundation because the president speaks for the Foundation, and the Foundation acted on the utterances of the president by updating its website to reflect the homophobic views expressed by its president. In addition, there seems to be, in fact, no distinction between the Facebook page of the President of the Foundation and the Foundation's because all the Foundations activities, including press statements are posted on the Facebook page in question. Above all, the Foundation has not disavowed or condemned the Facebook posts. It follows that the views expressed are representative of the views of the Foundation.

By not accepting donations from advocates and so-called "practitioners of same-sex marriages and/or homosexuality" the Ayah Foundation essentially does not accept donations from human rights advocates. This is the case because all human rights advocates worth their salt adhere to the principle of non-discrimination and oppose discrimination on all grounds, including sexual orientation.

A Foundation that discriminates should not be in the business of humanitarian work because humanitarianism is about humanity, and, according to teaching resources by the British Red Cross, the principle of humanitarianism "promotes mutual understanding, friendship, co-operation and lasting peace amongst all peoples." It follows that discrimination of any kind has no place in humanitarianism.

Impartiality and unity are among fundamental principles of the Red Cross, according to The International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Red Cross, for example, which to me is the standard bearer of humanitarian action, "makes no discrimination" and "must be open to all".

While it is clear that the Ayah Foundation is homophobic and discriminates on grounds of sexual orientation against donors and humanitarians who seek to take humanitarian action through the Foundation, it remains unclear whether or not the Foundation discriminates in provision of assistance. However, the foundation certainly cannot be trusted to provide assistance to everyone, without discrimination of any kind.

The Ayah Foundation prides itself on its website as having no religious affiliations. That might be true but the Foundation is certainly influenced by the religious views of its president, who on January 5, 2020 posted a video preaching about tithing, on the same Facebook page that promulgated homophobia and discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community. In the video, he raises questions, including "who is the Lord addressing in Malachi 3:10?" The video, it is worth mentioning, includes a link to the Foundation's website. The debunks the association's "no religious affiliations" claims.

By refusing to accept donations from members of the LGBTQ community and advocates, the Ayah Foundation, a humanitarian association violates the principle of non-discrimination, which according to the International Committee of the Red Cross is a basic tenet of international humanitarian law. Violating a basic tenet of humanitarianism, in my view, is enough to disqualify an association or individual that calls itself humanitarian.

A racist president of the United States? The case of Donald J. Trump

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 20:20:00 +0000

Since Donald J. Trump came down the escalator at Trump Tower in New York on June 14, 2015 and announced his run for the presidency of the United States there have been questions and debates whether or not the real estate businessman and reality television celebrity is a racist. The jury has been out for more than three years but the verdict finally came in on July 14, 2019 by way of a series of tweets by the controversial U.S. president.

On Sunday July 14, 2019 Donald J. Trump, president of the United States, directed a series of tweets at four Democratic congresswomen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts - saying the four women of color should "go back" to the countries they "originally came from".

The Trump tweets prompted widespread condemnation - and rightly so - mostly from Democrats, and led to a vote on a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives to condemn the tweets. The resolution, according to the BBC, denounced the president's "racist comments that have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color." The resolution passed by 240 votes to 187 - with four Republicans, one Independent and all Democrats who voted supporting it, according to CNN.

Screenshot of Trump presidential bid announcement, June 2015

Meanwhile on Twitter #RacistPresident was trending.

I even weighed in with a tweet of my own.

The most blatantly racist tweet yet by a U.S. president who feels emboldened and makes no secret of his #racism. He’s a proud poster boy for racists across the U.S. https://t.co/XWBZW3gVSh
— Zuzeeko (@zuzeeko) July 14, 2019

The backlash was strong - with media outlets and numerous politicians, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi referring to the Trump tweets as "racist" and "xenophobic". In a tweet on July 14, the Speaker of House stated that when Donald Trump tells four congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to "Make America Great Again" has always been about making America white again. The Speaker said on the House floor that "every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets".

Across the Atlantic, Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, condemned the Trump tweets as "blatant unashamed racism". The mayor was among British politicians who signed an open letter of solidarity with the attacked U.S. congresswomen along with almost 14,000 other signatories. British opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn referred to the Trump tweets as "racist".

My Take

For many, the racist tweets attacking four congresswomen of color seem to have been the wake-up call that Donald J. Trump harbors racist white nationalist views but for me alarm bells went off way back in 2015 when he came down that escalator in Trump Tower and announced his presidential bid. Some of the things he said on that fateful day were, in my view, plainly racist. He said, for example, that "when Mexico sends its people they are not sending their best… they are sending people that have lots of problems and they are bringing those problems with us. They are bringing drugs, they are bringing crime, they are rapists..."

That was racist - and of course xenophobic.

Trump essentially launched his presidential campaign on a racist platform, and months later he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." That again was racist, xenophobic and, yes, Islamophobic. Needless to say, he went on to secure the 2016 Republican party presidential nomination and eventually became the 45th president of the United States. He was not done yet.

Remember Charlottesville?

Following a deadly clash between white supremacists and anti-racism protesters during a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, Donald Trump said during a press briefing that there were "very fine people, on both sides" -- essentially drawing false equivalence between racist white supremacists on the one hand and anti-racism activists on the other.

Long before running for president the Department of Justice filed a housing discrimination lawsuit against Trump and his father. That was in 1973. According to an article on The New York Times titled "No Vacancies" for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias, the Justice Department sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks after an investigation into housing discrimination against blacks at Trump properties. Both Fred Trump, the Company's chairman, and his son Donald Trump, its president, were named as defendants. The lawsuit was settled in 1975. The New York Times reportedly carried out its own investigation and uncovered "a long history of racial bias" at Trump's family properties in New York and beyond.

Then there is the story of the "Central Park Five" - four blacks and one Latino young teens who were accused in 1989 of beating an raping a white girl in Central Park. The boys were interrogated under duress, according to Vox, and they offered a coerced confession. Trump took out full-paged front page ads in a number of newspapers calling for their execution. DNA evidence exonerated the boys thirteen years later and a serial rapist confessed to the murder -- but Trump refuses to apologize to the Central Park Five, even though they were exonerated and agreed to a $4.1 million settlement with the city of New York. Reading one of the Trump ads in relation to the Central Park Five titled "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY! BRING BACK OUR POLICE!" it is easy to see that Trump attempted to paint a typical white nationalist picture of "us" against "them" in the ad: "I no longer want to understand their anger", he wrote. "I want them to understand our anger". That he refuses to apologize as of the time of this writing compounds his racial bias. It is hard to believe that Trump would have stuck to his guns if five white teenage boys accused of rape were exonerated by DNA evidence.

When it comes to Trump and racism the so-called "birther movement" that questioned President Barack Obama's place of birth and citizenship deserves an honorary mention. Donald Trump led the racist birther movement that spread the conspiracy theory that America's first black president was born in Kenya hence is not an American citizen and by extension cannot be a legitimate president of the United States. The movement, in my view, was based on the color of Obama's skin. It was racist. If Obama were a white U.S. politician - from say Mississippi - there would have been no question about his place of birth or eligibility for the presidency. According to an article on Fortune, Trump began echoing the birther conspiracy theory as far back as 2011.

Drawing from the afore, there is ample reason to believe that the 45th president of the United States is, well, racist.

"Go back to your country" - as Trump told the four congresswomen of color - is a statement straight out of the racist, xenophobic white nationalist handbook. It is a classic hate crime trope, according to NowThis News. Almost every person of color or person of African descent living in the United States (and/or Europe) and has had the misfortune of being confronted by a White nationalist or neo-Nazis must have probably heard it at least once. As an immigrant myself living in Finland I have heard the phrase from people I would aptly describe as racist. I have, for example, heard it uttered by a member of a Finnish neo-Nazi group during one of the group's demonstrations next to s shopping mall in the East of Helsinki. A member of the neo-Nazi group, it is worth mentioning, was later involved in the killing of 28-year-old man during a demonstration by the group in the heart of Helsinki - sparking debate whether or not the group should be banned.

I welcome the backlash directed at Trump for the racist tweets, and the resolution by the House of Representatives condemning the tweets but I am somewhat disappointed that it took so long for Americans, including the media to wake up - if they have woken up at all - to the fact that, as stated by George Conway, a New York lawyer and husband to Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, in an opinion piece in The Washington Post: "Trump is a racist president".

That statement by Mr. Conway encapsulates my take.

Come November 2020 Americans have an opportunity at the ballot box to fix the problem by rejecting racism and all the baggage that comes with having a racist president who puts cruel immigration policies in place such as family separations and putting migrants, including children seeking asylum in cages at the border because he views migrants and asylum seekers as "rapists" bringing nothing but "drugs" and "crime".

It's official: Cameroon is a dictatorship

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 06:41:00 +0000

The Republic of Cameroon has been ruled by one man, Paul Biya, since November 1982. By virtue of the president's longivity at the helm alone- and the fact that in 2008 the 86-year-old eliminated presidential term limits from the Constitution of the Republic - Cameroon has been tagged a dictatorship by many analysts. But recent, more disturbing events, including the arrest and imprisonment of a political party leader and presidential election candidate and his supporters have added weight to the assertion that Cameroon is, in fact, a dictatorship.

On January 28, 2019 Maurice Kamto, leader of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement - a party that contested the results of the 2018 presidential election, was arrested in Douala along other political activists, including one who was pulled out of his hospital bed where he was recovering from a gunshot wound sustained during a peaceful protest, according to The Guardian. Kamto was arrested after his opposition party organized several peaceful protests in towns across the country, including one in the economic capital Douala on January 26, 2019 during which police opened fire on protesters - wounding two prominent figures of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement, namely Michelle Ndoki and Celestin Djamen. Human rights group Amnesty International condemned the violent crackdown and called for the release of more than a hundred peaceful protesters arrested for exercising their right to peaceful protests. The rights group also expressed concern that Maurice Kamto and more that a hundred supporters face the death penalty as Cameroonian authorities intensify crackdown of critics.

Screenshot: The Guardian

One month after the arrest of Kamto, Michele Ndoki, a lawyer and political activist of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement was arrested. Prior to her arrest, she was among those shot and wounded by police during a peaceful protest in Douala. She is one of the lawyers who argued before the Constitutional Council for the annulment of the 2018 presidential election. Amnesty International launched a petition calling for her release. According to the human rights group, she was arrested on February 25, 2019 while trying to cross the border to Nigeria. She faces charges of rebellion, hostility against the homeland, incitement of insurrection, offence against the president of the republic and destruction of public buildings and goods. She faces the death penalty, according to Amnesty International.

Earlier this week, a popular Cameroonian musician popularly known as Longue Longue was reportedly arrested in Douala in relation to a video he posted on social media criticizing the government and results of the disputed 2018 presidential election. He was reportedly released later.

MY TAKE

Cameroon is a dictatorship. It has always been under 86-year-old president Paul Biya who has been in power for almost four decades -- but the arrest of opposition leader Maurice Kamto and his supporters on trumped up politically motivate charges solidifies Cameroon's place on the global list of dictatorships where authoritarian regimes crackdown of political dissent using riot police in the streets and judges in politicized courts, including military tribunals.

By arresting a political party leader and members of his party for protesting, Cameroon has now checked all the boxes of what makes a dictatorship:

Crackdown on peaceful protesters
Killing of protesters by riot police
Presidential elections marred by allegations of massive systematic fraud
Arbitrary arrests, torture and incommunicado detentions
Eliminations of presidential term limits
Arrest of opposition political party leaders and political activists
Stifling of free press through arrest and imprisonment of journalists
Prosecuting civilians before military courts

If you ever doubted whether or not Cameroon, under the Biya regime, is a dictatorship where human rights and fundamental freedoms are assaulted -- doubt no more. With an aggregate score of 19 out of 100 (19/100), the country is classified "Not Free" in the Freedom in the World 2019 report published by Freedom House

Dictatorships can always claim elections were free and fair, especially when, in some cases, bogus international observers like those uncovered during the 2018 presidential elections in Cameroon endorse the results. But dictatorships cannot deny the arrest and persecution of opposition political party leaders, political activists and journalists before military courts. According to Amnesty International in its 2017/18 annual report, human rights defenders, including civil society activists, trade unionists and journalists in Cameroon "continued to be intimidated, harassed and threatened", and unfair trials continued before military courts, which are often "marred by irregularities". The report documents military court trials against journalists like Radio France Internationale correspondent Ahmed Abba.

Cameroon has always been a dictatorship. A country where the Head of State has absolute control over all branches of government, including the judiciary which is routinely being used to silence political dissent with the help of a sweeping anti-terrorism law -- a law that severely restricts freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and has landed several journalists, political activists and peaceful protesters before military courts on trumped up charges.

The mere fact that the Head of State, 86-year-old Paul Biya, Africa's oldest president who will be 92 when his new term ends, according to The Associated Press, recently won a seventh consecutive term in office - all disputed - after eliminating presidential term limits from the Constitution of the Republic in 2008 - points to a dictatorship but sometimes more evidence is needed to prove a case. Recent events in Cameroon over the past couple of months, including the arrest of political party leader Maurice Kamto and political activists of his party, Cameroon Renaissance Movement, have provided plenty of supporting evidence -- evidence that adds weight to the long-standing assertion that Cameroon under the Paul Biya regime is a dictatorship.

Cameroon Anglophone crisis: Real threat of Genocide -- but not necessarily by the Military

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Fri, 28 Dec 2018 07:40:00 +0000

For over two years Cameroon has been engulfed in a political impasse that has over time degenerated into a humanitarian and human rights crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions of the country. Many people have been killed and thousands displaced internally and internationally, and there have been allegations of a genocide happening in the affected regions. While there is evidence of possible war crimes committed by the Cameroonian military operating in the Anglophone regions of the country, there is no concrete evidence of a genocide - in the true sense of the word - happening yet. However, there is a real possibility of a genocide in the future if the crisis is not addressed, but the impending genocide would not necessarily be committed by the military. The Bangourain attack, allegedly by an armed group from the English-speaking region, and the retaliatory attack against Anglophones in Bangourain that followed are a warning sign and a blueprint of what could spark a genocide.

In 2016, lawyers in the English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon went on strike - decrying what has been described as the "Francophonization" of the legal system in the regions by way of, for example, appointing French-speaking judges to courts in English-speaking regions. When their demands were not met they took to the streets in peaceful protest. The protest were met by tear-gas and a heavy-handed response by state security forces. Teachers, students and the general population joined the protests, and the situation morphed into a mass uprising against marginalization of English-speaking Cameroonians in a majority French-speaking country. The government's heavy-handed response continued and what started as a call for reform turned into calls for outright secession of the English-speaking regions.

Armed groups emerged and the Anglophone regions of Cameroon became engulfed in outright armed conflict between separatist groups and state defense and security forces. Hundreds - if not thousands have been killed, schools and houses burnt down and hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes in Cameroon's Anglophone Northwest and Southwest regions. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), more than 437,000 people in the Northwest and Southwest have been displaced internally as of November 30, 2018. The socio-political situation in Cameroon remains tense, and there have been a proliferation of non-state armed groups. According to UN estimates, thousands of Cameroonians have fled to Nigeria. Over 20,000 Cameroonian refugees were registered in Nigeria as of March 2018.

Civilians have been caught in the crossfire and "genocide" has been used to describe atrocities committed in the region, sometimes against whole villages. "This is a genocide", a woman reportedly told The Guardian. According to The New York Times, many have accused the Cameroonian military of "genocide".

MY TAKE

A genocide, according to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, means "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Drawing from the afore definition, genocide is a serious crime. It is not a word to be thrown around lightly else risks losing seriousness. That said, atrocities have been committed in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon, and the Cameroonian military has been linked, by credible sources and analysis, to the atrocities. These atrocities including extrajudicial killings and the burning down of civilians' houses and in some cases the razing down of whole villages. In June 2018, using satellite imagery and eye-witness testimonies, BBC Africa Eye linked Cameroon's state security forces with the burning of villages.

Some of the atrocities committed by the military rise to the level of war crimes, but, in my view, fall short of genocide. The atrocities include burning down of villages and houses, destroying sources of livelihood in civilian areas, torturing and killing captured suspected separatists. War crimes have, without a doubt, been committed in the armed conflict in the Northwest and Southwest regions. These war crimes include the burning of schools, destruction of hospitals and health centres and kidnapping of civilians, including students and teachers by non-state armed groups.

As to genocide, it looms but has not been committed yet. It will happen when Anglophones or Anglophone non-state armed groups will target and kill Francophones or vice versa, and the affected group retaliates -- targeting and killing members of the other group "with intent to destroy in whole or in part" as retaliation. Last weekend there were glimpses of what could spark a genocide in the context of the Anglophone crisis when homes were set ablaze in Bangourain in the West Region allegedly by armed Anglophone non-state actors. The reported attack on the French-speaking community reportedly happened on December 23, 2018, and was captured on video that was widely shared on Facebook. In the video a voice is clearly heard saying the attack is retaliation for the treatment of Anglophones. According to BBC News Pidgin the assailants were about 300

gunmen. One person was killed, about 80 houses burnt down and 15 people kidnapped. Members of the Bangourain community on their part retaliated three days later by publicly beating to death two Anglophones suspected of involvement in the Bangourain attack, and reportedly asked Anglophones to leave the area. The gruesome killing that could be aptly described as a public lynching was also captured on video and widely shared on Facebook.

I am afraid we have not heard the last of Bangourain yet. Both sides, Anglophones and Francophones in Bangourain and in the rest of the country must exercise restraint in order to avoid an escalation that could lead to mass killings along linguistic lines or, yes - a genocide.

The Bangourain tragedy is a warning sign and a blueprint of how a genocide could be sparked in the context of the Anglophone crisis. The genocide would not necessarily be committed by the military. It would be committed by civilians, when, for example, someday, for some reason, French-speaking Cameroonians turn against English-speaking civilians or vice versa. That is how the Rwandan genocide happened. Hutus turned against Tutsis.

Africa didn't win the FIFA World Cup 2018. France did

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:11:00 +0000

Africa was represented in the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia by five countries: Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia. With the elimination of all African teams from the tournament in the group stages - the last to exit the big stage being Senegal - many Africans, either out of ridicule or genuine support - turned to France, and dubbed the European country's squad an "African team". Others referred to it as the "United Nation of France" or "Africa United" - due to the large number of players of African descent in the squad. Many claimed that there was still an "African team" in the tournament, despite the fact that no side from Africa made it to the knockout stages. France went on to win the World Cup, and the chatter surrounding the French side continued - with some claiming Africa won it for France.

Africa, according to the BBC, suffered its worst World Cup display in 36 years, with no side from the African continent making it to the knockout stages for the first time since 1982. France went on to win the tournament, with nineteen of its 23 players being immigrants or children of immigrants, according to AJ+ on Twitter. According to an article posted on The Undefeated, twelve of the 23 French players are of African ancestry. The BBC puts the number at fifteen out of 23.

Since all teams from the African continent exited the tournament the ethnic composition of the French national team has been making the rounds on social media. After the final, social media was awash with tweets and Facebook posts about the African ancestry of French players. One Twitter user, for example captured it all when he congratulated Africa for the victory.

Congratulations Africa... I mean France;)https://t.co/nju1oBiDaW
— Khaled Beydoun (@KhaledBeydoun) July 15, 2018

That was the general point of view of Africans online after the final whistle in Luzhniki stadium in Moscow on July 15, 2018.

MY TAKE

France, not Africa, won the 2018 FIFA World Cup. It is true that on account of personnel, the French national team is made up of Africans but it is, in fact, France's team. The French players - be it Samuel Umtiti whose parents are reported from my home country, Cameroon, or Adil Rami whose parents are reportedly from Morocco, or Paul Pogba whose parents reportedly hail from Guinea, or Blaise Matuidi whose parents hail from Angola and Congo, or N'Golo Kante whose parents reportedly hail from Mali - are French. They are French nationals, and France gave them the training and opportunity they need to play football at the highest level. They wore the French colors and represented France, not Africa - which by the way is not a country.

The way I see it, France takes almost all, if not all, credit for winning the World Cup, and it would be disingenuous to argue otherwise. The only credit I give Africa is ancestry - and ancestry alone, I believe, cannot win tournaments.

The French starting XI at the World Cup final was made up of many players of African descent: Kante, Pogba, Matudi, Mbappe and Umtiti. But Africa's contribution to their success in terms of football is almost non-existent. None of them has ever played professional or academy football in Africa. In fact, there is a strong case to be made that chances are, due to bad governance and corruption, including nepotism and lack of basic infrastructure many of the French star players, including 19-year-old Kylian Mbappe whose father reportedly hails from Cameroon and mother from Algeria would not have had an opportunity to reach their full potential had there been in Africa. As a Cameroonian, I am all too aware of how bad governance has ruined the nation, including sports. Mbappe who won the FIFA Young Player Award would, I reckon, probably not have made it into the Cameroonian national team due to nepotism. He might not even have had an opportunity to play football as a tot due to socio-economic limitations. And even if he beat the odds and made it into the team, corruption would have stunted his development in the trade.

I would argue further that many Africans who recognize French players now would have probably not embraced them had they not won the World Cup, or if a team from the continent had gone further in the tournament. It would have been interesting to see the reaction if France came up against Nigeria, for example.

The representation of the French Team as an "African team" is opportunistic and intended to divide and provoke France - a country many Africans see as responsible for the sorry-state of affairs on the African continent as a result of colonial and neocolonialism. It is also a somewhat racially divisive point to make -- as it pits people of African descent against the rest of France. It plays right into the hands of racist far-right extremists who hold the view that immigrants or children of immigrants born and raised in France are not and can never be French.

The players who won the World Cup are French. They recognize themselves as such, legally and socio-culturally, and that is what matters. They are of African descent but they are also French. In fact, Paul Pogba, speaking ahead of a the game said, amongst other things, that "we all feel French, we're all happy to wear this jersey".

If Africa wants credit for winning the FIFA World Cup it should start investing in its young people, and, of course, their parents, so that they won't have to leave the continent - sometimes making perilous journeys across the Mediterranean sea - seeking refuge and opportunities elsewhere.

Push to criminalize forced marriage in Finland

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 08:54:00 +0000

Forced marriage is often presented as a third world problem - a grave injustice in distant lands across Africa, Asia and the Middle East. But, in reality, it is a global phenomenon that negatively impacts young girls and women across the globe, including in developed countries like the United States and Finland. In February 2017 the Washington Post reported, for example, that thousands of American children are wed annually. The case of an 11-year-old forced to marry her rapist in Florida was revealed by the New York Times in an opinion piece by Nicolas Kristof. Regardless of where forced marriage prevails it should be outlawed. Those living in forced marriages or those at risk of being forced into marriage should have appropriate legal protection from the harmful practice. In Finland, the Finnish League for Human Rights, known nationally as Ihmisoikeusliitto is leading the charge to criminalize forced marriage in the Nordic country.

The Finnish League for Human Rights is running a petition (in Finnish) to criminalize forced marriage in Finland. The organization defines forced marriage as marriage that is entered into without the full consent of one or both parties, and into which they or any of them is forced or pressured. According to the organization forced marriage in Finland takes many forms. The practice was brought to light by studies by the Finnish League of Human Rights and the Ministry of Justice in 2016 and 2017 respectively but present legislation is not enough to intervene. The government of Finland has to send a clear message that it does not approve forced marriage, according to the Finnish League for Human Rights. The organization urges its supporters and supporters of the campaign to outlaw forced marriage to sign the petition, which is addressed to Minister of Justice Antti Häkkänen.

The Finnish League for Human rights states in the petition, among other things, that forced marriage has been designated a violation of human rights in many international human rights agreements such as the United Nations convention on women's rights and the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention -- which Finland ratified in 2015. The Convention is legally binding on Member States, and demands, among other thing, the criminalization of forced marriage. The practice is outlawed by many countries in Europe such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

My Take

I signed the petition to criminalize forced marriage in Finland. No one should be forced into marriage. Marriage should be entered into freely by both parties - without any form of coercion whatsoever. And, in addition, marriage must be between consenting adults. This explains why child marriage, in my view, is forced marriage since minors - like adults under duresss - cannot give consent.

Finland's current legislation does not go far enough to address forced marriage. According to the Finnish League for Human Rights the practice could be punished under the Finnish Penal Code as aggravated human trafficking or coercion but present legislation does not cover every coercion. In addition, coercion is currently an injured party crime whereupon it is the victim's responsibility to initiate criminal proceedings. This is problematic, in my view, because victims of forced marriage, usually children, cannot be reasonably expected to initiative criminal proceedings against their parents. Forced marriage is a practice rooted in harmful cultural norms and traditions, including patriarchy. Young girls and children, more often than not, cannot challenge long-standing cultural norms within their families and communities by, for example, making police reports against their fathers or family members who force them into marriage. Challenging the norm or tradition could be seen as bringing "dishonor" to the family, and could lead to disownment -- or even death in some cases.

Ala Saeed, vice-chairperson of the Iraqi Women's Association, told the Finnish League for Human Rights that girls go into forced marriages because they do not want to lose their families. I think, in the same vein, victims would not initiate criminal proceedings for the same reason. Victims of forced marriage cannot protect themselves; they need the authorities to protect them. They need civil society to remind the authorities of their obligation to protect them. In order to adequately protect victims of forced marriage the authorities, including police and prosecutors should be able to initiative investigations and legal proceedings on their own initiative. Onus should be on the authorities, not victims. The only way this can happen is by criminalizing forced marriage, and taking it off the "injured party crime" category.

The petition to criminalize forced marriage will be submitted to the Minister of Justice on April 5, 2018. Sign the petition now. When I signed the petition it had garnered 4591 signatures, including mine. As of today, one day before it is delivered to the Minister of Justice, 5468 people have signed it.

Cameroon: security forces commit war crimes on two fronts

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:55:00 +0000

When criminals go unpunished they are emboldened by the impunity they enjoy, and go on to commit more of the same crimes. This is the case in Cameroon where state security forces have, for decades, enjoyed impunity for heinous crimes committed against unarmed civilians. Now, feeling emboldened and beyond the reach of the law, their criminality knows no bounds, and civilians in the Far North and Anglophone regions in the northwest and southwest are paying the price.

In July 2017 Amnesty International published a report that spotlights secret torture chambers in Cameroon. The report documents the cases of 101 individuals who were held incommunicado, tortured, and sometimes killed by state security forces between March 2013 and March 2017 in facilities run by the Cameroon military and intelligence services. In the 73-page report, titled "Cameroon's Secret tortured Chambers: Human rights violations and War crimes in the fight against Boko Haram", Amnesty International states that the use of torture by security forces has become widespread and routine, and is practiced with impunity. Violations documented in the report include arbitrary arrest and detention, incommunicado and secret detention, death in custody, and torture. According to Amnesty International, the actions of Cameroon security forces constitute war crimes and violations of international human rights law. The detailed report, which includes concrete recommendations, a letter to President Paul Biya of Cameroon, and a letter to U.S diplomat Michael S. Hoza - who served as U.S. Ambassador to Cameroon from 2014 to 2017 - accuses Cameroon's security forces, including the Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR) of torture and war crimes. The report also includes a reply from Ambassador Hoza to Amnesty International in which he acknowledges receipt of Amnesty International's letter concerning allegations of human rights abuses, and affirms that the U.S. Embassy in Yaounde and the Department of State "take such allegations seriously...".

Now, with a crisis in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon, state security forces have moved south -- deployed by the government to quell a popular uprising in the Northwest and Southwest regions. Their modus operandi remains the same: arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, extrajudicial killings, and torture and cruel and inhuman treatment of civilians.

Since the closing months of 2016 Anglophones in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon have been protesting against what has been described as "Francophonization" of the region. But what started as a call for reform in the educational and judicial system in the region has morphed into calls for secession and outright independence. Anglophones, who make up 20% of the country's population, feel marginalized and discriminated against by the Francophone majority for decades. Many now want an independent state of their own. In response to the calls for independence the government sent in security forces, and numerous, widespread human rights violations have been reported ever since. According to Amnesty International, unlawful killing of several people in the the Anglophone regions coupled with blocks on Facebook and WhatsApp have been reported, and represent an escalation of the government's campaign to silence any form of dissent.

My Take

It is clear to me that gross human rights violations and war crimes have been committed by Cameroon's security forces in the fight against Boko Haram in the Far North. The violations are well-documented and should be investigated and prosecuted. The only question that remains is whether or not same crimes have been committed in the governments effort to quell the Anglophone uprising in the Northwest and Southwest regions.

In order for war crimes to be committed there must, first of all, be an armed conflict. Reports on the ground suggest that there is an armed conflict, albeit in its early stages.

According to Sky News three security forces were reported killed by "separatists" in the city of Bamenda in November 2017, and a source said the security forces were ambushed by armed men on motorbikes. At the time of this writing it was reported by Reuters that three soldiers were killed and four wounded by "separatist fighters" during an overnight attack in Kembong, a village in the Southwest region. According to Reuters, 25 soldiers and policemen have been killed in a series of raids over the past year. More than 15,000 Cameroonians have fled their homes for refuge in Nigeria, according to Reuters. On January 11, 2018 UNHCR reported that 8,050 Cameroonian refugees had been registered in Nigeria, mainly in Cross River State. According to BBC News Pidgin, the governor of the Northwest region, Adolphe Lele Lafrique, banned firearms and ammunition, and ordered the local population surrender any local or imported gun to the authorities. He also ordered a curfew, restricting the movement of persons and property between 8 pm and 6 am for a period of one week from February 10, 2018. BBC News Pidgin reports that the Northwest looks like a military zone.

The way I see it, based on the above, the Anglophone crisis has escalated into an armed conflict. The armed conflict is in its early stages but it is nonetheless an armed conflict - with killings on both sides. Civilians and security forces are being killed. Social media reports of frequent gun shots in towns, villages and cities in the Anglophone region, support this assertion.

Source: Facebook

Faced with attacks against security forces, the forces ramped up attacks against civilian suspects and perceived secessionists. Circulating on social media are gruesome videos and photographs of the crimes security forces reportedly leave in the wake, including a video of an interrogation of two suspects. The video, reportedly captured in Belo in the Northwest region, shows security forces interrogating suspects after a reported attack on gendarmes in the area. A state security personnel can be clearly heard in the video threatening to shoot one of the unarmed suspects. What appears to be at least one of the interrogated suspects later shows up dead in other photographs. The most gruesome photograph of them all shows a member of the military cutting off the head of a civilian. Another photograph shows an armed member of the military stepping on dead civilians. I have been unable to independently verify the videos and photographs but they are worth investigating. If Cameroon is truly a state of law as claimed by government officials including the Head of State and the Minister of Communications such allegations of serious crimes would be investigated. The Anglophone crisis spiraled out of control due to the government's unwillingness or inability to dialogue. Rather than address grievances raised by Anglophones in peaceful protests in 2016 the government cracked down heavy-handedly on protesters - killing and imprisoning many. The government's brutal response radicalized many, forcing some to take up arms.

Human rights violations and war crimes are, in my view, being committed on two fronts by Cameroon's security forces. The armed conflict with Boko Haram in the Far North is full-blown while the conflict in the Anglophone regions is in its early stages. The military operates on two fronts but the M.O. in both conflicts is the same.

Cameroon Anglophone crisis: Should international arrest warrants be executed?

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:54:00 +0000

The Republic of Cameroon has been embroiled in political crisis since the closing months of 2016 and more than one year on the crisis has taken a turn for the worse - in the direction of possible armed conflict in English-speaking parts of the country with reports of deadly attacks against security forces and an influx of Cameroonians, including women and children seeking refuge in Nigeria. Following the killing of security forces the government of Cameroon issued international arrest warrants against individuals living abroad suspected of involvement. Cameroon's human rights record and the state's treatment of arrested persons and detainees suggest that if arrested and extradited to Cameroon suspects would suffer untold human rights violations, including torture, cruel and inhuman punishment or treatment in squalid detention facilities.

What started in 2016 as a protest against what was described as the "Francophonization" of Anglophone institutions like courts and schools in English-speaking parts of Cameroon quickly degenerated into massive civil disobedience and unprecedented expression of discontent against the Biya regime that has ruled Cameroon for over 30 years. A strike action started by lawyers was picked up by teachers, university students and people from all walks of life. Schools and courts in many English-speaking towns were shutdown in protest and "ghost towns" were declared. The government's response was brutal: mass arrests, killings, disappearances and trumped up charges against Anglophone civil society leaders. Organizations such as the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium and the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC) were banned and numerous Anglophones were detained, transported to Yaounde and dragged to military court on charges including terrorism, treason and rebellion. Charges against some of those arrested were eventually discontinued on the orders of the Head of State but many others remain in prison. In addition to mass arbitrary arrests and killings the internet was blocked and an English-language TV channel was banned. What started as simple demands for reform by Anglophone lawyers and teachers morphed into calls for outright secession of English-speaking regions. Attacks against security forces were also reported - an indication that the crisis is getting worse. According to Sky News security officials were killed following a violent crackdown on demonstrations against the government. Following the killings the authorities issued 15 international arrest warrants according to the BBC. Troops were also deployed to the region, according to Reuters. According to BBC News Pidgin tension is high in Manyu Division in the southwest region due to increased military presence.

The issuance of international arrest warrants raises questions as to whether or not countries where wanted Cameroon Anglophone individuals reside should execute the warrants.

My Take

The government of Cameroon under president Paul Biya has little or no regard for human rights - evidenced by numerous reports over the years by human rights groups like Amnesty International. Common human rights violations include arbitrary arrests by security forces, incommunicado detentions, torture, enforced disappearances, restrictions of freedom of expression and association and peaceful assembly. Amnesty International noted in its annual report 2016/17 (see page 106) that demonstrations in Anglophone parts of Cameroon from late October 2016 were "violently repressed" by security forces- with journalists, students, human rights defenders and members of opposition parties arrested and some tried in military courts. Amnesty International also reported deaths and disappearances in custody. The rights group pointed out in its report that Cameroonian civilians, including journalists continue to face unfair trials in military courts. Cameroon's prison conditions are also deplorable. In June 2017 Cameroonian prisoners smuggled out video footage of horrific prison conditions in the main prison in Yaounde. An inmate who contacted France 24 described it as "overpopulated, filthy and rife with corruption and abuse." A report that was put together on the leaked video is very disturbing to read. A few months later another shocking video showed detainees, all reportedly from English-speaking regions of Cameroon, in a dark cell. Amnesty International described Cameroon's prison conditions in its 2016/17 report as "poor, marked by chronic overcrowding, inadequate food, limited medical care and deplorable hygiene and sanitation." According to Amnesty International the prison in Maroua, north of the country, housed about 1,400 prisoners - more than 3 times its intended capacity, and the central prison in Yaounde housed approximately 4000 prisoners despite its intended capacity of 2000. Amnesty reports that mass arrests, large numbers of detainees held without charge and Cameroon's ineffective judicial system are main contributing factors to overcrowding.

Mindful of the aforementioned, if countries where individuals wanted by Cameroonian authorities in relation to the Anglophone crisis were to execute the international arrest warrants issued it would be tantamount to condemning the individuals to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - or even death in custody. Many of those wanted are already living in exile due to their political opinions. They are essentially political refugees in the countries that host them. Turning them over to Cameroonian authorities from whom they fled would be a violation of the international law principle of non-refoulement. According to VOX Julius Ayuk Tabe, a leading member of the Anglophone struggle, was arrested and taken into custody in Abuja, Nigeria on 5 January 2018. He was reportedly arrested with six others. If extradited to Cameroon, a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution, torture, cruel and inhuman form of punishment or treatment Nigeria will be in violation of its international obligations with regard to non-refoulement.

Non-refoulement, according to the UNHCR prohibits states from returning a refugee or asylum seeker to a territory where there is a risk that his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. In addition to its relation to refugees, the concept is also relevant in other contexts -- notably in the context of general human rights law pertaining to the prohibition of torture, cruel or inhuman form of punishment or treatment.

The wanted individuals might be suspected of "crimes" but they have a right to a free and fair trial, and freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment -- rights that are not, I believe, guaranteed in Cameroon especially under current circumstances. Cameroon has a reputation of unfair trials of civilians before military courts. The trial of Radio France Internationale correspondent Ahmed Abba comes to mind. According to Amnesty International he was charged with complicity with and non-denonciation of terrorist acts. He was reportedly tortured and held incommunicado for three months. Other trials include the trials of three journalists in Yaounde military court: Rodrique Tongue, Felix Ebole Bola and Baba Wame. Their trials are, according to Amnesty International, marred by substantive and procedurial irregularities, including refusal by judges to allow witnesses to testify. Other more recent and perhaps more recent civilian detainees to appear before the military court in Yaounde include Agbor Balla of the CACSC and Mancho Bibixy who remains in prison. The individuals with international arrest warrants in their names could face the same fate if extradited to Cameroon hence there should be no extraditions.

Now, Cameroon could provide solid diplomatic assurances and guarantees that the rights of those involved would be respected, including the right to freedom from torture, freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to a free and fair trial. However, even if assurances are given, sending countries should note that there is, according to Human Rights Watch, growing evidence and expert opinion that diplomatic assurances cannot protect people at risk of torture from such treatment on return. It is therefore plausible to conclude that wanted individuals should not be extradited to Cameroon, even with diplomatic assurances.

Now, let me be clear: the attacks that left state security forces dead are reprehensible. I denounce such violent attacks. I also strenuously denounce attacks against unarmed civilians by state security forces - attacks that left many dead. Those responsible, on both sides, should be brought to book through free and fair trials. There should be no double standard.

It is unfortunate that in addition to being unable to guarantee freedom from torture or cruel and degrading treatment and free and fair trials against political dissidents, Cameroon authorities are only going after civilians accused of wrongdoing while state security forces, including police officers and members of the notorious Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR) who have brutalized and killed numerous civilians walk free. Dozens of civilians have been killed, tortured and seen their houses broken into and their property destroyed by security forces in Cameroon during this episode of unrest, and in previous episodes over more than three decades of the Biya administration. Needless to say, the government has not lifted a finger against state-sponsored perpetrators. On the contrary the Head of State in his end-of-year address to the nation praised them for their "professionalism", thereby emboldening them to commit more atrocities against civilians.

Agbor Nkongho: a lost opportunity for Cameroon Anglophone leadership?

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Thu, 02 Nov 2017 08:57:00 +0000

Cameroon has been engulfed in a major political crisis for almost a year - with massive civil disobedience, protests and political upheaval by a marginalized people in English-speaking parts of the country. As a result of the crisis internet connection in the affected regions were cut off on the orders of the government and many civilians were killed, disappeared, arrested and imprisoned. Some of those arrested, including Felix Agbor Balla, president of the banned Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium (CACSC), were released after about eight months in prison but since his release the civil society leader who was celebrated and admired by many before and during his arrest has been embroiled in pushback - with critics referring for him as a "traitor". What went wrong?

On August 30, 2017 Cameroon state media outlet CRTV reported that the president of the Republic, Paul Biya, had "ordered the discontinuance of proceedings" pending before a military court against Felix Nkongho Agbor Balla, barrister-at-law and leader of the banned CACSC, and some other persons who were arrested and charged with crimes including terrorism, secession, incitement to civil war, rebellion, amongst others in relation to the political crisis in English-speaking parts of the country.

The release was celebrated by many as a turning point but celebration was short-lived as the masses realized that for starters not all detainees were released. The cautious enthusiasm surrounding the gesture of Cameroon's president of 35 years was further dampened by public utterances and statements made by the leader of the outlawed CACSC. In an interview on BBC Focus on Africa after his release the banned Anglophone civil society consortium leader called for resumption of schools and advocated for a federal system of government as a solution to the crisis. This is in conflict with the stance of other leaders in the struggle and their supporters who advocate outright secession and would like to see continuous pressure mounted on the government by way of closure of schools until the government releases all arrested persons and comes to the negotiation table in good faith - without preconditions.

It is worthy to mention that schools have been closed in English-speaking parts of Cameroon since the struggle began in closing months of 2016. "Ghost towns" have been implemented for many days a week - with markets, shops and other businesses shut down for many days a week for almost a year. A long-standing strike action by lawyers, teachers and other groups in Anglophone parts of Cameroon persists. The massive civil disobedience is designed to force the hand of the government to address grievances raised by Anglophones who constitute a marginalized minority group in a majority French-speaking country.

My Take

Barrister Agbor Nkongho and other Anglophones like Fontem Aforteka'a and Ayah Paul Abine who were arrested on, in my view, trumped up politically motivated charges and dragged to a military tribunal in violtion of international civil and political human rights standards that prohibit the trial of civilians in military courts were released partly as a result of pressure mounted on the government by protracted massive civil disobedience, including the closure of schools in English-speaking parts of Cameroon for several months. Their release from squalid detention conditions is welcomed. However, many other protesters such as Mancho Bibixy remain imprisoned hence the pressure on the government should continue until all arrested are released. The release of some is an indication that the current strategy works - and if it is not broken there is no need to fix it. The closure of schools was, in my view, perhaps the most impactful strategy intended to get the government's attention, and it paid off - with the release of barrister Agbor Nkongho, Dr. Fontem Neba, Rtd. Justice Ayah Paul and some other persons. Had schools reopened while Agbor Nkongho et al were still detained they, I reckon, would still be in prison facing trial in the military tribunal in Yaoundé. It is misguided and somewhat selfish for someone who arguably benefited from a strategy to come out of prison and almost immediately kick against it by calling for resumption of schools -- at a time when some other people who were arrested under same circumstances like him are still languishing in prison.

In June 2016 when Agbor Nkongho and others were still in prison a renown Anglophone lawyer, barrister Sama Francis, called on lawyers to suspend strike action and return to work. At the time I argued in a blog post that Sama Francis was wrong because lawyers returning to work would amount to abandoning their colleague Agbor Balla and other Anglophones arrested in relation to the crisis in prison. Now that Nkongho is out of prison and is calling for resumption of schools I would argue the same: resumption of schools and a return to normalcy would amount to abandoning those left in prison. No political prisoner of the struggle should be left behind.

According to an article on Fortune 6 principles made Nelson Mandela a renowned leader - one of the principles being anticipation. Mandela, according to the article assessed his moves while in prison and anticipated reactions hence when he was offered freedom in exchange for renouncing opposition to the government he said: "what freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned?... what freedom am I being offered if I must ask permission to live in an urban area?" He, Mandela, was prepared to serve out his sentence rather than exchange it for apartheid. This decision, according to an article on BIZNews elevated his position and drew attention to his sacrifice for the struggle. Now, I would be the first to admit that comparing Agbor Nkongho with Nelson Mandela - the most inspirational civil rights leader of all time in my view is a stretch. Asking Agbor Balla to, for example, stay in prison until the ban on CACSC is lifted or until all political activists, protesters and civil society leaders who were arrested in relation to the Anglophone struggle are released or until the collapse of marginalization of Anglophones in Cameroon is too much to ask because Nkongho is no Mandela. However, as a leader he should have at least strategically assessed his stance and anticipated reactions. He has not inspired as many people to follow him as he did before his arrest due to failure to anticipate reactions to a call for school resumption at a time when Mancho Bibixy and others are still imprisoned. Resumption of schools would mean a return to normalcy at a time when grievances have not been addressed.

It is a lost opportunity when a leader in a struggle serves time in prison for a cause and becomes less popular after leaving prison. Some of the most renowned political leaders in history solidified their leadership in civil rights struggles after they were arrested and imprisoned in relation to their struggle. Some of the greatest political leaders, I would argue, were made in prison on politically motivated charges. Their stories are packed with valuable lessons for other leaders involved in political struggles around the world. As an Anglophone Cameroonian I expected Felix Nkongho Agbor Balla to rise to the occasion after his release and become an inspirational leader in the Anglophone struggle against decades of marginalization and second-class treatment in Cameroon. When he was released I personally expect him to circle the wagons, hold a massive rally and deliver a groundbreaking speech outlining a vision that is in line with the vision of the masses while at the same time adhering to his ideals of nonviolance and tolerance. Despite his failure so far to inspire the masses to follow him after paying a high price for the struggle, I do not think he is a "traitor" as some of his critics and ideological opponents have branded him. He might have a different perspective on the Anglophone struggle but that does not amount to treachery. There is no evidence to suggest that he has colluded with the government to jeopardize the struggle. He has a right to his point of view like everyone else and he should not be persecuted for it. According to a statement he posted on Facebook his father's house was burnt down on 29 October 2017 as a result of his political stance. In addition his father's grave was reportedly desecrated. Such actions amount to intimidation and persecution of a political opponent and should be condemned. Those responsible should be ashamed of themselves and should be brought to book. It is unreasonable and ironic to fight against oppression by oppressing others.

Cameroon government forces kill with impunity

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:07:00 +0000

For many years the government of Cameroon under president Paul Biya, who has been in power since November 1982, has killed unarmed civilians with impunity. In the past the government swept killings under the rug but with the advent of the internet and social media the regime lost control of the narrative. The world is now able to witness the extreme cruelty of the regime. Regardless the regime continues to claim lives - with absolute impunity. The latest episode of blatant unlawful killings happened in full glare of social media and the evidence is compelling.

Unarmed civilians in English-speaking regions of Cameroon took to the streets on 1 October 2017 to symbolically declare independence as part of almost one year of protracted mass protests and civil disobedience against marginalization and unequal treatment of Anglophones in majority French-speaking Republic of Cameroon. Anglophones are a minority group in Cameroon. They make up about 20% of the population and have been historically discriminated against and marginalized. Now a good number of them want independence. The government's response to the symbolic declaration of independence was, as usual, heavy-handed and brutal: numerous civilians were killed by security forces. Besides killings Amnesty International expressed concern about blocks on Facebook and WhatsApp, and arbitrary ban on meetings and movement by the government. Amnesty International urged the government to respect people's right to freedom of assembly and movement and called on security forces to cease "unnecessary and excessive" use of force. The human rights group later confirmed that at least seventeen (17) people were killed by security forces. Before the killings the government had banned travel, public meetings and pro-independence rallies in English-speaking parts of Cameroon.

Still image taken from video shows nurse trying to resuscitate victim

Witnesses told Reuters that security forces shot live bullets and tears gas at protesters from low-flying army helicopters.

According to Al Jazeera internet was blocked in English-speaking regions of Cameroon for the second time in less than a year in an effort to quell protests. Electricity was also cut.

In press briefing notes on Cameroon the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) reiterated concerns raised by the UN Secretary-General about the 1 October crackdown, said credible sources indicated that some of the deaths resulted from excessive use of force by security forces. The spokesperson for the UNHCR called for "prompt, effective, impartial and independent investigations...". The spokesperson also said people should be allowed to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, "including having uninterrupted access to internet connection" - alluding to the government's shutdown of the internet. The office of the UNHCR called on all people to pursue peaceful means and noted that property have been destroyed over the past months and at least two homemade bombs were reportedly planted in public places.

My Take

First of all, the grievances of people in English-speaking parts of Cameroon are well-founded. The government's failure to address their concerns has led to calls for independence. Historically and legally Cameroon's English-speaking people (commonly known as Anglophone) are, in my view, a people who achieved independence from the British in October 1961 by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon. As a people they have the right to self-determination.

For many years the Biya regime has killed protesters with impunity while the international community watches. Failure by the international community to hold the regime accountable has emboldened the regime hence killings continue. In the latest episode Amnesty confirmed that 17 people were killed during October 1 protests. The government claims about 10 were killed. Some local activist groups put the number at 100 killed. Based on social media videos I personally believe the governments figure is inaccurate. More than 10 people were killed on 1 October and the days leading up to the symbolic declaration of independence based on my observation online. A single graphic Facebook post alone, for example, shows 4 dead bodies, and there are many of such posts, including graphic photos and video. It is worthy to note that the recent deads come after numerous civilians were killed in the early months of the struggle. In December 2016 the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) confirmed that at least nine (9) people were killed in Buea, Bamenda and Kumba.

Statements by Amnesty International and the Spokesperson of the UNHCR condemning the killings and human rights violations are great but repressive regimes do not moved by statements alone. It is time the international community, including regional and international organizations go beyond issuing statements. Decisive action against the Biya regime is needed. Stronger measures against the brutal regime should be explored, including targeted economic sanctions against members of the regime and international criminal investigation and charges -- since Cameroon's national justice system has failed to deliver justice for killings of civilians by state operatives. The international community's unwillingness to take decisive action against the Biya regime only emboldens the regime and further endangers civilian lives in the country.

The US Department of State issued a statement in the aftermath of the 1 October crackdown in which the department said "the United States is deeply concerned about the violence and loss of human life". However, the United States continues to do business with the Biya regime. If the United States is truly deeply concerned as claimed by the State Department it would, for example, stop arming the Biya regime. In 2015 the United States, according to VOA, sent a consignment of military equipment to Cameroon to help in the fight against Boko Haram. The same military the United States supports kills civilians in the Northwest and southwest regions of Cameroon and commits war crimes in the fight against Boko Haram in the north. According to Amnesty International Cameroon military is committing war crimes in the fight against Boko Haram. The United States is essentially supporting and arming a military that is committing atrocious human rights violations on two fronts.

Members of the international Community that are basically aiding and abetting the Biya regime in its violation of human rights should stop doing so. The international community, including the United Nations and the African Union should do more than issue statements. Focus should be on bringing perpetrators of human rights violations to book. Suspension of military aid to Cameroon and targeted economic sanctions against president Paul Biya and members of his regime, including those who give military personnel orders to shot and kill civilians is a good place to start. Civilian deaths during protests should be independently and impartially investigated -- preferably by an international body since the Biya regime is essentially corrupt and cannot be trusted to investigate itself.

Personally I would like to see resolute, coordinated international action that goes beyond prepared statements taken against the Paul Biya regime that has killed a countless number of civilians in its 35 years in powers. However, I think resolute action is unlikely because of Western interests in Cameroon and the region. The fight against Boko Haram for example is in the interest of western democracies like the United States hence they will continue to support the Biya regime despite its abysmal human rights record. The African Union (AU) on its part is enert. It released its own statement urging "restraint and dialogue" and expressed "condolences to all affected persons and families". Clearly inadequate. The AU did not even bother to call for an investigation.

It is therefore in the hands of Cameroonians to shape the kind of country they want to live in. Protesters in the English-speaking regions of Cameroon are doing just that through massive protests and civil disobedience that have stretched for almost a year. Western countries with interests in the status quo won't initiate change in Cameroon or elsewhere in Africa where dictators serve Western interests. The people have the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Their rights should not be brutally infringed.

There is no such thing as "white supremacy"

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:11:00 +0000

The phrase "white supremacy" has been used repeatedly by so-called white supremacists themselves, those who oppose them, the media and the authorities, including politicians -- so much so that the phrase has been legitimized and many people have internalized the idea that a group of people are somehow superior to others by virtue of their race or skin color. That is not true.

The idea of "white supremacy" was thrust to the limelight after a White nationalist rally in Charlottesville ended in deadly violence. White nationalists and counterprotesters clashed in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia in what The New York Times described as "one of the bloodiest fights to date" over the removal of Confederate monuments across the South. One of the White nationalists plowed a car into a crowd killing a 34-year-old woman and injuring at least 19 people. Some 34 others were injured in skirmishes, according to the New York Times. The governor of Virginia declared a state of emergency and the National Guard was deployed to help the police restore law and order.

A man identified as James Alex Fields Jr. was arrested and charged in relation to the car attack. CNN reports that the suspect holds extreme views, according to his former teacher. The teacher who teaches Social Studies at Randall K. Cooper High School told CNN that the suspect held "outlandish, very radical beliefs" with a "fondness for Adolf Hitler".

The incident was followed by a mainstream media and social media frenzy -- with almost everyone referring to "white supremacy" as though it were a legitimate concept grounded on facts.

My Take

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." [- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 1]

There is no such thing as white supremacy. Just like the jihadist statehood idea of so-called Islamic State, the idea of white supremacy is an illusion based on an inhuman desire by some to control and subjugate others. The difference between the idea of a jihadist Islamic State and white supremacy lies in the fact that there seems to be consensus in the West that the former is an illusion, hence it is commonly referred to as "so-called Islamic State" by western news outlets while the latter is fully legitimized and presented as fact. More than 120 British MPs reportedly signed a letter urging the BBC to stop referring to jihadist group ISS as "Islamic State" because, according to the MPs, the terrorist group is neither Islamic nor a state. The BBC went on to review its use of "Islamic State". Same logic, in my view, applies to so-called white supremacy. Those who subscribe to the racist idea of "white supremacy" are, in my view, white but they are not supreme.

The idea of white supremacy is a social construct designed to push a racist agenda that white people are superior by virtue of the color of their skin.

A more realistic concept is White privilege, which was well-demonstrated in the aftermath of the Charlottesville car attack. Donald Trump, president of the United States, refrained from condemning the so-called white supremacists - understandably so since they make up his base and helped get him elected based on the racially divisive presidential campaign he ran. Condemning the group would be political suicide for the beleaguered US president. Had the attacker been non-white, Mexican, an immigrant or a Muslim rhetoric from the White House would have been stronger and louder. After ramming his car into a crowd in a manner reminiscent of the London Bridge attack James Alex Fields Jr. was, according to The New York Times, charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failing to stop at the scene of a crash. That is white privilege not white "supremacy". Someone who looks different and affiliated to a different extremist group would have been labelled "radicalized" and had law books thrown at him with charges including terrorism and first-degree murder.

Referring to a bunch of racists as "white supremacists" legitimizes the uninformed, racist ideology on which such groups are founded. Referring to them as "so-called white supremacists" is more like it because those who identify themselves as such are not supreme -- they are privileged at most.

Lack of will to hold Finland police accountable for racism

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:15:00 +0000

A stunning revelation by an online investigative journalism site put the spot on racism in the Finnish police force. Finland's Minister of Interior, the National Police Commissioner and the National Police Board released purportedly strong statements in the aftermath of the scandal -- professing "zero tolerance" for racism and pledging a thorough investigation into the matter. But talk is cheap. It is easier said than done.

On 3 June 2017 Long Play published a report about widespread racist commentary in closed Facebook group made up of about 2,800 Finnish police officers. The report included screenshots of some of the comments. One member of the group for instance claimed that people of African descent do not succeed anywhere in the world for reasons including culture and genetics. Another member of the group claimed that Islam is an expansionist religion and that Europe is a victim. According to Long Play, immigrants and Muslims were smeared in many discussions and immigration-related articles and video from known anti-immigration propaganda groups were shared in the group. Police officers in the group mocked an asylum seeker who attempted suicide and a rapper who accused the police of racial profiling. The report also revealed that the head of a national anti-hate speech online task force was once a moderator of the group and moderators didn't intervene to stop racist comments.

Long Play also published an in-depth article on racial profiling. According to the article, ethnic profiling is illegal but it happens in Finland continuously - according to Finns belonging to minority groups and police officers who interact with minorities as part of their job. One police officer interviewed for the article acknowledged that he has "certainly" carried out ethnic profiling. "Olen tehnyt etnistä profilointia itsekin, tietysti", he said. He acknowledged profiling the Roma and dark-skinned people.

Following publication of the report the Minister of Interior Paula Rusikko and the National Police Commissioner Seppo Kolehmainen sprang into action and proclaimed "zero tolerance" for racism. They pledged a full investigation. The National Police Board also announced that the material published by Long Play had been handed to the Office of the Prosecutor General to determine whether a preliminary investigation should be launched. The board also proclaimed "zero tolerance" for racism and hate speech in the police force, and stated that it had launched an investigation into ethnic profiling in immigration monitoring.

On 11.7.2017 the National Police Board cleared police of ethnic profiling in immigration monitoring. And according to Yle a District Prosecutor, Laura Sairanen, decided the previous week not to launch a preliminary investigation into openly racist postings in the police Facebook group.

My Take

District prosecutor Sairanen and the National Police Board had an opportunity to partially restore confidence in the Finnish police force among people of African descent and other minority groups like Muslims and the Roma but they blew it.

In my earlier blog post related to the marvelous piece of investigative journalism by Long Play I gave the Finnish police force benefit of the doubt in my assessment of whether or not racism is a structural problem in the force. I argued that one ingredient was lacking for the matter to rise to the level of a structural problem: legitimization and normalization of racism. The district prosecutor and the National Police Board just normalized and legitimized openly racist actions by Finnish police officers online and offline by basically rubbishing serious allegations of racism and ethnic profiling.

According to Long Play, there was erroneous information in the decision of the prosecutor. One of the grounds for not pursuing the matter reportedly put forward by the District Prosecutor assigned to the case is that identities of those who posted comments in the Facebook group are not known. The claim doesn't hold water, according to Long Play, because names were visible in over 50 screenshots handed over to the office of the Prosecutor General. Another reason for turning a blind eye to the openly racist comments is that the plaintiffs or injured parties have not made a police report of an offence. How convenient! The prosecutor reportedly wrote in her decision that the Facebook comments seem to have been written during the police officers' free time although according to Long Play postings were made in the Facebook police group at all times of the day, and the prosecutor didn't bother to ask the police board or police departments for clarification about working hours. Again -- how convenient!

The National Police Board on its part also dropped the ball on the investigation into ethnic profiling. According to a statement by the board the investigation focused on immigration monitoring, and police departments' immigration monitoring guidelines and practices were examined. The board also examined whether police departments have had to intervene in illegal ethnic profiling cases. The investigation found four cases in which officials' actions had been looked into for possible ethnic profiling but no wrongdoing was found. On these basis the board cleared police of ethnic profiling in immigration monitoring. Mindful of the fact that the probe was sparked by a report by Long Play that alleged routine ethnic profiling, it is unclear if the National Police Board actually read the detailed report and made an effort to contact at least some - if not all - of the victims of alleged ethnic profiling who were interviewed for the report. A total of 94 people belonging to minority groups, 12 police officers and 6 people who know about the subject through their work were reportedly interviewed by Long Play but the National Police Board's investigation seems to have limited itself to looking at paperwork provided by various police departments and then concluding that there is no illegal ethnic profiling.

A Twitter user summarized the investigation by the National Police Board in one tweet:

Poliisihallituksen selvitys: Poliisilaitoksilta kysyttiin teettekö laitonta etnistä profilointia. Yksikään ei myöntänyt, joten sitä ei ole.
— Jarkko Sipila (@sipilamtv3) July 11, 2017

The board basically asked police departments if they practice ethnic profiling. None of the departments said they do hence the board cleared police of wrongdoing.

Besides the superficial nature of the investigation it is also problematic that it focused on immigration monitoring although the report that triggered the investigation raised ethnic profiling of Finnish Roma individuals who are not subject to the Aliens Act but are reportedly eagerly stopped by traffic police.

The way I see it, the District Prosecutor and the National Police Board didn't carry out a "full" investigation as pledged by the Minister of Interior and the National Police Commissioner. They rushed the investigation and bungled it. It's hard to imagine that a comprehensive and impartial investigation into such a serious matter was completed by both the office of the Prosecutor General and the National Police Board in about six weeks. Perhaps an independent commission should be set up to look into the matter.

Is racism a structural problem in Finland's police force?

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:51:00 +0000

There are certain places where expressions of racist, Islamophobic or anti-immigrant sentiments are expected but a police Facebook group is not one of them. Open racism among police officers negatively impacts public confidence in the police force, and when a racism scandal hits a police force or any other state institution concerns about whether or not racism is a structural problem in the affected institution are well-founded. A Facebook group of Finnish police officers was uncovered and screenshots of postings in the group sparked public outcry and concerns about structural racism in the Finnish police force.

In June 2017 Long Play, a Finnish online magazine, published a damning report about openly racist and anti-immigrant comments in a closed Facebook group. According to the report, openly racist commentary is common in the police group and the group's moderators, including the head of Finnish police online hate speech task force did not eagerly intervene. Over a hundred screenshots of comments posted in the group were turned over to Long Play. The report reveals that police officers shared articles and videos from known anti-immigration propaganda sources across Europe and foreigners and Muslims were slandered in many discussions. For instance, one participant commented that Islam is an expansive religion and Europe is a victim; another police officer claimed that people of African origin do not succeed in any part of the world for reasons including culture and genetics. Others mocked an asylum seeker who attempted suicide and a rapper who demanded an apology for alleged racial profiling of his mother and sister by the police.

Fallout from the report was swift and uncompromising. On the part of the public condemnation was loud and clear. A concerned member of the public, for instance, argued in a blog that when over one third of the police belong to a racist group the problem is structural. The blog post is based on news reports that about one third of Finland's police officers belong to the Facebook group in question. According to Yle the group has about 2,800 members and last year there were 7,250 police officers in Finland in 2016. This begs the question: Is racism in the Finnish police force a structural problem?

My Take

As a person of African descent news of the existence of a racist police Facebook group dented my confidence in the Finnish police force - as I stated in an earlier blog post. Based on the content of the Facebook group as revealed by Long Play, there are, without a doubt, racists, xenophobes and Islamophobes in the Finnish police force. How the powers that be, including the National Police Commissioner, chiefs of various police departments and the Prosecutor General respond to the revelation is a determining factor as to whether or not racism is a structural or institutional problem in the force. The fact that there are racist police officers and one third of the country's police officers belong to a racist group on Facebook is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the problem is "structural" -- as argued here.

Structural racism, according to the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change (2004), refers to "a system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with 'whiteness' and disadvantages associated with 'color' to endure and adapt over time." According to Tricia Rose, professor of Africana studies and director of the Centre for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America (CSREA), structural racism is the "normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics - historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal - that routinely advantage whites while producing cumulative and chronic outcomes for people of color".

Now, the question is, - is racism built into the fabric of the Finnish police force by way of policies, practices and norms that perpetuate, normalize and legitimize racial inequity?

The report by Long Play sparked immediate response by Finland's Minister of Interior and the National Police Commissioner. Both of them condemned racism, proclaimed "zero tolerance" for racism and pledged that the openly racist and xenophobic comments made by police officers will be fully investigated. The National police Board said it will hand over screenshots of comments to the Prosecutor General. Meanwhile Marko Forss who was at one point a moderator the Facebook group was swiftly relieved of his duties as head of anti-hate speech task force investigating online hate speech online. The police board also announced that ethnic profiling - another issue raised by Long Play in its in-depth report - is not allowed and launched an investigation into the legality of foreigner surveillance practices. The prompt response by police leadership suggest that racism in the Finnish police force is neither structural nor institutional. In a structurally racist institution leadership, I think, would turn a blind eye and Marko Forss, for example, would still hold his post. The authorities took good preliminary steps in the right direction in the immediate aftermath of the scandal. However, further action is needed against all other officers involved. Failure to sanction or charge and prosecute all those whose comments meet the standard under Finland's ethnic agitation law would intentionally or unintentionally produce an outcome that puts a racial group at a disadvantage, and could lend credence to the assertion that racism is a structural problem in the police force.

Some comments in the racist police group on Facebook definitely meet the standard of agitation against a religious group. Worthy of honorable mention is the ludicrous assertion reportedly made by a police officer in the group that Islam is an "expansive religion" and "Europe is a victim". Such a comment is emblematic of a twisted world view shared by far-right extremists like Anders Breivik who went on a mass killing spree in in Norway in the summer of 2011. It is extremely disturbing that such a view is shared by a police officer. While there are definitely racists in the police force who carry out practices such as racial profiling that have adverse outcomes on people of African descent and members of the Roma minority group the practices have not been "normalized" and "legitimized" by the National Police Board or prosecutors - at least not yet. Racial profiling, for example, is outlawed in the Aliens Act and in the police code of conduct, according to the Finnish police board. Also in the immediate aftermath of the scandal the rector of the police academy, according to Helsingin Sanomat, sent an email to students and staff of the academy in which he stated, amongs other things, that expression of racist opinions by police is unacceptable. According to the rector this stance is not debatable.

In addition to criminal charges and prosecutions the National Police Board should implement long term sustainable solutions such as compulsory human rights education for all police officers. In the wake of the Facebook racism scandal the Secretary General of Finnish League for Human Rights (Ihmisoikeusliitto) wrote a blog post in which she called for compulsory human rights education for all police. Besides human rights education she floated the idea of inclusion of some sort of "attitude test" in police entrance exams and the recruitment of more representatives of minority groups. Racial prejudice is widespread among members of the Finnish police force based on what was revealed in what I consider to be a marvelous piece of investigative journalism by Long Play, which includes a 40-page article on ethnic profiling by Finnish police. All ideas that could help curb the problem and restore confidence in police among affected groups in the country should be considered. Compulsory human rights education is a good start.

Based on the definition of "structural racism" and the damning revelation by Long Play, it is plausible to conclude that Finland's police force is eerily close to having racism as a structural problem. The only missing ingredient to complete the recipe is normalization and legitimization of racist practices. Failure by police leadership to adequately deal with the serious allegations of racist conduct by police officers online would seriously damage trust and confidence in the Finnish police force -- especially among ethnic minority communities, including people of African descent, Muslims and members of the Finnish Roma minority group.

UPDATE: 12.7.2017

A district prosecutor decided not to launch a criminal investigation into the Facebook police group and the National Police Board cleared police of unlawful ethnic profiling in immigration monitoring.

Cameroon: Lawyer Sama wrong on "justice component" in Anglophone crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:38:00 +0000

A lot has been written about the "Anglophone problem" in Cameroon and the 34-year-old government's heavy-handed attempt to silence those raising the problem and pushing for change. Since November 2016 many English-speaking Cameroonians have been brutalized, arrested and killed in relation to the struggle for political change in Cameroon. Notwithstanding, some people in the English-speaking regions are ready to call it a day if their professional interests are met.

For eight months English-speaking regions of Cameroon have been paralyzed by strikes and mass civil disobedience on grounds of marginalization by the largely French-speaking government of Cameroon. In the forefront of the struggle are teachers and lawyers who have not gone to work for more than half a year as a result of strike action. The movement, which was sparked by a strike by lawyers, quickly spread to include teachers, students and people from many walks of life including youths who make up majority of the country's unemployed population. Barrister Sama Francis, former president of the Cameroon Bar Association, thinks its time for lawyers to stop the strike and return to work. In an interview widely viewed and shared on Facebook the prominent Anglophone lawyer addressed the "justice component" of the crisis and encouraged his colleagues to return to work. In the interview the Barrister said, among other things, that the government has shown "unconditional determination" in commencing the implementation of promises made with regard to lawyers' grievances. To support his claim he cited "massive promotions, transfers and redeployment of magistrates".

Screenshot of Facebook video

"Every objective onlooker would discern therefrom that there has been a massive redeployment of Common Law magistrates, most of them, to the Common Law jurisdictions, and a commencement of redeployment of a massive redeployment (sic) of Civil Law magistrates to the Civil Law jurisdictions", he said. He cited the government's promise to create a Common Law bench at the Supreme Court and in the National School of Administration and Magistracy (ENAM) and in various state universities, and he expressed satisfaction over the appointment of a senior Common Law magistrate as president of the judicial bench of the Supreme Court - for the first time in the country's history. He urged his colleagues to "break the ice" and re-evaluate the position of the justice sector in order to encourage the government of continue the implementation of promises made to the justice. He congratulated the Minister of Justice for the "massive groundwork", and stated that the government has massively demonstrated "commencement of goodwill" that promises made shall be fulfilled. He stated that he's on the side of the people's interests. He encouraged his colleagues to go to return to work. The Barrister made it clear that he reserves the right to change his position on the matter if he doesn't see continuity in the demonstration of goodwill by the state.

My Take

The interview granted by Barrister Sama Francis may have been well-intentioned but it came across as self-serving. In the 7-minute and 53-seconds video interview as posted on Facebook the Barrister used the word "I" a staggering forty three (43) times or more, and showered praises on the state and the Minister of Justice for baby steps -- at a time when Anglophone protesters and civil society leaders are languishing in detention on trumped up charges, including terrorism and treason in relation to the Anglophone crisis.

In addition, the Barrister limited both the scope of the Anglophone crisis and Cameroon's "justice sector". Unlawful killings, degrading treatment of protesters, unlawful and politically motivated arrests and trumped up charges brought against political activists and civil society leaders like Nkongho Felix Agbor-Balla, Mancho Bibixy, Fontem Neba and Ayah Paul Abine, to name but a few are a "justice component" which should not be ignored. Mindful of the fact that arrested individuals include members of the legal profession - unconditional release of all arrested should be a pre-condition for lawyers to return to work. Returning to work as proposed by Barrister Sama would mean Common Law lawyers effectively abandoning their own in the proverbial frontlines.

Cameroon's justice sector is broken hence now is not the time to praise Minister of Justice Laurent Esso who oversees the compromised judiciary. Barrister Sama - or lawyer Sama - as he is widely known and commonly called in Bamenda - knows better.

Common Law lawyers in English-speaking parts of Cameroon sparked the struggle for equality by English-speaking Cameroonians but the struggle now encompasses all walks of life in affected regions. Lawyers returning to work could jeopardize the struggle and embolden the regime. It is true that steps have been taken by the government to appease lawyers but the steps do not go far enough. For example, Barrister Sama citied the appointment of the first Anglophone as president of the judicial bench of the Supreme Court. He is right. According to state media CRTV the nomination of Epuli Mathias Aloh to the judicial chamber of the Supreme Court is historic. However, Barrister Sama failed to mention the imprisonment and (forced) retirement of another senior Common Law magistrate - Ayah Paul Abine - in relation to the crisis. In essence, a symbolic appointment was counteracted by a dismissal. One step forward and one step backward. It is questionable that Barrister Sama's lavishes praise on the state and the Minister of Justice - with repeated use of the word "massive" - at a time when his learned colleagues: Ayah Paul Abine, a political leader and now former Advocate General of the Supreme Court and Barrister Nkongho Agbor-Balla are in detention in relation to the ongoing Anglophone crisis. The baby steps taken by the state all came partly as a result of political activism of those in prison. Their contribution to ensure what Barrister Sama Francis referred to in his interview as "massive groundwork" by the Minister of Justice must not be forgotten.

In conclusion, Barrister Sama - like everyone else - has a right to his point of view. He should not be attacked or threatened with bodily harm or property damage by those who disagree with him. His appearance in the Court of First Instance and the Military Tribunal to defend religious leaders and Anglophone civil society leaders and others charged in relation to the Anglophone crisis is commendable. However, the barrister's decision to praise the Minister of Justice and narrow the Anglophone crisis to a "justice component" is misguided. His interview might have been well-intended but it sounds like a job application cover letter or a motivation letter for political appointment addressed to the Minister of Justice. Since the struggle started commissions have been created by the government and Anglophones have been appointed to certain positions, including positions never before occupied by an Anglophone such as the position of president of the judicial chamber of the Supreme Court. It appears the former president of Cameroon Bar Association smells opportunity -- hence he announced his "determination and availability to engage in effective and meaningful dialogue".

If the barrister is truly "on the side of the people's interests" as stated in the interview he won't do anything that would jeopardize the people's struggle against marginalization.

Are there racists in Finland's police force?

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:17:00 +0000

Police officers are public servants tasked with an important duty "to serve and protect" all members of society - irrespective of race, skin color, origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sexual expression, disability, religious belief or conviction. It is therefore problematic to have officers who openly espouse irrational suspicion and hatred prejudice against certain social groups on grounds of race, skin color, origin or religious belief. An online investigative-news publication published a damning report including screenshots of racist and xenophobic comments made by Finnish police officers in a closed Facebook group for police officers in Finland. The conduct of the officers involved brings Finland's police force into disrepute.

On 3 June 2017 Long Play published a report about racism in Finnish police secret Facebook group. According to the report over a hundred screenshots of discussions in the group were delivered to the award-winning investigative journalism publication, and, based on the discussions, openly racist commentary is common in the Facebook group. According to Long Play immigration-related articles and videos from sources known to be spreading false stories and propaganda are shared in the group and immigrants and Muslims are slandered in many discussions. For example, one police sergeant wrote that "Islam is an expansive religion and Europe is victim". Another member of the group wrote that people of African origin do not succeed in any part of the world probably due to culture, genetics and partly heritage. In a baseless attempt to buttress the point, the writer stated that East Asians who have migrated to other parts of Asia, north and south America and Europe have succeeded in all the places.

According to Long Play when it was reported on 9 March 2017 by Iltalehti that an asylum seeker attempted suicide by trying to hang himself at the Central Railway Station in Helsinki as a result of rejection of his asylum application one police man mocked the incident: "Edes tota ne ei osaa", he wrote -- meaning "even that they do not know (sic)". When Iltalehti reported in September 2016 that an Emergency Response Centre (112) duty officer used the N-word to refer to a caller many commenters claimed that both the news and the apology by the Emergency Response Centre were ridiculous. A member of the group commented that "dark white" could be a neutral enough way to refer to the caller - alluding to a common argument by far-right extremism sympathizers in Finland that the N-word in Finnish is a neutral word.

Long Play also reports that there was deep rage in the police Facebook group after rapper James Nikander accused Finnish police of racial profiling against his mother and sister, and demanded an apology from the police. Commenting on the subject, a member of the Facebook group stated that since it cannot be known who is a foreigner, foreigners should be obligated to wear armbands or related identifiers.

According to Yle about one third of Finland's police officers belong to the Facebook group in question, and Minister of the Interior Paula Risikko and National Police Commissioner Seppo Kolehmainen promised a full and thorough investigation into the matter.

My Take

As a son of a police commissioner I generally admire the police force and respect police officers - many of whom, I believe, are brave men and women who run towards security threats when everyone else is running away. However, the attitude and conduct of Finnish police officers towards minorities as revealed by Long Play dented my trust and confidence in the Finnish police force - a police force I held in extremely high regard partly because of rare use of deadly force by officers. After reading the groundbreaking article that revealed blatant racism online among police officers it is hard to think that police in Finland operate without racial bias.

Before the revelation trust in police among many immigrants in Finland was already on the ropes. Many are skeptical of the police and are convinced that police treat them or would treat them differently on grounds on race, skin color, origin, nationality or religion. That was before the content of the secret Facebook group was made public. The publication of racist content in a police Facebook group has further eroded the little confidence that some immigrants of African descent had in the police.

If anyone ever wondered whether or not there are racists in the Finnish police force the damning in-depth report by Long Play is their answer. It is now plausible to conclude that the Finnish police force has racists and xenophobes in its ranks. Long Play's revealing article titled "rasismi rehottaa poliisien salaisessa Facebook-ryhmässä" supports the claim. Racism, in fact, thrives in the closed Facebook group. The problem is compounded by the fact that detective Marko Forss, chief investigative officer of the national internet hate speech investigation group, is a member of the group and was at one point its moderator. Victims of hate speech in Finland cannot be expected to trust a detective who moderates a Facebook group littered with hate speech and anti-immigration content. According to Yle the infamous Facebook group has 2,800 members - about one third of the country's police force, which was about 7,250 officers-strong in 2016.

Strong condemnation and statements about zero tolerance for racism by the Minister of Interior and the National Police Commissioner, as well as promises of a thorough investigation sound good - but a lot more ought to be done before confidence in the police could be restored, especially among minority groups such as people of African descent and Muslims who were targets in the infamous Facebook group. A thorough investigation should be followed by charges and prosecutions for possible crimes including ethnic agitation, incitement and wrongdoing under the Act on Civil Servants. Even if it is established by the prosecutor that laws have not been broken the police code of ethics has definitely been broken. There should be real consequences.

Police officers who participated in racist and anti-immigrant discussions online brought the entire Finnish police force into disrepute.

It is unlikely that there will be real legal consequences for the openly racist and anti-immigration comments made by police in a Facebook group - mindful of the fact that a Finnish MP once used the N-word openly on his first day in parliament and was cleared of wrongdoing. The culprits in this shocking case police misconduct might also walk. By so doing the image of the Finnish police force will be tainted for many years to come - at least in the eyes of members of targeted minority groups. The reputation of the Finnish police force will never be the same again unless radical change happens.

One tweet by a Finnish police officer who seems to be one of the good cops sums it up aptly.

Hävettää! Luottamuksen rakentaminen vähemmistöihin on haastavaa, ja voi kuinka helppoa se on rikkoa #eirasismille https://t.co/K5PIfR1Dde
— Jari Taponen (@JariTaponen) June 4, 2017

Building trust between police and minorities is challenging and easy to break. #NoToRacism

Cameroon: internet restored but repression continues

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:36:00 +0000

Repressive regimes have an arsenal of deplorable tactics that they use to quell political dissent, including brute force by state security forces, arbitrary arrests of dissidents and political activists on trumped up charges, killings and internet shutdown in a bid to control the narrative through state-sponsored media and stifle free expression and communication in opposition strongholds. Over the past couple of months the government of Cameroon has used all the aforementioned tactics in a futile attempt to squash political dissent in English-speaking parts of the country.

In October 2016 English-speaking Cameroonians who make up 20% of the country's population took to the streets to demand an end to marginalization and what has been described as "Francophonization" of English-speaking regions of the country: appointment of French-speaking judges and teachers who lack English language proficiency to work in courts and schools in the region - thereby forcing French down the throats of the local population in schools and courts. Lawyers oppose the appointment of French judges who lack language skills and an understanding of the Common Law system to preside at proceedings in Common Law courts; teachers oppose the appointment of French-speaking teachers to English schools. The general English-speaking public, including students joined the protest, and what started as a protest by lawyers and teachers morphed into popular civil disobedience that paralyzed courts, schools and local businesses -- all in an effort to force the government to address the "Anglophone problem".

In response, the government unleashed state security forces who teargased, brutalized and killed protesters; broke into students' living quarters in the university town of Buea, beat up students, subjected some to degrading and inhuman treatment, arrested many, ransacked student's rooms and allegedly raped some; civil society organizations were banned and their leaders arrested on charges including acts of terrorism, secession, revolution, insurrection, group rebellion and incitation of civil war.

Killings and mass arrests did not stop civil disobedience as schools and courts remained closed in protest, and calls for boycott of state activities including "Youth Day" celebrations became louder.

The government then orchestrated a crippling internet shutdown in the English-speaking parts of country. According to Al Jazeera the government ordered the internet blackout in January 2017. The blackout lasted three months but again failed to address the problem. Then on 21 April 2017 the government reportedly ended the internet shutdown on the orders of president Paul Biya.

My Take

At a time when a lot of people depend on the internet as a source of information and livelihood cutting it off for three months represented a new low -- even for the Biya regime which has an unenviable record of heavy-handedness. The shutdown is an indication of how far the Biya regime is willing to go stifle political dissent and tighten its grip on power -- 33 years after rising to power.

Ninety four (94) days is a long time to be without internet access nowadays. Small businesses like cybercafés literally went out of business for three months. In a country with a broken or non-existent social security system the internet shutdown was basically a shutdown of the only or major source of income for small business families that depend on businesses like cybercafés for their livelihood. The regime condemned such families to three months of abject poverty and hardship. For three months students could not access information and journalists had to make a four-hour trip to a neighboring region to submit reports to their editors. Innocent people from all walks of life in English-speaking parts of Cameroon were affected by the repressive decision of a dictatorial regime.

It is therefore understandable that people in English-speaking parts of Cameroon were delighted when the internet was restored. However, the people should not lose sight of the fact that the internet, which should not have been cut off in the first place, was restored but continues as civil society leaders arrested on trumped up charges as a result of the struggle against marginalization of Cameroon's English-speaking minority remain detained; civilian deaths in the hands of state security forces, destruction of property, brutalization and alleged rapes by state security forces remain uninvestigated.

The internet returned to English-speaking parts of Cameroon but repression continues as Anglophone political detainees like Nkongho Agbor-Balla, Fontem Neba, Mancho Bibixy, Ayah Paul and 30 others remain in detention in Yaounde on politically motivated charges. Cameroon remains a dictatorship as long as people are arrested and charged with terrorism as a result of nonviolent political activism. Turning the internet back on is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. President Paul Biya deserves no credit or "motion of support" from English-speaking Cameroonians or any Cameroonian for that matter for ordering an end to the infamous internet shutdown. The internet should not have been cut off in the first place.

Italy welcomes repressive Cameroon president for State Visit

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:47:00 +0000

At a time when the government of Cameroon cut off internet connection to English-speaking parts of the country and engaged in mass arbitrary arrest of civil society leaders and political activists on trumped up charges, the president of the Republic was warmly received in Rome by Italian president Sergio Mattarella to the dismay of many Cameroonians who feel trapped under the iron fist of the Biya regime.

On the invitation of Sergio Mattarella, president Paul Biya of Cameroon paid a two-day State Visit to Italy on 20 March 2017. During the visit the 83-year-old who has been in power for 34 years was warmly welcomed - with military honors and a state dinner at the Quirinal Palace in Rome.

My toast in response to that of President MATTARELLA during the State dinner offered in our honor: https://t.co/naHHUf6bgJ @CabinetCivilPRC pic.twitter.com/RYvFwnKIYn
— President Paul Biya (@PR_Paul_Biya) March 21, 2017

According to Paul Biya in a toast at the State dinner his visit to Rome is one of the first State Visits of an African president to Italy on the invitation of president Mattarella.

My Take

It is unfortunate that President Mattarella handed the honour of a State Visit - one of the first by an African president - to Paul Biya, a ruler who has been in power for 34 years and cracks down on political dissent. While the visit represents an honor to the octogenarian African ruler it is a dishonor to the Italian Republic - a country that, according to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, supports the promotion of democracy and the rule of law, the promotion of freedom of opinion and expression among other civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Since November 2016 Cameroonians in English-speaking parts Cameroon have been protesting against marginalization and "francophonization". The Paul Biya regime responded in typical ruthless fashion - violating, once again, its international human rights obligations under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): civil society organizations were banned, civil society leaders and political activists were arrested and charged with serious crimes including terrorism, civilians were killed as a result of a brutal response to protests by state security forces and internet connection to English-speaking regions of the country was cut off on the orders of the government - all in a bid to stifle peaceful political dissent. It is therefore alarming that a country like Italy that purportedly supports the protection and promotion of civil and political rights honored a president whose government has a long track record of human rights violations with a historic State visit. Even more disturbing is the fact that the visit was simultaneous with the continuous crackdown on human rights in English-speaking Cameroon. In fact, at the same time the State dinner was going on at the Quirinal Palace or at the same time Paul Biya walked through a special military guard of honor Cameroonians in English-speaking parts of Cameroon could not access the internet as a result of internet blackout on the orders of the Biya regime.

Paul Biya, in his statement at the end of audience with the Italian President said he briefed Mattarella on the "progress made in the consolidation of our democracy"; on the contrary, the situation in Cameroon indicates that there is an assault on democracy by the Biya regime. There is no "progress" in a democracy when people are killed, arbitrarily arrested and cut off the internet for protesting against the government of a president who has ruled since 1982.

Cameroon: democracy is dead, if it was ever alive

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:39:00 +0000

Cameroon under president Paul Biya is an autocracy that routinely violates international human rights standards but does not get the condemnation it deserves from the international community - perhaps because western interests are not at stake in the former French and British colony.

Since November 2016, Cameroonians in English-speaking parts of Cameroon have been protesting against marginalization and what has been described as the "Anglophone problem". As a result of the government's heavy-handed response and its unwillingness or inability to address the grievances, teachers and lawyers have been on strike since 2016 and schools in affected regions have been closed for about four months. A general strike by lawyers also paralyzed courts.

The government's response includes the following.

Brutal crackdown and killings

When protests inspired by lawyers initially erupted in Bamenda state security forces responded brutally. Lawyers were tear-gazed, beaten and some of them had their robs and wigs seized. They were protesting against, among other things, the appointment of French-speaking judges in English-speaking courts and the absence of English versions of certain legal texts such as the uniform act of OHADA and the CIMA Code. Lawyers and students in the Southwest region joined the protests.

University student protesters in Buea were brutalized and subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment by state security forces. Students were assaulted and their living quarters and rooms were broken into by security forces. There were mass arrests and allegations of rape. According to a press release by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) more than nine (9) civilians were reported dead as of 13 December 2016. In a spirited speech in parliament, a Member of Parliament, Joseph Wirba, spoke out against, among other things, the actions of security forces in Buea and elsewhere in English-speaking parts of the country.

Mass arrest of political activists

A campaign of mass arrest of political dissidents was launched immediately after the banning of two politically active organizations. Following the banning of the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium (CACSC) and the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) prominent political activists and strike leaders were arrested and detained on trumped up charges. Those arrested include, Nkongho Felix Agbor-Mballa, Fontem Aforteka'a Neba, Mancho Bibixy and Ayah Paul Abine. Charges against them include acts of terrorism, hostility to the Fatherland, secession, revolution, insurrection, group rebellion, incitation of civil war, contempt on public bodies and public servants and spreading false information, according to state media. Nineteen cases are reportedly scheduled for hearing in relation to the Anglophone crisis.

The National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms reported on its website (accessed on 17 March 2017) that it visited some of the detainees arrested in relation to protests in Northwest and Southwest regions and helped release 34 individuals, including 4 minors. According to the Commission a total of 67 people were arrested between 8 December 2016 and 11 January 2017.

Internet shutdown

In addition to assaults, destruction of students' property, mass arrests, killings and alleged rapes, the government shutdown internet in English-speaking regions. According to CNN the "crippling internet shutdown" came after protests resulted in violence and the arrest of community leaders. The authorities ordered telecommunications providers to shut off the internet in English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions in January 2017, according to Al Jazeera. As of the time of this writing - three months later - the internet blackout is still in place.

My take

Brutal crackdown on protesters resulting in killings, enforced disappearance, illegal arrests, shutdown of civil society organizations and the internet are emblematic of dictatorships that seek to silence critics, purge any form of opposition and consolidate a firm grip on power. Mindful of the fact that state security forces in Cameroon have brutalized and killed numerous protesters with impunity over the years, the heavy-handed response to the recent episode of protests was predictable but the decision to cut off internet connection in opposition strongholds represents a new low. In the past the government controlled the narrative through state media CRTV by, for example, reporting inaccurate information about the number of people killed during protests. The advent of smartphones and the internet has made it impossible for the authorities to cover up crimes committed in it name, hence the regime has resorted to shutting down the internet and ordering telecommunications providers to send threatening text messages to internet users - threatening them with imprisonment and fines for spreading "false news".

The aforementioned actions of the government in response to legitimate grievances raised by a significant cross-section of the country supports the assertion that Cameroon, a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is a dictatorship where civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the inherent right to life, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security of person and the right to peaceful assembly are violated, routinely, with impunity.

Democracy in Cameroon is dead - if it was ever alive in the first place.

According to Larry Diamond, professor by courtesy of political science and sociology at Stanford University, democracy consists of four basic elements: the active participation of citizens in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law in which laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens, and a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. In Cameroon, alleged electoral fraud plagues elections and one man has been at the helm and wielded absolute power for 34 years; citizens who participate actively in opposition politics risk arrest on trumped up charges; human rights are routinely violated by state security forces and the law is used against political opponents and peaceful protesters.

#BringBackOurInternet

Cameroon: Commissions don't solve problems

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:11:00 +0000

Commissions created by undemocratic, corrupt governments are smokescreens designed to mask grievances raised by the people. They are intended to show "goodwill" to the international community, including international human rights watchdogs and foreign aid donors - so as to delegitimize the people's demands and escape reprimand. The government of Cameroon announced the creation of a commission to promote bilingualism in the wake of protests and civil disobedience in English-speaking parts of the country as a result of marginalization of Anglophones.

As strange as this may sound - Cameroon has a national human rights commission - which is known as the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms (NCHRF). It may sound strange because more than two decades after it was decreed many Cameroonians have never heard about it, and the state of human rights in the country is still nothing to write home about. According to the Commonwealth Forum of Human Rights Institutions the human rights commission is an independent institution created by Presidential Decree in 1990, and by law in 2004. Its functions include receiving denunciations of human rights violations, conducting inquiries and visiting penitentiary establishments, popularizing human rights standards, liaising with NGOs and proposing human rights measures to the authorities.

As a result of an on-going strike and mass civil disobedience in English-speaking parts of Cameroon another commission was created called the National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. According to state-run CRTV it was created by Presidential Decree on 23 January 2017, and tasked with ensuring the "effective use of English and French as two official languages of equal value."

Over the past couple of months the government of Cameroon has been struggling to quell mass protests and strikes by Anglophones - or English-speaking Cameroonians - in the Northwest and Southwest regions of the country. Anglophones, led by lawyers, took to the streets in protest of what is described as the "Anglophone problem" - a phrase used to describe discrimination and marginalization of English-speaking Cameroonians who make up twenty (20) percent the population. Lawyers in the two English-speaking regions took to the streets to protest erosion of the Common Law system and the imposition of French and French-speaking judges in Anglophone courts. Teachers joined the strike - protesting the "francophonization" of English schools. The oppose, among other things, the appointment of Francophone teachers with little or no English-language proficiency to teach students in English-speaking parts of Cameroon. According to an accountant in Bamenda, capital of the northwest region, he pays someone to translate his brother's schoolwork from French to English because Franchophone teachers sometimes teach in French - even though their students are Anglophones. Students and the general public in English-speaking parts of Cameroon joined lawyers and teachers in the strike, and as a result schools and courts have been shutdown since the closing months of 2016.

The response of the government to the protest was typical: denial of the existence of an "Anglophone problem" - accompanied by a brutal crackdown on protests. Civilians lost their lives and many were beaten and arrested. The government banned the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium (CACSC) and the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), and arrested strike leaders and critics of the government, including Agbor Nkongho, Fontem Neba, Mancho Bibixy and Ayah Paul Abine. According to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) more than nine (9) Cameroonians lost their lives during protests in Bamenda, Buea and Kumba.

Photo of the decree posted on Facebook by CRTVweb

As strike action and "ghost towns" persist in English-speaking parts of Cameroon despite government crackdown on civil liberties the government announced the creation of the National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. This raises questions whether or not a commission is an effective solution to the numerous problems faced by Anglophone - problems which, according to many Cameroonians, go beyond language.

My Take

Commissions do not solve problems in Cameroon. The are all smoke and mirrors. It follows that, I believe, the newly created National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism won't guarantee the "effective use of English and French as two official languages of equal value" in Cameroon. The commission won't guarantee bilingualism in the same way the creation of the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms (NCHRF) more than two decades ago neither guaranteed respect for human rights nor change the government of Cameroon's attitude towards human rights. The existence of a national commission of human rights has not made the state of human rights in Cameroon any better. Protesters are still being beaten, arrested,disappeared and some killed; associations are still being banned and their leaders arrested on trumped-up charges; and there is still impunity for crimes committed against civilians by state security forces. In the face of the recent full-scale assault of human rights in Cameroon following protests in English-speaking parts of Cameroon the NCHRF has been largely ineffective - due to a culture of impunity and lack of political will to respect human rights in Cameroon. It is fair to state that although the national human rights commission punches below its weight - it does some commendable work. For instance, according to information on its website (accessed on 25 January 2017) the Commission visited detainees held at SED and at the the Judicial Police in relation the protests in English-speaking parts of Cameroon, and helped release thirty four (34), including four (4) minors. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the work of the Commission, especially in the area of human rights protection. Impunity for crimes committed against civilians is the order of the day, and NCHRF is saying or doing little or nothing about it.

The bilingualism commission will face the same lack of political will faced by NCHRF. Eighty (80) percent of Cameroonians are Francophone and almost all top brass - people with the power to change things - in the government are Francophones. Ordinary Francophones also play a part in marginalization of Anglophones. Unless there is a change in their mentality toward Anglophones in Cameroon the Commission for bilingualism would not register any meaningful success. In addition, it might take years for it to gain the force of law. The human rights commission, for example, was decreed by the president in 1990 but gained the force of law in 2004 - fourteen (14) years later.

CRTV's George Ewane pointed out (see CRTV link above) that the Commission for the promotion of bilingualism and multiculturalism is modeled on Canada's Multiculturalism Act and on the Canadian Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism - which was, by the way, established in 1963. He failed to point out that the model works in Canada due to political will and strong institutions to support it. Cameroon lacks both political will and strong institutions, including a strong, independent judiciary to support the work of the Commission.

There are some positives to be taken away from the creation of the Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. Its creation is represents acknowledgement of the "Anglophone problem" by the government. By creating the Commission the government recognizes the fact that there is a problem - a problem that has festered for decades. However, Anglophones should not put down their guard and become complacent - bearing in mind that a Commission cannot redress the situation. The struggle for equality should continue.

If the government is serious about promoting bilingualism Anglophone Cameroonians should, for starters, also be appointed to serve in top positions that are currently filled with Francophones. An Anglophone Prime Minister with no real power is not enough. According to a Facebook post by Ayah Paul, former presidential candidate, leader of the Popular Action Party (PAP) and Advocate General of the Supreme Court, the President of the Supreme Court is a Francophone, the Attorney General is a Francophone, the Head of Judicial Division is a Francophone, the Head of Administrative Division is a Francophone, the Head of Audit Division is a Francophone, the Head of Special Criminal Court is a Francophone,the Director of Military Justice is a Francophone, the Registrar-in-chief of the Supreme Court is a Francophone, the Secretary General of the Supreme Court is a Francophone, just to name a few; decent roads should be constructed in English-speaking regions that have basically been forgotten by the government; Francophone judges and teachers who lack English language proficiency should be withdrawn from English-speaking Cameroon; all Anglophones arrested in relation to the Anglophone struggle should be released unconditionally; and atrocities committed by security forces, including killing of protesters should be investigated and those responsible brought to book. A return to Federalism as a form of government - or even secession - should not been taken off the table. According to the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) in its 26th Activity Report "the people of Southern Cameroon can legitimately claim to be a ´people´" since they have a "distinct identity which attracts certain collective rights." Under International law "a people" have the right to self-determination. Cracking down on those who nonviolently promulgate federalism or secession as a solution to the Anglophone problem is a violation of international human (and peoples') rights standards.

Cameroon: Politically motivated mass arrest of Anglophones

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:02:00 +0000

Anglophone Cameroonians, a minority in a country that prides itself as "diverse" and "bilingual" but does little or nothing to respect and promote minority rights - feel, and rightly so, that they are being marginalized, "francophonized" or assimilated by the French-speaking majority. To add salt to injury those who voice dissent and organize themselves in a bid to bring the "Anglophone problem" to the fore are swiftly arrested on trumped-up charges. This includes individuals who neither use nor advocate violence.

Cameroon's "Anglophone problem" is as old as the Republic, and it has always been there - brewing below the mask of "national unity." However, from time to time the problem erupts like a volcano. When it does erupt the government is always quick to sweep it under the rug by way of brutal crackdown on protests, killings, bans and mass arrests. The recent episode of the problem, which was sparked by lawyers in English-speaking parts of Cameroon aggrieved by a host of issues including the absence of English versions of some legal texts and the appointment of Francophone judges who lack English language proficiency to precede in English-speaking courts, was - as expected - followed by a wave of human rights violations, including killings, arrests and enforced disappearances. Since protests broke out in the closing months of 2016 many Anglophones have been brutalized and arrested in relation to the Anglophone struggle.

Frontpage of a local newspaper

Leaders of the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium (CACSC), Nkongho Felix Agbor-Balla and Fontem Aforteka'a Neba were arrested, and the Consortium banned - together with the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC). According to state-controlled media CRTV the organizations were banned by Ministerial order because their purpose and activities are contrary to the Constitution and could jeopardize the security of the state, territorial integrity, national unity and national integration. The president of Cameroon People's Party (CPP) and former presidential candidate Kah Walla posted on her Facebook page that she visited the arrested leaders of CACSC at the Secretariat of State for Defense known by its French acronym SED, and that charges brought against them are of "extreme gravity". The charges, according to Kah Walla, include secession, treason, inciting rebellion and acts of terrorism.

A prominent protester, Mancho Bibixy, was also arrested. He was a vocal protester who staged the famous coffin protest decrying bad roads in Bamenda, capital of the northwest region. State media describes him as "a secessionist ring leader" - but an interview with France 24 paints a different picture of the activist.

Ayah Paul Abine, a former presidential candidate, chairman of Popular Action Party (PAP) and Advocate General of the Supreme Court, was also reportedly arrested. News of his arrest was posted on his Facebook page. According to the update he was arrested by 6 armed men from SED who had no arrest warrant. Ayah Paul has been vocal in the call for resolution of the Anglophone problem. In an interview with STV News (in French), for example, he did not mince words.

According to reports as of the time of this writing, another vocal Anglophone - Joseph Wirba, a Member of Parliament from Kumbo who took Cameroon by storm with a spirited speech in parliament highlighting the plight of Anglophones, has been arrested.

Worthy to mention that numerous other civilians have been arrested since November 2016 when civil disobedience erupted in English-speaking regions of Cameroon, and according to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) in a scathing press release - more than nine (9) deaths have been reported. The Commission also noted that the government is planning mass arrests, kidnappings and assassinations as a means to "thwart" the Anglophone struggle.

My Take

As Abraham Maslow once said, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." All the government of Cameroon has is an iron fist - hence it cracks down on anyone or anything that dissents.

The CACSC was banned on same day it issued a press release calling for "greater self-discipline" and condemning violence "unreservedly" - an indication that the organization is nonviolent. Claims that its objectives are contrary to the Constitution and could jeopardize national security are unfounded. The objectives listed on its website (accessed on 23 January 2017), include identify problems affecting the existence of Anglophones in Cameroon; educate, advocate, mediate, advise and speak for and on behalf of Anglophones in Cameroon; propose policy alternatives to improve the lives of the people. Looking at the organization's objectives it is plausible to conclude that the ban and arrest of CACSC leaders were politically motivated. The intention is to scape-goat them and cow Anglophone dissidents into silence and submission - with the ultimate goal of ending an effective strike that has been in place since November 2016.

According to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a person is a political prisoner if he or she, deprived of personal liberty, meets any of the following criteria:

Detention violates basic guarantees in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols, particularly freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression and information; and freedom of assembly and association.
The detention is imposed for purely political reasons.
The length or conditions of the detention are out of proportion to the offense.
He or she is detained in a discriminatory manner as compared to other persons.
The detention is the result of judicial proceedings that are clearly unfair and connected with the political motives of the authorities.

Amnesty International defines prisoners of conscience as "people who have been jailed because of their political, religious or other consciously-held beliefs, ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, sexual orientation or other status - provided that they have neither used nor advocated violence." According RFE/RL Amnesty International makes a slight distinction between "political prisoner" and "prisoner of conscience." The latter is a subset of the former -- as evidenced by the use of the phrase "prisoners of conscience and other political prisoners" in this report on political prisoners in Iran.

Based on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's criteria and on Amnesty International's definition of "prisoner of conscience," if convicted on trumped-up charges including secession, treason or incitement of rebellion and acts of terrorism Barrister Nkongho, Dr. Fontem, Mancho Bibixy, Ayah Paul Abine and Joseph Wirba - all arrested for nonviolent political activism would qualify as "political prisoners" or "prisoners of conscience". Their arrests are, the way I see it, politically motivated based on their political belief that Anglophone Cameroonians are marginalized, and on their loud calls for change.

There is an "Anglophone problem" in Cameroon, and people should have the liberty to express views on the problem, and propose possible nonviolent solutions, including a return to federalism - or even secession - without fear of retribution. No nonviolent proposal should be illegal. Banning nonviolent groups like CACSC and arresting strike leaders is an assault on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and amounts to attempts to stifle political discourse on the plight of Anglophones.

Whenever civilians with misgivings about the sorry-state of affairs in Cameroon rise up in protest the government resorts to undemocratic measures designed to stifle dissent. This has been the government's modus operandi for decades. If the government of Cameroon is serious about upholding the Constitution and law and order it should investigate and prosecute security forces responsible for crimes against unarmed protesters -- serious crimes including killings, arbitrary arrests, assault, destruction of property and abuse of power.

Cameroon: Not a state of law or a democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:37:00 +0000

Whenever there's a protest by civilians in Cameroon, including students, teachers and even lawyers - the Head of State, a man who has been in power for thirty four (34) years, or one of his cronies, usually the Minister of Communication, delivers a speech in which he states, among other inaccurate claims, that Cameroon is a "state of law". Months after lawyers, teachers, students and general public in English-speaking parts of Cameroon voiced grievances through protests that led to an indefinite strike action due to the government's inability or unwillingness to solve the issues raised, the Head of State, this time in his routine end of year speech, stated, among other things, that Cameroon is a state of law that is inclusive, bilingual, unique, one and indivisible.

Months after lawyers and teachers went on strike in opposition to the "Francophonization" of English-speaking parts of Cameroon the president finally addressed the nation. The president finally spoke - months after civilians, including lawyers and students were brutalized and some killed by state security forces who cracked down on mass protests in English-speaking parts of the country. The Head of State started his 31 December 2016 speech, which was reportedly leaked (in French) on Facebook before it was delivered, with supposedly encouraging words about the "resilience" of the economy, and, of course, praise for the military in the fight against Boko Haram - despite criticism by human rights group Amnesty International that Cameroon uses the fight against Boko Haram to justify blatant human rights violations. He went on to state that Cameroon is "one and indivisible", "proud of its cultural diversity" and "jealous of its liberty". He mentioned the Eseka train disaster that, according to The Telegraph, left at least 55 people dead and nearly 300 injured. According to Al Jazeera at least 70 people were killed and 600 wounded in the train disaster. The president went on to address unrest in English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions of the country. He described protesters as a group of manipulated "extremists", and blamed them for civilian deaths, destruction of property, denigration of state symbols and paralyzation of economic activities.

The Head of State went on to state that political liberties are effective in Cameroon, and are guaranteed by laws and regulations hence every citizen has a right to express opinions on all subjects. He acknowledged, ironically, that these rights, which are enshrined guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic, are inalienable democratic ideals. He went on to condemn all acts of violence - making it sound like civilians, some of whom lost their lives, were responsible for the violence. He failed to condemn violence by security forces that left civilians dead and injured. He claimed that Cameroon is a democratic country and a state of law, and that problems ought to be solved within the law and through dialogue. "Le Cameroun est un pays démocratique, un Etat de droit", he said. "Les problèmes doivent y être réglés dans les cadre de la loi et par le dialogue".

My Take

Frontpage of a local newspaper, January 20, 2017

President Paul Biya of Cameroon, a man who has been in power since 1982, is out of touch with reality in the country he purportedly leads. "Le Cameroun est un pays démocratique, un Etat de droit", he said - meaning Cameroon is a democratic country and a state of law. The president could not be further away from the truth. Cameroon is not a democracy, neither is it a state of law.

In a real democracy civilians, including lawyers and students peacefully demonstrating in a bid to call the government's attention to their plight are not teargassed, beaten up and killed by [supposedly] forces of "law and and order"; In a democracy protesting students in a university town like Buea are not brutally suppressed over the years and arbitrarily arrested for daring to voice grievances by way of protests.

The government of Cameroon routinely deploys security forces to crack down on protests, and the extremely brutal crackdowns usually result in civilian deaths. Over the years protests in Cameroon have been quelled with brute force by riot-police, gendarmes and even the military. In the past, brutal suppression of protests went unnoticed by the world because state-controlled media controlled the narrative - but the protests in 2016 were different because cell phone videos and social media exposed police barbarism that has plagued Paul Biya's Cameroon for decades. Shocking videos abound showing atrocious police misconduct during peaceful protests. For example, a video showing police officers forcing students to lie down in a mud puddle in Buea; Or a video showing lawyers beaten and pushed out of a police station; Another video shows what appears to be the army shooting in the streets of Bamenda. After such well-documented incidents of blatant criminal activities and, of course, impunity for crimes committed, which include killings by supposedly law enforcement officers, its absolutely misleading for the Head of State to come out and say Cameroon is a democratic state of law where civil liberties are guaranteed, and where every citizen has the right to assemble and express opinions.

If Cameroon were a state of law security forces guilty of heinous crimes against peaceful protesters would have been investigated and prosecuted. The reality is that Cameroon is not a state of law as claimed by president Paul Biya - that is why no one has been brought to book for blatant crimes committed against peaceful protesters. Some civilians lost their lives during the protests. Graphic videos posted on social media are a testament to the fact. For instance, the video of a civilian rushed to hospital. He was reported dead. Another video shows a death civilian carried by protesters in the streets as onlookers screamed in panic. Another shows two civilians lying dead in the streets. In a state of law there is no impunity for such crimes.

Besides being wrong on the issue of democracy and law, Paul Biya is wrong on the subject of state unity.

At the moment Cameroon is one, following unification of British Southern Cameroon and the Republic of Cameroon which got its independence from France in 1960. However, by virtue of the fact that Cameroon is made up of two entities - British and French Cameroons - that came together to form a federation, the country is not "indivisible" as stated by the president in his speech. In other words, Cameroon is one and divisible. The country is "one" by virtue of unification, and "divisible" by virtue of the fact that the people of former British Southern Cameroons are "a people" who reserve the right to self-determination. The Republic of Cameroon as we know it is made up of two Cameroons - West and East (or English and French) Cameroons that came together in 1961. History shows that British Southern Cameroons joined the independent Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. In 1972 a new Constitution replaced the federation with a unitary state. The United Republic of Cameroon was renamed the Republic of Cameroon in 1984. In essence, the Republic of Cameroon could be likened to a marriage between two individuals. If the marriage is not working or if one party wants out - there is always a possibility. In this light Cameroon is one - and divisible.

Former British Southern Cameroonians are a people under international law, that is why they were eligible for a plebiscite in 1961 in the first place. The African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) found, among other things, that "the people of Southern Cameroon can legitimately claim to be a `people´" (see 26th Activity Report of the ACHPR, pg. 29-33. Retrieved 21 January 2017). Under international law a people have a right to self-determination.

The president was right when he said problems ought to be solved within the law and through dialogue. The government of Cameroon under Paul Biya should engage in dialogue - without pre-conditions - with English-speaking Cameroonians who feel, and rightly so, that they are being marginalized and "francophonized" by the Biya regime. A slogan like "le Cameroun est UN et INDIVISIBLE" highlighted in the president's end-of-year speech is a provocative pre-condition in what is supposed to be dialogue between two equal parties in a union.

On 17 January 2017, less than a month after president Paul Biya spoke about democracy, civil liberties, the right to express opinions and dialogue in Cameroon, the government arrested Fontem Aforteka'a Neba and Nkongho Félix Agbor Balla, leaders of the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium (CACSC). Then banned the consortium and the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC). A prominent protester, Mancho Bibixy, was also arrested. According to a Facebook post by Kah Walla, leader of the Cameroon People's Party (CPP) and former presidential candidate, Dr. Fontem and Barrister Nkongho face charges of "extreme gravity", including secession, treason, inciting rebellion and acts of terrorism. Arresting English-speaking Cameroonians who peacefully advocate secession or a return for federalism is not "dialogue". Rather it is an assault on civil and political rights that are emblematic of democratic societies.

Numerous actions and inactions of the Cameroon government, including brutal crackdown on protests, killings, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances and reluctance to condemn violence against unarmed protesters show that Cameroon is neither a democracy nor a state of law. For decades the government of Cameroon under president Paul Biya has used the law as a tool to silence political dissent and tighten its grip on power.

Why Cameroonians must denounce the army

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:23:00 +0000

In 2015 Cameroonians came out en masse in major cities across the country and on social media to show "solidarity" with the army in the fight against Boko Haram. Twenty two months later the army deployed to crack down on civilians in Bamenda. Cameroonians who declared "Je suis l'armée camerounaise" in 2015 have a moral responsibility to now denounce the army and distance themselves from a state apparatus that has a reputation of brutality and human rights violations - an apparatus which they, knowingly or unknowingly, endorsed and emboldened.

Over the past couple of weeks Cameroon's minority English-speaking regions have borne the brunt of yet another episode of brutality and killing by state security forces. According to Reuters police in Cameroon shot and killed four anti-government demonstrators on Thursday 8 December 2016. Protesters were reportedly opposed to a planned rally by the ruling political party, Cameroon People's Democratic Front (CPDM). A Reuters reporter saw police open fire on the crowd.

Graphic photos and videos flooded Facebook during the protests as demonstrators and people on the ground uploaded images in real time. One of the numerous videos circulating on Facebook shows two dead civilians lying on the tarmac. Another video shows demonstrators carrying a dead civilian on a makeshift stretcher. Another shows a street in Bamenda looking like a war zone with the army on patrol. Another shows army personnel intimidating civilians with guns. A 12-year old boy was also reportedly shot, and there are videos of people fleeing their homes in Bambili in the northwest region.

According to a BBC correspondent in Bamenda one victim was shot in the mouth and two others wee shot in the head and back of the neck. More than fifteen casualties were reportedly treated at the Bamenda hospital - many of them critically wounded. The deaths came after a month of protests sparked by lawyers in Bamenda. Lawyers in Buea, teachers, students and the general public later joined the struggle.

As if the mayhem committed in Bamenda was not enough, more military personnel were reportedly sent to Bamenda to join efforts to quell protests.

My Take

Screenshot of Facebook video showing army in Bamenda

In 2015 I argued that civilian show of "solidarity" with the Cameroonian army was misguided and based on emotion rather than reason. I argued that the Cameroonian army is brutal and has no regard for human rights. I cited Amnesty International's 2014/2015 annual report (see page 95) which implicated Cameroon's security forces, including the Rapid Intervention Brigade (BIR) in human rights violations such as killings, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and illegal detentions - mostly committed in the context of fighting terrorism.

I argued, in a blog post, that the demonstrations organized in Yaounde and Douala to show support for the military would have been crushed by the same military if the demonstrations were anti-government demonstrations. I concluded that I do not think the "new-found solidarity" between the army and the people will endure since the army will enthusiastically repress the people the next time it is deployed to do so. I submitted that when that time comes the slogan "Je suis l'armée camerounaise" would, perhaps, change to "Je ne suis pas l'armée camerounaise."

Well, twenty two months later, needless to say, the time has come. As of the time of this writing the army, together with police and gendarmes, is in Bamenda repressing civilians. This time Cameroonian civilians are the enemy - not Boko Haram militants. There are reports of alleged acts of violence against civilians and private property in Bamenda.

And according to Amnesty International there are 130 people still missing 20 months after they were arrested in a crackdown on suspected Boko Haram members in a villages of Magdeme and Doublé in the Far North region on 27 December 2014. At least 9 civilians, including a child, were also killed during the cordon-and-search operation. In addition, more than 70 homes and buildings were destroyed. Amnesty International urged Cameroonian authorities to stop using the fight against Boko Haram to justify blatant violation of human rights.

In essence, mindful of the brutal crackdown on English-speaking Cameroonian civilians in the north west and south west regions, and human rights violations committed in the Far North region, Cameroonian state security forces violate human rights on two fronts: in the fight against terrorism and in the fight against unarmed anti-government protesters, including lawyers, teachers, students and the general civilian population.

To reiterate: "Je suis l'armée camerounaise" demontrations in February 2015 were a misguided show of support for a brutal force, and an endorsement of atrocities committed by the latter. Moi, "Je ne suis pas l'armée camerounaise." I am not the army of Cameroon. I was not the army in 2015, I am not the army in 2016 and I won't be the brutal army of Cameroon until human rights violations committed by the army are stopped, investigated and all perpetrators brought to book.

Brutalization of lawyers in Cameroon and the "Anglophone problem"

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 15:38:00 +0000

Police brutality during peaceful protests in Cameroon is an undisputed reality. It happens all the time. Cameroonian police (and sometimes the army) routinely use illegal brute force to crack down on unarmed civilians - usually with absolute impunity. Police brutality in Cameroon has no bounds as it affects everyone, including lawyers - a highly respected group of people in countries where the rule of law prevails. In countries like Cameroon where there is no respect for the rule of law there is equally no respect for lawyers by law enforcement officers who, due to decades of impunity for crimes committed in uniform, think they are above the law and above the people they are meant to serve and protect.

For quite some time now lawyers in the English-speaking region of Cameroon have had grievances and have taken peaceful, legal steps to address them. Their grievances include the conception of laws in French, presentation of the laws in parliament in French, promulgation in French and wrong translation of laws into English - which, according to a lawyer speaking to BBC Africa during a demonstration on 23 June 2016, lead to unclear laws and incrimination of anglophones. Lawyers in English-speaking regions of Cameroon believe their "jurisdiction" and "common law principles" are being "invaded." Other grievances voiced during the June protest include opposition to a new law that, among other things, criminalizes non-payment of rents by tenants and grants immunity to government ministers. Under the controversial new law, according to VOA news, tenants who fall behind on their rents by at least two months could be imprisoned for three years. Lawyers in English-speaking parts of Cameroon believe the law is designed to protect the rich and powerful. The controversial bill was passed despite opposition by lawyers.

Several months after their voices went unheard lawyers in Bamenda took to the streets again on 8 November 2016 to, once again, voice their grievances. According to the BBC (in French) they demanded that legal texts and laws be translated into English as required by the Constitution. The lawyers gathered in front of the Court of Appeal in Bamenda to announce the creation of a new Bar Association for anglophone lawyers. Security forces intervened as Bobga Harmony, president of the North West Lawyers Association, started explaining the rationale behind the creation of the new Bar Association. At this point the lawyers decided to stage a protest march in the streets. Police used tear gas to disperse them. The BBC reports that since 11 October, anglophone lawyers have been protesting the non-existence of English versions of legal texts, including the "uniform Act" of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA), the Inter-African Conference on Insurance Markets (CIMA) code and the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) regulations.

Peaceful demonstrations by anglophone lawyers spread to other parts of English-speaking Cameroon. On 10 November 2016 lawyers in Buea in the southwest region demonstrated - voicing same grievances as their colleagues in Bamenda. Protesting lawyers in Buea met with heavy-handed police response. Lawyers were reportedly brutalized, their offices ransacked, and their wigs and gowns seized by police. Many were left injured and bloodied. Lawyers on their way to Buea in cars and taxis were reportedly harassed around Mutengene, Mile 14, Mile 16, Mile 17 and Muea. Lawyers' phones were seized and destroyed, and those heading to Buea on that day were, according to reports, asked to return to where they were coming from. Hotels were reportedly raided by police in search of lawyers, and those lodging in targeted hotels were harassed by so-called law enforcement officers. A video on Facebook shows a disturbing case in which a lawyer was harassed, shoved and pushed to the ground by police officers in riot gear. In the video a female police officer can be clearly heard telling her colleagues, in French, to beat up the lawyer. "Frappe! Frappé lui", she shouts. The incident reportedly took place in Muea in the southwest region. Photos of the incident are available on Facebook. The video in question is also available on YouTube.

This episode of police brutality in Cameroon was not limited to lawyers.

Teachers and the general public joined the strike. Teachers reportedly oppose what has been described as the "imposition of French in schools in Anglophone parts of the country." Protesting residents voice other grievances, including - according to protest signs - poor roads, no jobs, no water. According to the BBC at least 100 people have been arrested following protests and several people are being treated with bullet wounds in hospitals. Police reportedly used live bullets and one person was reported killed. A Facebook video shows the alleged victim.

University students in Buea also bore the brunt of police brutality. Many were molested by police and disturbing videos such as a video showing police officers armed with sticks rolling students in a mud puddle flooded Facebook. In another video police can be seen invading student quarters. In another, state security forces can be seen beating a student. A photo of a student with a bloodied head allegedly inflicted by police in Buea is a familiar sight. Historically, numerous Cameroonian civilians have been beaten, bloodied and killed by police during protests.

According to a security message for US citizens released by the US department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the US embassy in Cameroon deferred all non-essential travel for US embassy personnel to the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon from November 21 to 23 as result of planned strikes and demonstrations. An indication of how bad and volatile the situation is.

My Take

Police brutality is endemic in Cameroon, and impunity for blatant acts of violence committed by so-called law enforcement officers against peaceful protesters is the order of the day. Many of the perpetrators often come across as angry, untrained and corrupt. Impunity for such crimes emboldens perpetrators - many of who think, wrongfully of course, that they are above the law by virtue of being soldiers, gendarmes or police officers. In fact, as sad as this may sound, it is plausible to conclude that given the sorry-state of affairs in Cameroon - police officers in the country are above the law. Numerous peaceful protesters have been killed over the years by state security forces and - to the best of my recollection - no one has ever been brought to justice. In fact, as the recent episode unfolded I spoke with a lawyer who has practiced law in Cameroon for almost 15 years, and he said he could not provide "any jurisprudence" related to police brutality. The state of affairs speaks to two things: Cameroon is either a lawless state, or police officers are above the law. I subscribe to the latter. The fact that this time police officers have gone as far as brutalizing lawyers is an indication of the new-found courage vested in them by many years of impunity for criminal violence committed by police against civilians in Cameroon.

Over the past couple of weeks following the demonstration by lawyers, some Cameroonians have questioned whether or not there is an "Anglophone problem" in Cameroon. Some have even raised questions about the definition of an "anglophone." I would like to make it as clear as possible that the way I see it - there is an "anglophone problem" in Cameroon, and the problem goes deeper than anglophones being referred to derogatorily as "les anglos." I do not have to search deep to find reasons to support the claim that there is an anglophone problem.

Laws, for example, are conceived in French, debated in French and promulgated in French. The French language, which is now perceived by many English-speaking Cameroonians as the "language of the oppressor" is constantly being used by police and other state authorities to alienate and intimidate English-speaking Cameroonians in offices and public spaces around the country. On the flip side English-speaking Cameroonians in the French side of Cameroon are compelled by circumstances to learn and speak French. Video footage showing a female police officer shouting "frappe! Frappé lui" to her colleagues as they harass a lawyer in Muea is a case in point. It is worthy to mention that some anglophone police officers sometimes use French in order to intimidate and distance themselves from their fellow anglophones. Many of them understand the impact of French on English-speaking Cameroonians.

The state of roads in Bamenda also points to a problem. According to a protester speaking from a casket on the roof of car Chinese workers dig roads in Bamenda and break water pipes. When this happens it is the locals that pay for the damage. In another video segment the protester asserts that the things that happen in Bamenda cannot happen in Yaounde, which is the capital and a predominantly French city. I share the view that a Chinese company cannot go to Yaounde (or any major French-speaking city) dig roads, break pipes without consequences.

Furthermore, the marginalization of English-speaking Cameroonians is reflected in tiny details that are ignored but go a long way, such the texts on the currency of the country - the Central African CFA franc. A look at an image of the 10000 francs note for example reveals that everything written on it is in French. The same is true for the 2000 francs note, the 1000 francs note, the 500 francs note, just to cite a few. Now, compare that with currencies of other bilingual countries such as the currency of Canada or the currency of Belgium or the currency of Switzerland or the currency of Burundi, just to cite a few. Some supporters of the Cameroonian regime and those who argue that there is no anglophone problem would argue that the CFA franc is in French because it is a common currency shared by six countries in central Africa, namely: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon - hence one of them cannot influence the language on the currency. This argument does not hold water. The euro, which is the official currency of the eurozone, is used by 19 countries across Europe -- countries with different languages. The euro however is representative of the countries that use the currency. For example the edges of the Finnish euro coin reads "SUOMI FINLAND" (the name of the country in Finnish and Swedish, the country's two official languages). This is in line with the December 2006 amendment of the euro coin, according to the Bank of Finland. French is the only language on the Central African CFA franc because the countries involved have no regard for minority rights.

Some have argued that there is no "anglophone problem" because there are French-speaking Cameroonians who also bear the brunt of the brutal Biya regime that has controlled Cameroon for more than three decades. It is true that there are Francophones who also suffer as a result of bad governance, widespread corruption and impunity orchestrated or condoned by the predominantly French Biya administration but this does not take away anything from the plight of anglophones. According to South African History Online, large sections of white South Africans have lived in poverty for generations. And there are white south Africans living in poverty long after the end of Apartheid. This does not mean there was no discrimination against black South Africans. In the South African context, it could be argued that not all white people benefited directly from the Apartheid regime but such an assertion would not delegitimize the struggle of black South Africans. French-speaking Cameroonians make up majority of Cameroon's population. Eight out of ten regions in the country are primarily French-speaking - representing more than eighty percent (80%) of the country's population. The plight of the minority is not dependent on whether or not all of the majority is better off.

The "anglophone problem" in Cameroon is complex, and those who raise the issue risk being branded enemies of the state, and persecuted by a repressive regime that has been in power for more than thirty years by way of brutal crackdown on dissent and phony elections. This should not be the case because the problem is real. Not all those who subscribe to the school of thought that there is an Anglophone problem are "secessionists." Many are and many are not. The debate is toxic but the rights and freedoms of people on all sides of the political discourse should be respected. Those who support secession should respect the stance of those who do not, and vice versa. There are no "traitors" - a very strong word commonly used by those who advocate secession to describe those who do not support the cause. Both sides, I think, have the best interest of English-speaking Cameroonians at heart. The only difference lies in approach. More importantly, the state must respect the people's right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Civil dialogue is required in order to arrive at a sustainable solution, which is not necessarily secession. Secession, I believe, should be the last resort. There are bilingual and multilingual countries around the world that are stronger because they are not divided along linguistic lines. All linguistic groups work together, mindful of their rights and duties, to advance the national interest.

The issues raised by Cameroon Common Law lawyers - who were later joined by teachers, students and general English-speaking Cameroonian public - are genuine, and many of the problems could be easily solved by good governance - an ingredient lacking in Cameroon under president Paul Biya. A good place to start would be a change in (government) leadership, and the creation of system of government that allows, for example, the election of regional administrators such as governors, Divisional Officers (DOs) and Sub-divisional officers (SDOs). In this way regional administrators would be accountable to the people who elect them - not to the person who appoints them. In addition, election of local administrators would also get rid of "corruption factories" like the National School of Administration and Magistracy known by its French acronym: ENAM - a relic of colonialism created in 1959. While qualified Cameroonians should be free to live and work in any region of the country, French-speaking individuals, including judges and teachers who cannot communicate in English should not be imposed on English-speakers by appointment or presidential decrees, and vice versa.

Police brutality will not solve the numerous problems that threaten the existence of the Republic of Cameroon (or la République - as some prefer to call it). Brutal criminal acts by security forces would only further tear the country apart and drive it over a cliff into becoming yet another failed state plagued by civil unrest on the African continent.

Only silver lining in US election of Donald J. Trump

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:55:00 +0000

The 2016 U.S presidential elections, which was literally a reality TV show, is now behind us but even more shocking than the nasty political campaign is the rise to power of a reality TV star who defiled everything the United States of America supposedly stands for on his way to become the country's 45th president. During the campaign, his opponent described half of his supporters as "deplorables" -- racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. Regardless, Trump got elected. But there's a silver lining: majority of Americans did not vote for him - which means majority of Americans are not deplorables.

On June 16, 2015 Donald J. Trump introduced himself to the world by connecting Mexican immigrants with rape and drugs, and then promised mass deportation and a border wall. In another hugely controversial statement on December 7, 2015 he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States...". The statement provoked dismay and claims of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Screenshot of The Telegraph

It is worth mentioning that long before the presidential campaign started, Trump (and his father) were sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination related to their housing business in Brooklyn. They were accused of "anti-black bias" in apartment rentals in the city. Trump Management Corporation was accused of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in its operation of 39 buildings. According to the New York Times the Justice Department contended that Trump Corporation had refused to rent or negotiate rentals because of race and colors, and required different rental terms and conditions because of race as well as misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available. Assistant Attorney General at the time, J. Stanley Pottingar, told the New Times that the Trump case was referred to the Justice Department by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

On January 23, 2016 Trump boasted that support for his presidential bid would not lose supporters even if he shoots somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue. This came after he pondered the prospect of killing journalists. At a rally in South Carolina, Trump mocked a disabled reporter by mimicking the reporter's impaired movement. In fact Donald Trump controversies abound, including the scandal involving the so-called Trump University which many of its students who paid as much as $35,000, according to The Atlantic, described as a scam. In March 2016, during the presidential campaign, a New York appeals court ruled that a lawsuit which was filed in 2013 claiming that Donald Trump's now defunct Trump University defrauded consumers can go ahead. According to the lawsuit the Trump initiative bilked thousands of students collectively of $40 million.

The list of Trump lawsuits and controversies is long. His treatment women and his attitude toward them is worthy of an honorary mention. His "blood" comments about Megyn Kelly who pressed him on his misogynistic and sexist comments about women revealed his impudent attitude toward women. Then came the story of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, and how Donald Trump bullied and ridiculed her because of her looks and Latina background. Then came the 2005 video footage in which Trump brags about sexual assault against women. The video was followed by a catalog of sexual assault allegations by several women.

My Take

First of all, it is unconscionable that Donald Trump got elected president of the United States. His zero administrative experience, his temperament, erratic tweeting - sometimes at 3 AM - and his long list of lawsuits and controversies related to discrimination, racism, xenophobia, sexism and sexual harassment allegations should have eliminated him. Hillary Clinton was right: many - if not half - of Donald J. Trump's supporters could be put into what she calls the "basket of deplorables." Hillary later apologized for the statement -- but she should not have. There should be no apologies for calling out bigotry. Chances are anyone who supports and votes for a bigot is bigoted or does not care about bigotry. Supporters of Donald Trump, including members of Ku Klux Klan voted for a candidate who during the campaign flirted with racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, you name it; they elected a candidate who used fear-mongering and appealed to the dark side of the electorate. In the wake of his election the KKK, which endorsed him in April 2016, announced a victory parade to celebrate victory. Bona fide racists rooted for, and continue to root for Trump. Deplorable.

Donald Trump did not only embolden old school racists like established members of the KKK. His campaign inspired a new generation of racists among young students in schools and campuses around the country which are grappling with hostilities against minorities following the election. For instance, students at York County School of Technology were recorded chanting "white power" while carrying a pro-Trump sign; a prayer room for Muslim students at New York University was defaced with the word "Trump!" the day after the election; students in Royal Oak Middle School can be heard chanting "build the wall! Build the wall! in the school cafeteria. Racists graffi and hate crimes linked to Trump's campaign message have also been reported after the election.

Some analysts and commentators have argued that not all Trump supporters are deplorable because some of them are "well-meaning" ordinary Americans worried about "the establishment" and the state of the economy. I disagree. Anyone who shuns social justice in favor of a divisive candidate who promises to fix the economy could be safely put into the basket of deplorables. According to Fareed Zakaria, Donald Trump re-made the political map because of huge support from working class whites, and right wing populism is one the rise across a variety of western countries, including in countries with strong economic growth. Many Trump supporters - mostly white working class men - used the economy in this historic election to mask racism and xenophobia, and justify their desire to "make America white again" by building a wall, banning Muslims from entering the United States, deporting millions of immigrants, amongst other things.

The only good news following the shocking outcome of the 2016 U.S presidential election campaign is the popular vote. According to CBS news Hillary Clinton is on track to winning the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Hours after she called Trump to concede she was winning the popular vote. It means majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables - because majority of Americans did not vote for a deplorable candidate. Donald Trump got elected as a result of the Electoral College - a system he himself described in in a tweet in 2012 after America's first black president got re-elected as "a disaster for democracy" after America's first black president got re-elected; a system in which a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election. Trump condemned the system regardless of the fact that Barack Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That is how much he despised America's first black president.

When news broke that Donald J. Trump had been elected 45th U.S. president my fear was that he might have won the popular vote -- which would have meant that majority of the American electorate share his divisive views. I was relieved to an extent to learn that majority of Americans did not vote for him. Trump did not win the popular vote. It means majority of Americans do not subscribe to his views and did not want him to become president - hence the numerous anti-Trump protests in several cities and on campuses across the country following the election. The election of Trump offended the collective conscience of most Americans - many of whom took to the streets to express opposition. This, I think, is the only silver lining in what will go down in history as the most ridiculous U.S. presidential election campaign; a campaign that culminated in the election of the first most politically inexperienced, erratic, openly xenophobic, Islamophobic and sexist U.S presidential candidate who has never held public office or served in the military. Majority of Americans are good people, and cannot be put into the basket of deplorables. Only a minority voted for Trump.

Only silver lining in US election of Donald J. Trump

noreply@blogger.com (Zuzeeko Abeng) — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:55:00 +0000

Screenshot of The Telegraph

It is worth mentioning that long before the presidential campaign started, Trump (and his father) were sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination related to their housing business in Brooklyn. They were accused of "anti-black bias" in apartment rentals in the city. Trump Management Corporation was accused of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in its operation of 39 buildings. According to the New York Times the Justice Department contended that Trump Corporation had refused to rent or negotiate rentals because of race and colors, and required different rental terms and conditions because of race as well as misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available. Assistant Attorney General at the time, J. Stanley Pottingar, told the New Times that the Trump case was referred to the Justice Department by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

On January 23, 2016 Trump boasted that support for his presidential bid would not lose supporters even if he shoots somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue. This came after he pondered the prospect of killing journalists. At a rally in South Carolina, Trump mocked a disabled reporter by mimicking the reporter's impaired movement. In fact Donald Trump controversies abound, including the scandal involving the so-called Trump University which many of its students who paid as much as $35,000, according to The Atlantic, described as a scam. In March 2016, during the presidential campaign, a New York appeals court ruled that a lawsuit which was filed in 2013 claiming that Donald Trump's now defunct Trump University defrauded consumers can go ahead. According to the lawsuit the Trump initiative bilked thousands of students collectively of $40 million.

The list of Trump lawsuits and controversies is long. His treatment women and his attitude toward them is worthy of an honorary mention. His "blood" comments about Megyn Kelly who pressed him on his misogynistic and sexist comments about women revealed his impudent attitude toward women. Then came the story of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, and how Donald Trump bullied and ridiculed her because of her looks and Latina background. Then came the 2005 video footage in which Trump brags about sexual assault against women. The video was followed by a catalog of sexual assault allegations by several women.

My Take

First of all, it is unconscionable that Donald Trump got elected president of the United States. His zero administrative experience, his temperament, erratic tweeting - sometimes at 3 AM - and his long list of lawsuits and controversies related to discrimination, racism, xenophobia, sexism and sexual harassment allegations should have eliminated him. Hillary Clinton was right: many - if not half - of Donald J. Trump's supporters could be put into what she calls the "basket of deplorables." Hillary later apologized for the statement -- but she should not have. There should be no apologies for calling out bigotry. Chances are anyone who supports and votes for a bigot is bigoted or does not care about bigotry. Supporters of Donald Trump, including members of Ku Klux Klan voted for a candidate who during the campaign flirted with racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, you name it; they elected a candidate who used fear-mongering and appealed to the dark side of the electorate. In the wake of his election the KKK, which endorsed him in April 2016, announced a victory parade to celebrate victory. Bona fide racists rooted for, and continue to root for Trump. Deplorable.

Donald Trump did not only embolden old school racists like established members of the KKK. His campaign inspired a new generation of racists among young students in schools and campuses around the country which are grappling with hostilities against minorities following the election. For instance, students at York County School of Technology were recorded chanting "white power" while carrying a pro-Trump sign; a prayer room for Muslim students at New York University was defaced with the word "Trump!" the day after the election; students in Royal Oak Middle School can be heard chanting "build the wall! Build the wall! in the school cafeteria. Racists graffi and hate crimes linked to Trump's campaign message have also been reported after the election.

Some analysts and commentators have argued that not all Trump supporters are deplorable because some of them are "well-meaning" ordinary Americans worried about "the establishment" and the state of the economy. I disagree. Anyone who shuns social justice in favor of a divisive candidate who promises to fix the economy could be safely put into the basket of deplorables. According to Fareed Zakaria, Donald Trump re-made the political map because of huge support from working class whites, and right wing populism is one the rise across a variety of western countries, including in countries with strong economic growth. Many Trump supporters - mostly white working class men - used the economy in this historic election to mask racism and xenophobia, and justify their desire to "make America white again" by building a wall, banning Muslims from entering the United States, deporting millions of immigrants, amongst other things.

The only good news following the shocking outcome of the 2016 U.S presidential election campaign is the popular vote. According to CBS news Hillary Clinton is on track to winning the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Hours after she called Trump to concede she was winning the popular vote. It means majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables - because majority of Americans did not vote for a deplorable candidate. Donald Trump got elected as a result of the Electoral College - a system he himself described in in a tweet in 2012 after America's first black president got re-elected as "a disaster for democracy" after America's first black president got re-elected; a system in which a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election. Trump condemned the system regardless of the fact that Barack Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That is how much he despised America's first black president.

When news broke that Donald J. Trump had been elected 45th U.S. president my fear was that he might have won the popular vote -- which would have meant that majority of the American electorate share his divisive views. I was relieved to an extent to learn that majority of Americans did not vote for him. Trump did not win the popular vote. It means majority of Americans do not subscribe to his views and did not want him to become president - hence the numerous anti-Trump protests in several cities and on campuses across the country following the election. The election of Trump offended the collective conscience of most Americans - many of whom took to the streets to express opposition. This, I think, is the only silver lining in what will go down in history as the most ridiculous U.S. presidential election campaign; a campaign that culminated in the election of the first most politically inexperienced, erratic, openly xenophobic, Islamophobic and sexist U.S presidential candidate who has never held public office or served in the military. The majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables. Only a minority voted for Trump.