2003 BLCC vs. Cameroon - BLCC Response to Cameroon's Reply on the Exhaustion of Local Remedies

Before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

I. Summary

In its Reply dated 8th May 2003, Respondent sets forth two basic reasons why this Commission should declare the BLCC communication inadmissible. First, that the conduct of the Southwest Procureur General in the John Niba Ngu/Brobon Finex case (“CTE Litigation”), though illegal is insufficient to justify a conclusion that the courts in Cameroon are similarly tainted. To support the proposition that the Cameroon judiciary is independent, Respondent cites the Ncho v. Itoe case where the courts in the Northwest Province entertained a complaint against the Procureur General and found him guilty.

With respect to this first issue, Respondent’s argument fails, first, because it is based on a fictitious view of Cameroon justice and ignores both popular and expert assessments of a national court system that is notoriously corrupt and compromised.  In addition, Respondent relies on case law that confirms Complainants’ submission that the idea of  an independent judiciary in Cameroon is nothing but a chimera.

Second, Respondent challenges the admissibility of this Communication on the ground that having  failed to sue the Government of Cameroon in the latter’s law courts, Complainants have not exhausted all available legal remedies within the meaning of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. This second argument also must fail for three reasons.

Click here to print or download complete reply in pdf format