By
Macdonald Ayang Okumb
 |
| President Paul Biya (Photo courtesy PRC) |
The first ever President
of the United States of America, George Washington, once said “the Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” He was
right. An explicitly drawn up constitution
is a requisite instrument for every democracy. In fact, it is a workbook. And
the simple reason is that it is the mother law that defines the fundamental
political principles of a nation. Constitutionalists are very much aware of
this fact; reason why they are always laborious and meticulous in drafting up
constitutions. Having a fine constitution and implementing
it is a good thing, but ignoring some of the pertinent provisions there in, or may
be manipulating them to suit the vaulting aspirations of the Guarantor of that
constitution, is quite unfortunate.
Strangely in Cameroon, the President appears to be
more powerful than the constitution. Apart from just twisting the constitution
to suit his aspirations, political pundits hold that it is because the same
constitutions arrogates to him, sweeping powers. In fact, he has the powers to
dissolve Parliament. Just last week, he clocked three decades plus three years
as president of Cameroon. Within this long uninterrupted period of his
presidency, some portions of the constitution have virtually and regrettably been
ignored in the day to day business of national life.
Things have been in such a way that he orders for an
amendment anytime he wills. Not just that; he also chooses which portion of it
to implement and ignores others. It is in the spirit of such vexing
discretional actions of President Paul Biya that it took seventeen years for
the Senate to be put in place, for instance. And there was no genuine excuse
for that. But maybe, let me begin with this bothersome issue which is about;
Bilingualism
Section 1, paragraph 3 of the 1996 constitution as
amended by law no. 2008/001 of 14 April 2008, states and I quote: “the official
languages of the Republic of Cameroon shall be English and French, and both
languages having the same status. The state shall guarantee the promotion of
bilingualism through out the country. It shall endeavour to protect and promote
national languages.” This is such a clear constitutional provision that has
often been forgotten and relegated to the back ground to the chagrin of mostly
Anglophones who constitute a minority population.
When francophone government officials struggle to
speak English when they are required to do so, they behave as if they are doing
a favour to anybody. I cannot recall when the Head of State last released a
decree simultaneously in both languages. Many times we have heard
English-speaking journalists of the national broadcaster struggle on air to
translate documents signed by the Head of State. An aberration!
We are tired of this anomaly. For a country that
boasts a number of training institutions for translators, this is not being
fair to the constitution. And what even stops government from making it an
official policy for some major national languages to be taught in our primary
and secondary schools like the constitution states? South Africa has eleven
official languages and about nine of them are their national languages which
they promoted to that status. Let me leave the issue of language to talk about;
Appointments
in Government
Section ten (I) of the constitution says the President
of the Republic shall appoint the Prime Minister and, on the proposal of the
later, the other members of government. But over the years, we have seen the Prime
Minister and Ministers appointed on the same day whereas the logic could have
been that; the Prime Minister is first appointed and then days later, the other
members of government. It is unconstitutional. That’s why in recent times, some
members of government demonstrated unbridled obstinacy towards the head of
government because probably they know he did not play any role in their appointment.
That’s also why ministers do not thank the Prime Minister whenever they are
appointed because they are not sure he is the one who proposed that they be
appointed.
However, in the most recent cabinet, Minette Libom
Li Likeng, set a new precedence when she publicly extended words of thanks to
the Prime minister after she was appointed Telecommunications Minister. The
constitution also says the president shall preside over the council of
ministers but forgets to define within which duration it should be convened.
Such ambiguities give room for inertia, just as is the case with the problem
of;
Cumulation
of functions
This is a problem that continues to find fertile
ground in a country crumbling under the weight of unemployment. Section
thirteen of our fundamental law says “the office of member of government and
any office ranking as such shall be incompatible with that of Member of
Parliament, chairman of the executive or assembly of a local or regional
authority, leader of a national professional association, or with any other
employment or professional activity.” In outright defiance of this provision,
many top government officials hold more than one official function. How do we
expect to attain emergence by 2035 when people who are old and weak accumulate
several crucial functions? This retards development and it is one of the
reasons why skeptics are questioning the workability of the Emergency Plan.
Then enter the issue of;
Private
members’ Bills In Parliament
It is always a strange thing to talk about private
members’ bills in our parliament. The last one on the protection of water
catchments and wetlands proposed by SDF’s Cyprian Awudu Mbaya was thrown to the
dustbin by a CPDM dominated Chairmen’s Conference. Proverbially, it was like a baby
killed at birth without allowing it the opportunity to breathe some life. Is it
not a shame that, unlike provided for by section 25 of the constitution,
private member bills have hardly scaled through?
Section 18, 2 (a) says “all private members’ bills
and amendments, which if passed, would result in the reduction of public funds,
or in an increase of public charges without a corresponding reduction in order
expenditure or the grant of equivalent new supply of funds, shall be
inadmissible.” So how then was Hon. Awudu Mbaya’s proposed bill, which only
sought to guarantee safe sources of drinking water for Cameroonians especially
in rural areas, repugnant to this provision? See you shorts for part II when I shall
begin by questioning the non existence, up till date, of the Constitutional
Council, which is why the Supreme Court, which is now working in its lieu, is
over-stretching itself by executing assignments that are not constitutionally ascribed
to it.
Nice one Mac
ReplyDelete