Cameroon: Parliament in the News!

Cameroon’s poor score of 5% on the 2008 Open Budget Index shows that the financial activities of public institutions in Cameroon are usually shrouded in secrecy that encourages corrupt practices.

By Tazoacha Asonganyi

The June session of parliament came to a close some weeks ago. The closure coincided with the much news about what is today known as the UK parliamentary expenses scandal, even if it was drowned by the announcement of a "new" government in Cameroon. Judging by the stir the scandal caused in the UK, it is clear that lack of transparency in the financial management of such institutions invariably leads to the abuse of public money, preventing the institutions from adequately discharging their assigned duties. The scandal led to "diminishing parliamentary and public confidence", and the resignation of the speaker of the UK House of Commons, especially because of his role in the expenses scandal.

Cameroon’s poor score of 5% on the 2008 Open Budget Index shows that the financial activities of public institutions in Cameroon are usually shrouded in secrecy that encourages corrupt practices. The strong current of public opinion that discouraged what was then known as the "radical opposition" from taking up its seats in parliament following the 1997 parliamentary elections in Cameroon, was based on the fear that the secrecy in financial management in the Cameroon National Assembly would be used as a cover to silence MPs of all political leanings, especially those of the opposition. The state of the opposition today, especially of the parliamentary opposition seems to have vindicated this fear of the public.

There is no doubt that lack of transparency in financial management has serious consequences on the ability of parliament to exert its full weight in the governance checks and balances equation. This is confirmed by an opposition MP who once complained that although he submitted 31 amendments prior to the adoption of the now moribund decentralization laws, they were all voted down in the Constitutional Laws Committee (to which he belonged), and not discussed in plenary because the Speaker stated that he had "agreed with my Parliamentary Group Leader" to limit debate on the bills in plenary... The MP left no doubt that there had been shady deals!

Indeed, shady deals abound in the Cameroon National Assembly. Unfortunately, in Cameroon, we do not have a Freedom of Information Act, which in the UK, allows members of the public to request disclosure of information from public institutions; and which was the basis on which the public was able to get information on MPs’ expenses claims.

We have always said that when such disclosures about expenditures in parliament become possible in Cameroon, the public would be shocked by the much money that changes hands in parliament to buy off MPs on various issues, and more. There is great need for a Cameroon Freedom of Information Act, to accompany the present lackluster fight against corruption.

Another issue that was in the air when parliament was in session was related to by-elections to fill vacant positions in parliament. With the advent of Barack Obama, Ghana seems to have become Africa’s measuring rod. The Ghanaian constitution of 1992 has this to say about by-elections: "...Whenever a vacancy occurs in parliament, the clerk of parliament shall notify the Electoral Commission in writing within seven days after becoming aware that the vacancy has occurred; and a by-election shall be held within thirty days after the vacancy occurred except that where the vacancy occurred through the death of a member, the by-election shall be held within sixty days after the occurrence of the vacancy..." This is time-bound and practicable. So what does our own 1996 constitution say about the matter? Nothing! And the electoral Law?

The electoral law states that: "...Where one or more seats become vacant either because of death, resignation of the substantive. .., by-elections shall be held within a period of twelve months following the occurrence of the vacancy...in the manner specified here..." Everybody knows that "in the manner specified here" means the list system! This is why we hear often from MPs of the New Deal that "we have a list system, so we cannot conduct a by-election for one person in a list"! Was this not known before the legal provision was written and adopted? Of course, it was known; but since a defining characteristic of the New Deal is the sabotage of the rule of law using sophistry to render some laws, rules and regulations inapplicable, the law was written and adopted this way to leave the field wide-open for the whims and caprices of one man to triumph! Indeed, the New Deal is involved in a game of self-deceit, to kill time so that the Prince can rule for
life...

Another parliamentary issue that has been in the news is the lifting of the immunities of certain MPs. It is well known in Cameroon that parliament is usually a hide-out for crooks because of the parliamentary immunity MPs enjoy. Last week, there was much noise about parliament’s blocking of the lifting of the immunities of some MPs to allow for the due process of the law to take its course. And the shouting headlines in Newspapers included one that the opposition "botched" the lifting of the immunities. At first sight, one would applaud "the opposition" for the lame effort to show that parliament is not under the beck and call of the executive, especially as the reality is that the Cameroon parliament is a typical example of a rubber-stamp- parliament that exists just because Cameroon is said to be a Republic.

Yet, looked at more closely, the act of the opposition is nothing short of unprincipled politics that led them to be carried away by the illusion that two wrongs can make a right. Indeed, the argument that government ministers are usually arrested only after they leave government is frivolous; so too is the one that other investigations usually take longer! If the opposition wants to show that they want parliament to be independent of the executive in fact, they should do so more honourably. What they have done all looks like a botched lobbying assignment! The signal they have sent to a people that is restless about corruption does not speak well of the leading party of the opposition!

Parliament in a republican government is supposed to be the eyes, ears and voice of the people. Since elections that select MPs are usually marred by many types of electoral fraud, parliament ends up being just a regulator of the affairs of those who fraud themselves to power, to the detriment of the people who remain just pawns in a political "power" game. As the French usually say, "there is nothing more permanent than the temporary". What is going on now in parliament may look permanent, but by all measure, it is a temporary transition to a period when MPs will actually carry the proxies of the people, and listen to what they are saying.