Cameroon’s suspension is long overdue: Open letter to Commonwealth Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma

Yours sincerely,
Boniface Forbin
Publisher/Editor

Relations between Cameroon and the Commonwealth are anything but good. Paul Biya has refused to undertake the reforms that he promised as a condition of membership since 1995. That neglect has not been helped by the unprincipled approach by the
Commonwealth secretariat. Failure in Cameroon and lapses elsewhere do not portray the Commonwealth as a strong and effective organisation. The task before Kamalesh Sharma, the new secretary-general, is to review the organisation and make it more useful and effective. But the suspension and punishment of
Cameroon is overdue.

Dear Secretary Sharma,

It behoves us at this newspaper to write to you at this time and to extend you our warmest congratulations on your successful election to the very distinguished office of secretary-general of the
Commonwealth. We want to assure you of our best wishes for a successful tenure. Since you only just assumed office last month, we imagine it would take you a little while to feel your way through to the case of the disturbingly irregular membership of Cameroon. We write to already draw your attention to it.

Cameroon’s is the very strange case of a country that was admitted unqualified on the condition that it should proceed vigorously to fulfil the good governance requirements enshrined in the Harare
Declaration. But this has not been so, to say the least.

Thirteen years into membership and there isn’t any significant step taken so far towards good governance reforms. What is worse, the country is now decidedly headed towards a future of political uncertainty.

Power alternation has been rendered impossible since 1992 because of a history of flawed elections. The recent manipulation of the constitution to cut out the term limit is intended to keep Paul Biya in office for as long as he chooses.

The Malborough House administration under your predecessor, Don Mackinnon, has practically been on its knees in vain to urge Biya to fulfil the conditions of membership which he pledged to do.

That membership is a veritable tale of deceit, abuse and broken promises. How Cameroon could remain a bona fide member of a self-respecting multilateral body like the Commonwealth under such conditions, is a question repeatedly raised in Cameroon.

The Yaounde authorities have often found it burdensome receiving all those unending missions from Malborough House pressing for promised reforms which the government has manifestly been unwilling to undertake.


Clearly embarrassed, Paul Biya has on several occasions tried to avoid receiving Malborough House envoys, even on appointment! The government would rather be comforted with the suspension of Cameroon, so it seems.

We appreciate Mackinnon’s patience and tenacity. But his total inability to secure anything meaningful from Biya in ten years leaves the observer with the sad feeling that he was helpless and did not work from a position of strength. That does absolutely no good to
the image of the Commonwealth.

We believe there is a strong case for suspension. If it came now it would weaken the government’s present resolve to drag Cameroon into uncertainty. You must know that Biya’s desire to continue in power beyond the statutory 2011 instantly implies the will to flaw
future elections.

Could the Commonwealth that is founded on the heritage of good governance values stand that?

Secretary Sharma might want to know that Cameroon’s desire for membership was not in the least inspired by the desire to share in the values that bind member countries.

The government was desperate for legitimacy following an election that was anything but one. Commonwealth membership seemed to be the perfect answer.

Opposition spokesmen cried frantically that the application should be a golden opportunity to force the government, whose resistance to democratic change was already well-known, to concede some key reforms.

Sorry, the opportunity was thrown away! Government spokesmen carried the day. It was believed that once in, Cameroon would readily yield to the pressure inside. That did not happen!

Biya began with truancy. He kept away from his first CHOGM in 1997 in Edinburgh where he was to render account of his efforts at reforms as promised at Oakland, New Zealand. He has since been a permanent absentee at the biennial summits.

The demands on Biya were reduced to four key ones viz: free and fair elections; better human rights, independence of the judiciary and the rule of law; and decentralisation of the administration.

It is hard to say in which of these four key areas Biya has willingly made a significant concession.

But it is in the conduct of elections that the Biya regime has earned its worst name. Three presidential and four legislative elections in sixteen years – all of them were ‘elections designed to fail.’

The rudest twist in the election saga came more recently. The government made a sudden u-turn on a much advertised project for the creation of an independent election organ for which it had
Commonwealth funding and expertise.

Before such criminal betrayal at the highest level the Commonwealth shocked Cameroonians by still pledging to continue to work with the government on election matters! What disappointment!

Cameroonians are now finding it difficult to respect the Commonwealth. The feeling is that the organisation has acted without integrity in pursuing a member state to live up to principle. What a shame!

We have no need to appear critical. But these lapses as well as others observed elsewhere in recent times incline the observer to ask if the Commonwealth remains truly well adapted to its objectives.

We have already mentioned the conditioned admission of Cameroon. That was surely a monumental error. Also, it is a pity that Malborough House has related to Cameroon from a position of weakness.

Further afield, we note Helen Clark’s pain with your predecessor for authorising the military leader of Fiji, suspended from the Commonwealth, not only to be invited, but to be given a red carpet at the Port Moresby sub-regional summit. The New Zealand PM was
simply scandalised by that violation of principle.

Having been elected at the Uganda CHOGM, Secretary Sharma is certainly aware of the furious debate that took place over the democratic credentials of that country. Many Ugandans believed that the Kampala summit was a regrettable endorsement of what they considered to be the doubtful election of Yoweri Museveni in office for a third term.

These cases, to keep them to those, obviously raise questions about the integrity of the Commonwealth, and eventually of its usefulness.

In a world subject to continuous changes the assumptions and values of yesterday are in constant challenge. For instance, of what real substance is membership of the Commonwealth? What does a member really lose for being suspended or expelled?

In eight years of Perez Musharraf, Pakistan has been out and in twice. It was first suspended because of military rule, but its membership was re-instated while military rule was still on!

Also, Zimbabwe is the case of a former bona fide member who decided to defy the Commonwealth and walk out on it! What does suspension or expulsion do to a member who cannot feel the organisation’s hold on him?

We believe that Secretary Sharma must himself have contemplated these issues of the Commonwealth’s relevance and effectiveness in a changing world. You might take comfort in the fact that similar questions have been asked of the World Bank and the IMF.

For poor African members like Cameroon, membership of the Commonwealth should offer a highly attractive and much treasured boost to their development and welfare as a way of encouraging good governance.

Correspondingly, suspension should be tied up with strong deterrent measures.

Tor Gesdal, one of the earlier directors-general of UNESCO once observed: a tool is only as good and effective as the skill of its user.

We close this letter, Secretary Sharma, by wishing you again our very best in the courageous enterprise of reviewing and operating the Commonwealth in a creative and more effective manner.