Cameroon :State Authority and The Rule of Law

By Tazoacha Asonganyi

All politics and the democratic processes that govern politics take place in society.
Carved out from society is a referee usually referred to as the state.Indeed, the state is the level at which all factionsin society meet. The state plays the noble role ofreferee and facilitator of political and democraticprocesses.

To play these roles well, the state should be non-partisan.Early thinkers who created the concept of the state knew that humans are not angels; that they can be both good and evil. They can usually be blinded by theirpassions and self-interests. This is why it is the duty of the state to produce laws, rules and regulations to guide the actions of both rulers andthe ruled in society.Many of such laws, rules and regulations exist inCameroon.

On paper, most of them are reasonable, but in practice they are usually ignored to the benefit of individuals or partisan groups like political parties,especially the ruling party! Most agents of the state are known to treat laws as if they are informal rules that they can obey or disobey at their discretion!
Therefore one of the main problems with the rule oflaw in Cameroon lies with people who implement laws.

In fact, it is the generalised disregard for the lawby state officials that has bred the culture of corruption that is the main challenge to governance inCameroon today.Since 20th May 2008, a drama has been played out in Menji Local Council in Lebialem Division, South WestProvince, out of the knowledge of the press thatusually highlights such events! On 20 May just beforethe start of the march past at the Menji Municipal Stadium, the Senior Divisional Officer (SDO) of Lebialem moved to the front of the grandstand and solemnly announced that he had suspended the Mayor indefinitely on the frivolous charge of "unpatrioticattitude"!

By this he meant that the Mayor refused togive out the council vehicle at his behest, even ifthe mayor had explained that the vehicle was not ingood mechanical condition. Then the SDO proceeded tofloat the usual information peddled by over-zealous administrators to gain support for their wrong decisions, or by political misfits to put down theirpolitical rivals - that the mayor is a closet SCNC militant!

Although law no.2004/17 of 22 July 2004 on orientationof decentralisation, and law no. 2004/18 of 22 July2004 to lay down rules applicable to councils, both ofwhich are in force today, do not give such powers tothe "the representatives of the state" who is the SDO,he actually proceeded to seal the office of the Majoras a sign of the effectiveness of the suspension!

For those who may not be aware of the provisions of the new laws, section 94 of law no. 2004/18 of 22 July2004 to lay down rules applicable to councils states unequivocally that "In case of infringement of the law and regulations in force, or of serious misconduct,mayors and deputy mayors may be suspended by order ofthe Minister in charge of regional and local authorities for a maximum period of three months after hearing them or requesting them to furnish written explanations on acts for which they are accused. After such period, they shall either be rehabilitated or dismissed? by decree of the President of theRepublic;...the suspension orders and dismissal shall give reasons thereof..."

The law is therefore clear on the duties of the"representative of the state" (the SDO) and on that ofthe minister in charge of local and regional authorities. Representatives of the state wherever they may be are supposed to be symbols of facilitationand leadership, not vessels of power. In a council,power has been devolved to the mayors; they are theones supposed to get things done. It is not the dutyof the state to remove the sense of pride and personal responsibility from mayors in councils. There is no use deceiving ourselves by producing documents and making official pronouncements that assure outsiders that there is the rule of law on decentralization inCameroon, as was the case last week during the African Ministerial Conference on Decentralisation (AMCOD),while the reality is different.

For the good of society, laws are supposed to bedecisive moral arbiters. Obedience of a law should be non negotiable. The law is not secure if representatives of the state behave as if they are the law, and infringe it as they see fit.

The act of the SDO of Lebialem is nothing short of sabotage of thelaw, especially as his action was a deliberate,skilfully executed plot to stir up protest during the20 May celebrations so as to impute the disturbances on a supposed lack of patriotism of the people! His assault on the law was not for the good of society but for his personal good.It is the insecurity dictated by human nature that propelled human societies to allow their lives to be governed by the state. The state provides laws, rules and regulations to govern activities in society.

A law is therefore not something that a representative ofthe state should feel that he is doing somebody afavour by obeying it. It is unfair, unjust and disruptive of council activities if the new laws on decentralisation are not obeyed by all stakeholders. A decision to disobey the law should be considered personal and should not engage the state, at the riskof discrediting the authority of the state.

It isincumbent on the state to build trust, confidence and respect for the role of the state by regularly disciplining its representatives who show disrespect for the rule of law.