Enforcing court decisions

By Tazoacha Asonganyi,

More often than not, social interactions in every society breed conflicts. It is the role of the court to resolve such conflicts. The court system uses intelligence and the moral sense to contain and regulate the beast in members of society, to contain the emotions that give rise to these conflicts.

At the end of the drama that usually marks conflict resolution in court comes the court decision. Following such a decision, it is not the court that enforces its own decision; it is the executive branch, the government that ensures its enforcement.

Sometimes this set-up seems to lead to arbitrariness, to leave the perception that the system serves to regulate the affairs of those who have power to the detriment of the powerless. Such perceptions are only reinforced by the unfolding drama of the Kohtem murder case; they are only reinforced by the thousands of faceless cases in courts in Cameroon behind which litigants sweat for years without seeing the end of the tunnel; they are only reinforced by the usual delays in the evacuation of conflicts related to elections.

In any case, the courts are supposed to uphold the rule of law and control the misuse of power by the powerful, whether they are individuals or whole countries. Conflicts between countries are judged by the International Court of Justice (the World Court or ICJ). The ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations (UN) that is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

The ICJ was established in 1945 by the UN Charter, and began work in 1946. Decisions of the court are binding on UN member countries, and are enforced by the UN Security Council, although this can be made tricky by the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council.

It is now history that the Bakassi case that pitted Nigeria against Cameroon was judged by the ICJ. Because of the realpolitiks of the five members of the Security Council for whom self-interest usually overrides the interests of other members, it would have been complicated to leave the enforcement of the decision of the ICJ on Bakassi on the table of the Security Council. Instead, the Secretary General of the UN together with the parties crafted an enforcement instrument known as the Green Tree Accord. This allowed the successful enforcement on 14 August 2008 of the ICJ decision.

It is usually when we lose or win an important football match that the important role of a neutral referee comes to light, and temporarily turns our minds to the importance of such neutral refereeing in an equally emotion-packed competition like elections. Similarly, it is proper after the court victory of Cameroon over Bakassi to focus our thoughts on the important issue of the impartiality of a law court and the rigorous enforcement of its decisions.

Everybody is talking about the need to emulate the Bakassi example in Africa. But we should not stop at viewing Bakassi with the lenses of conflicts between nations. It will be more helpful to view it simply as the resolution of a conflict by a court of law and the subsequent enforcement of the court decision. Viewed in this light, we would be highlighting the role court decisions and their enforcement play not only to shape the economic success of a community but also to maintain peace and harmony between its members.

As we celebrate the successful enforcement of the decision of ICJ on Bakassi that marks the triumph of the «weak» over the «strong», we should reflect on the usual manipulation of courts and the sloppy enforcement of some court decisions in Cameroon that usually leave the impression that the law belongs to the rich, the privileged or the powerful.