Cameroon’s Media Council is a Cure Worse than the Disease. By Herbert Boh.

Cameroon’s National Communications Council is in the news, again – and for exactly all the bad reasons!

If you have not heard yet, please be informed that the interim president of the Council, Mr. Peter Essoka, and his colleagues have once more successfully charged, judged, and found a sizable group guilty. Half a dozen journalists, the Council has ruled, are guilty of allegedly failing to respect professional ethics and/or reportedly “insulting” an official of the Cameroonian Presidency.

Flash back! This was the same charge levied against Celestin Monga and Pius Njawe in the early 1990s. So, if you were in doubt, here you have it: Mr. Essoka & Co. are taking all of us back to the future!

The latest most gruesome crimes committed by the pen are so heinous that the Council even ruled to ban journalists from “exercising their profession”. Journalist Jacques Blaise Mvie is banned and his newspaper cannot publish. By that decision, the Council has extended the punishment to everyone who works for Mr. Mvie’s newspaper. They have all been put out of work. By order of Peter Mr. Essoka & Co. the journalists concerned and those who work for Mr. Mvie’s La Nouvelle newspaper are banned from earning a living. If you have the misfortune to work with or for Mr. Mvie, you are automatically guilty by association with your employer.

Talk of killing a mosquito with a nuclear bomb!

The abuse of power inherent in these decisions smells to high Heaven. The jurisprudence they would represent, if allowed to stand, authorize the Council to even chase investments away from the media sector. In the future, this decision aiding, the Council will have authority not only to sanction someone like journalist Severin Tchounkeu of Equinoxe or Charles Ndongo of CRTV for doing whatever Mr. Mvie did. They will henceforth have authority to put anyone who works with Mr. Tchounkeu at Equinoxe or Mr. Ndongo at CRTV out of work by also shutting down the media outlet for which the “criminal” journalist works.

We have to count our blessings! It has to be heartening to note that even the most abusive administrative or judicial authorities that serve the Biya regime have ever handed down such gross injustice to journalists or media outlets!

Not surprisingly, news reports cite Mr. Essoka as stating “toute honte bue” that the Council is independent and that it does not do the bidding of the Cameroon government. Really?

Well, if you believe Mr. Essoka, then maybe we can conclude that the director of Kondengui Prison would be right to claim that s/he is not doing any bidding of the regime by holding prisoners like ex-Premier Inoni and the likes of Marafa and Mendo Ze on behalf of the regime You would have to believe that the Ministry of Territorial Administration organizes elections so that the ruling party can lose. Or, you would have to believe that the Supreme Court does not do the bidding of the regime when it looks the other way when electoral fraud is perpetrated or when the president stages a constitutional coup to extend his stay in power.

Mr. Essoka & Co. are pleading “zero collusion” with the regime even as they abuse the extensive powers Yaounde has laid at their feet. Consider the extent of power: the Council can take and hold any journalist prisoner. The Council has powers – listen up, Supreme Court! – these fellows of the Council have powers to play prosecutor, defense counsel, judge and jury all together; all at the same time; and all without being in any conflict of interest. These fellows can charge and punish journalists for “crimes” that they don’t need to prove in a court of law or for “crimes” that could have been committed by radio or television producers – not the journalists themselves – or by the media network, shooting and/or airing what the Council describes as “shocking pictures” for instance. Yes, these fellows have powers to “execute” (kill and bury) any media company whatever the investments, as they are now bent on doing in the case of Mr. Mvie’s La Nouvelle newspaper.

On a previous occasion when my twin, Ntemfac Ofege, and I have commented – sorry – lambasted some past and no less abusive sanctions by the Council, we notably argued that this institution is a worse enemy for a free press, independent journalism and freedom of expression in Cameroon than the old-time, Soviet-type administrative censorship and any rulings by some of Cameroon’s “two for five franc” courts at the service of powerful few.

Mr. Essoka certainly knows but would not like to admit. So, here is a news flash!

The Biya regime clearly does not like the newborn baby to the media sector in Cameroon called independent media. Not unlike King Herold, the regime wants the baby dead. It recalls that it tried censorship and courts of law to abort its birth. The regime all but gave up. Until Mr. Essoka & Co. came along. Now, the regime must be chanting Daniel come to judgement!

Cameroon’s Communications Council is like the woman who claims by day to nourish, nurture and protect the child (media), yet is really the mother who is itching to abort the baby or is in the employ of an unwise King Solomon bent on dividing the newborn child. Even better than the regime ever hoped for, the Council is working to make this a perfect crime: ensure that the King has no blood on his hands.

There is no need to search hard to find what constitutes “mortal media sin” in the eyes of the Council. They share a number of attributes. All the journalists, radio and television programs that have been ordered off the air share the sin of being critical – how dare they? – of the Biya regime. They are critical of the regime whose image (when it comes to press freedom) that the Council was set up to launder. All the programs sanctioned by the Council just happen to air on one of Cameroon’s infant independent media outlets. Yaounde does not want the blood of these networks on its hands, and what relief it must be for Yaounde to see that Mr. Essoka & Co. are stepping up to the plate! The Council in as many words is designed to play the media hangman of the republic. Quite simply! Which must explain why Mr. Essoka sounds so lost in the Council’s work. The VOA quotes Mr. Essoka as saying the Council has “the right to sanction freedom when it goes into excesses”. Did he say sanction? “Haaabaaah!”

The tragedy quite simply is that the Council seems to sincerely believe that the sanctions it hands down constitute “just punishment” for “mortal sins of the pen”. Members of the Council – all of them, very learned and respected ladies and gentlemen, who raised plenty of hope when first appointed – do not seem to comprehend why the procedures of their institution fall way short of even the minimum standards of fairness, neutrality and due diligence.

The Council seems infatuated with one goal: that of emphasizing, rightly, that journalists have a duty to present news dispassionately, with fairness, accuracy, and balance. What the Council members, sadly, would like us to pay no attention to is the fact that this institution is a cure worse than any disease that afflicts the Cameroonian media. A political institution – which is what this regime-created, regime-manipulated, regime-teleguided Council is – will never – (let me say that again) – this Council will NEVER ever be an acceptable replacement for the self-regulatory body that journalists have a right to set up and run without interference from presidential appointees.

ENDS

Essoka Lamentation

Cameroun: Death Penalty For Sedition

Let’s face the face and this for the education of the Camerounese Minister of Misinformation one Issa Tchiroma Bakary. The Camerounese State has a population of 20M. The last time I checked, mr Biya is said to have won presidential elections with less than 2.000.000 votes, mainly because he had disenfranchised most of his countrymen thereby preventing them from voting. Disenfranchising voters is called election fraud. Election fraud is a shameful parameter of the vast corruption which the Camerounese State is famous for. Mr. Biya’s party, the CPDM of Corrupt Persons Demonstrating Malevolence, thrives in election fraud. Hence the circa 140 members that the CPDM has in the National Assembly were voted in through a very fraudulent process. I am saying that Mr Biya is a minority president, head of a minority party that came into power by fraud. Now Lincolnian polyarchy, or democracy, is the rule of the majority. A minority party, made up of very corrupt fraudsters has no business passing laws bounded upon the majority like the New Law on so-called Terrorism which actually prescribes the DEATH PENALTY on persons involved in sedition ie persons who criticizing the government. That law is designed to prevent a Burkina Faso style popular insurrection against the very corrupt CPDM regime. That law especially targets anglophones, or Southern Cameroonians, who are flint-faced bent on ending the colonization of their country and state by the con-colonial regime in Yaounde. Colonization, assimilation, subjugation, are crimes against humanity.

Camerounese president

Camerounese president

Maxwell Oben: Jailed by the Camerounese Gvt for Reading Che Guevara

Mr Maxwell Oben is an anglophone, hence a Southern Cameroonian or an Ambazonian. Like all of us, especially me, Ntemfac Aloysius Nkong Nchwete Ofege, he is against the colonization of the Southern Cameroons. By the way, who is not? When Mr Biya decided to manifest his total colonization of Southern Cameroons by marching his soldiers to Buea under the pretext that there was a thing called Re-unification whose 50th anniversary was being celebrated in the 53rd, the ever-curious Maxwell Oben went to Buea. Mr Biya’s gendarmes stopped the car in which Maxwell Oben was riding. They found Mr Oben sitting peacefully therein and reading a book by Che Guevara. Now we all know that Che Guevara is the mentor of all past, present and future folks who reject INJUSTICE and Colonization. The gendarmes arrested Mr Oben. In flagrant violation of his rights they deported him to Yaounde to be tried by the Military Tribunal. In the Camerounese State reading a book could be adjudged ‘subversive and seditious,’ you see? That could lead you to the Military Tribunal and the Death Penalty. Mr Oben is this minute sitting in the Buea Prison where he has been held since 2013, waiting his fate. Permit me point out that Mr Maxwell Oben was arrested under the Old Law and the Old Penal Code. The Biya regime has reinforced that Death Penalty.
Maxwell Oben

Cameroon Prescribes Death Penalty for Sedition

Let’s face the face and this for the education of the Camerounese Minister of Misinformation one Issa Tchiroma Bakary. The Camerounese State has a population of 20M. The last time I checked, mr Biya is said to have won presidential elections with less than 2.000.000 votes, mainly because he had disenfranchised most of his countrymen thereby preventing them from voting. Disenfranchising voters is called election fraud. Election fraud is a shameful parameter of the vast corruption which the Camerounese State is famous for. Mr. Biya’s party, the CPDM of Corrupt Persons Demonstrating Malevolence, thrives in election fraud. Hence the circa 140 members that the CPDM has in the National Assembly were voted in through a very fraudulent process. I am saying that Mr Biya is a minority president, head of a minority party that came into power by fraud. Now Lincolnian polyarchy, or democracy, is the rule of the majority. A minority party, made up of very corrupt fraudsters has no business passing laws bounded upon the majority like the New Law on so-called Terrorism which actually prescribes the DEATH PENALTY on persons involved in sedition ie persons who criticizing the government. That law is designed to prevent a Burkina Faso style popular insurrection against the very corrupt CPDM regime. That law especially targets anglophones, or Southern Cameroonians, who are flint-faced bent on ending the colonization of their country and state by the con-colonial regime in Yaounde. Colonization, assimilation, subjugation, are crimes against humanity.

Yves Michel Fotso versus the State of Cameroun in Eugene-Oregon. Biya now Dismissed from the Suit

   
 
 

Hello,

U.S. District Court
District of Oregon (Eugene (6))
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:12-cv-01415-TC

Fotso v. Cameroon et al
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin
Demand: $10,000,000
Cause: 28:1350 Alien Action for Tort

Date Filed: 08/06/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Plaintiff

 

Yves Michael Fotso

represented by

Kelly R. Beckley
Beckley & Bons, P.C.
1257 Hight Street, Suite 2
PO Box 11098
Eugene, OR 97440-3298
(541) 683-0888
Fax: (541) 683-0889
Email: kbeckley@beckley-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin W. Bons
Beckley & Bons
1257 High Street
PO Box 11098
Eugene, OR 97440
(541) 683-0888
Fax: (541) 683-0889
Email: kbons@beckley-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

V.

   

Defendant

   

Republic of Cameroon

represented by

Barry E. Reiferson
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 457-5333
Fax: (202) 457-6482
Email: breiferson@pattonboggs.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell R. Berger
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 457-5601
Fax: (202) 457-6315
Email: mberger@pattonboggs.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman D. Hernandez
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, PC
1600-1900 Pacwest Center
1211 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 222-9981
Fax: (503) 796-2900
Email: rhernandez@schwabe.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Triplett
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt (Bend)
360 SW Bond St.
Suite 400
Bend, OR 97702
541-749-4018
Fax: 541-330-1153
Email: ttriplett@schwabe.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

Defendant

   

Paul Biya
TERMINATED: 02/22/2013

represented by

Barry E. Reiferson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell R. Berger
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman D. Hernandez
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Triplett
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

Defendant

   

Pascal Magnaguemabe

represented by

Barry E. Reiferson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell R. Berger
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman D. Hernandez
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Triplett
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

Defendant

   

Justice Soh

represented by

Barry E. Reiferson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell R. Berger
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman D. Hernandez
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Triplett
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

Defendant

   

Jean Baptiste Bokam

represented by

Barry E. Reiferson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell R. Berger
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman D. Hernandez
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Triplett
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

Defendant

   

Colonel Amadou

represented by

Barry E. Reiferson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell R. Berger
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman D. Hernandez
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Triplett
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

Defendant

   

Innocent Mbouem

represented by

Barry E. Reiferson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell R. Berger
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman D. Hernandez
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Triplett
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     

 

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

05/09/2013

51 

Notice of Appearance of Roman D. Hernandez appearing on behalf of All Defendants Filed by on behalf of All Defendants (Hernandez, Roman) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

04/24/2013

50 

Second Notice re Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 37 of Supplemental Authority Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 37 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 04/24/2013)

04/22/2013

49 

Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin regarding Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 37 . Oral Argument is reset from 4/25/2013 to 5/15/2013 at 02:00PM in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/17/2013

48 

Notice re Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 37 of Supplemental Authority Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 37 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/15/2013

47 

Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 37 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

03/15/2013

46 

Affidavit of Kevin W. Bons IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 45 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 1 to Affidavit of Kevin W. Bons, # 2 Exhibit # 2 to Affidavit of Kevin W. Bons, # 3 Exhibit # 3 to Affidavit of Kevin W. Bons, # 4 Exhibit # 4 to Affidavit of Kevin W. Bons, # 5 Exhibit # 5 to Affidavit of Kevin W. Bons, # 6 Exhibit # 6 to Affidavit of Kevin W. Bons) (Beckley, Kelly) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

03/15/2013

45 

Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 37 . Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Beckley, Kelly) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

02/22/2013

44 

ORDER: Adopting Judge Coffin’s Findings and Recommendation 35 . President Paul Biya is dismissed from this suit. Signed on 2/22/2013 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lg) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

43 

ORDER: Granting Motion to Continue 42 . Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 37 is due by 3/15/2013. Reply is due by 4/15/2013. Oral Argument is reset from 4/19/2013 to 4/25/2013 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/21/2013

42 

Unopposed Motion to Continue (Motion to Reschedule Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss). Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

02/20/2013

41 

Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin regarding Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 37 . Oral Argument is set for 4/19/2013 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/15/2013

40 

Declaration of Akere T. Muna . Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 37 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

02/15/2013

39 

Declaration of Mitchell R. Berger . Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 37 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

02/15/2013

38 

Memorandum in Support . Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 37 .) (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

02/15/2013

37 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . Oral Argument requested. Filed by Colonel Amadou, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

01/25/2013

36 

Order referring Findings & Recommendation 35 to Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

01/25/2013

35 

Findings & Recommendation: Paul Biya should be dismissed from this suit. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 2/11/2013. Signed on 1/25/2013 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

01/22/2013

34 

MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference. Dispositive Motions are due by 2/15/2013. Responses to Dispositive Motions are due by 3/15/2013. Replies to Dispositive Motions are due by 4/15/2013. Previously set Joint ADR Report and Pretrial Order deadlines are vacated and will be reset if necessary after dispositive motions are ruled on. Kelly Beckley present as counsel for plaintiff. Barry Reiferson; Mitchell Berger; Thomas Triplett present as counsel for defendants. Tape No: FTR Gold. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 01/27/2013)

12/31/2012

33 

Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Status Conference is reset from 1/14/2013 to 1/22/2013 at 10:00AM by Telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court will initiate the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/26/2012

32 

Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Status Conference is set for 1/14/2013 at 10:00AM by Telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court will initiate the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 12/26/2012)

12/21/2012

31 

Notice re: Suggestion of Immunity Filed by United States (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1) (Diederich, Bryan) (Entered: 12/21/2012)

12/07/2012

30 

Clerk’s Notice of Mailing to Harold H. Koh and S. Amanda Marshall regarding Order on Motion – Miscellaneous 29 . (plb) (Entered: 12/07/2012)

12/07/2012

29 

ORDER: Granting Motion to Solicit the Views of the United States 26 . The United States shall advise the Court no later than fourteen (14) days from entry of this Order whether it intends to file a Statement of Interest in this action, and if so by what date such Statement of Interest shall be filed. Signed on 12/7/2012 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 12/07/2012)

11/21/2012

28 

Response to Motion to Solicit the Views of the United States 26 . Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Beckley, Kelly) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/16/2012

27 

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Solicit the Views of the United States. Filed by Colonel Amadou, Paul Biya, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Related document(s): Motion – Miscellaneous 26 .) (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

11/16/2012

26 

Motion to Solicit the Views of the United States. Filed by Colonel Amadou, Paul Biya, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Berger, Mitchell) Modified on 11/16/2012 to remove “Republic of Cameroon” from docket text, at request of attorney Mitchell R. Berger’s office (gw). (Entered: 11/16/2012)

11/15/2012

25 

MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference Held. Order Denying Motion for Entry of Default 14 ; Granting Motion for Extension of Time 17 to the extent that the answer deadline is stayed pending a response by the United States to the court’s forthcoming order. Defendants will file a motion and proposed order requesting the opinion of the United States as to defendants’ status by 11/16/2012. Kelly Beckley present as counsel for plaintiff. Barry Reiferson; Mitchell Berger; Thomas Triplett present as counsel for defendants. (plb) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

11/05/2012

24 

ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Barry E. Reiferson for Colonel Amadou,Barry E. Reiferson for Paul Biya,Barry E. Reiferson for Jean Baptiste Bokam,Barry E. Reiferson for Republic of Cameroon,Barry E. Reiferson for Pascal Magnaguemabe,Barry E. Reiferson for Innocent Mbouem,Barry E. Reiferson for Justice Soh. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979-3084963 issued. Signed on 11/5/12 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 11/06/2012)

11/05/2012

23 

ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Mitchell R. Berger for Colonel Amadou,Mitchell R. Berger for Paul Biya,Mitchell R. Berger for Jean Baptiste Bokam,Mitchell R. Berger for Republic of Cameroon,Mitchell R. Berger for Pascal Magnaguemabe,Mitchell R. Berger for Innocent Mbouem,Mitchell R. Berger for Justice Soh. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979-3084932 issued. Signed on 11/5/12 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 11/06/2012)

11/05/2012

22 

Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Status Conference is set for 11/15/2012 at 10:00AM by Telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court will initiate the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

11/01/2012

21 

Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Barry E. Reiferson. Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979-3084963. Filed by All Defendants. (Triplett, Thomas) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012

20 

Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Mitchell R. Berger. Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979-3084932. Filed by All Defendants. (Triplett, Thomas) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

10/31/2012

19 

Declaration of Thomas M. Triplett . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 17 .) (Triplett, Thomas) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

10/31/2012

18 

Memorandum in Support . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 17 .) (Triplett, Thomas) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

10/31/2012

17 

Motion for Extension of Time . Filed by All Defendants. (Triplett, Thomas) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

10/30/2012

16 

Certificate of Service by Yves Michael Fotso of Motion for Entry of Default 14 Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Beckley, Kelly) (Entered: 10/30/2012)

10/30/2012

15 

Affidavit of Kelly R. Beckley in Support of Motion for Entry of Default. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Related document(s): Motion for default 14 .) (Beckley, Kelly) (Entered: 10/30/2012)

10/30/2012

14 

Motion for Entry of Default . Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document) (Beckley, Kelly) (Entered: 10/30/2012)

10/22/2012

13 

Affidavit of Service of Complaint 1 upon Paul Biya served on 9/3/2012. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (cp) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/18/2012

12 

Affidavit of Service of Complaint, 1 upon Innocent Mbouem served on 9/3/2012 Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (cp) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012

11 

Affidavit of Service of Complaint, 1 upon Jean Baptiste Bokam served on 9/3/2012. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (cp) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012

10 

Affidavit of Service of Complaint, 1 upon Colonel Amadou served on 9/3/2012. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (cp) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012

9 

Affidavit of Service of Complaint, 1 upon Justice Soh served on 9/3/2012. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (cp) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012

8 

Affidavit of Service of Complaint 1 upon Pascal Magnaguemabe served on 9/3/2012. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (cp) Modified on 10/18/2012 to link to complaint (cp). (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012

7 

Affidavit of Service of Complaint 1 upon Republic of Cameroon served on 9/3/2012. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (cp) Modified on 10/18/2012 to link to complaint(cp). (Entered: 10/18/2012)

08/30/2012

6 

Second Declaration of Jonathan Stewart . Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Related document(s): Notice 4 .) (Bons, Kevin) (Entered: 08/30/2012)

08/30/2012

5 

Declaration of Jonathan Stewart . Filed by Yves Michael Fotso. (Related document(s): Notice 4 .) (Bons, Kevin) (Entered: 08/30/2012)

08/28/2012

4 

Clerk’s Notice of Mailing of Summons Issued 3 , Complaint 1 . (Related document(s): Summons Issued 3 , Complaint 1 ) (cp) (Entered: 08/29/2012)

08/13/2012

3 

Summons Issued Electronically as to Colonel Amadou, Paul Biya, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (cp) (Entered: 08/13/2012)

08/07/2012

2 

Notice of Case Assignment to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 12/5/2012. Expert Discovery to be completed by 12/5/2012. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 1/4/2013. Pretrial Order is due by 1/4/2013. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (cp) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/06/2012

1 

Complaint. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Filing fee in the amount of $350 collected. Agency Tracking ID: 0979-2988354 Jury Trial Requested: Yes. Filed by Yves Michael Fotso against Colonel Amadou, Paul Biya, Jean Baptiste Bokam, Republic of Cameroon, Pascal Magnaguemabe, Innocent Mbouem, Justice Soh (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Proposed Summons). (Beckley, Kelly) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

 

Riding the Tiger: Cameroon’s Rule of Men Regime. Part II. By Tatah Mentan, Theodroe Lentz Professor of Peace and Security Studies Introduction

Rule of Law: Foundation of Constitutions
Throughout most of human history, the rules by which life was governed were usually determined by force and fraud: he who had the power—whether military strength or political dominance—made the rules. The command of the absolute monarch or tyrannical despot was the rule and had the coercive force of the law. Rulers made up false stories of inheritance and rationalizations such as “divine right” to convince their subjects to accept their rule without question. This is still the case in many parts of the world, where the arbitrary rulings of the dictator are wrongly associated with the rule of law.
A principle that itself is quite old and long predates Cameroon, the rule of law, is the general concept that government as well as the governed are subject to the law and that all are to be equally protected by the law. Its roots can be found in classical antiquity. The vast difference between the rule of law as opposed to that of individual rulers and tyrants is a central theme in the writings of political philosophers from the beginning. In the works of Plato and as developed in Aristotle’s writings, it implies obedience to positive law as well as rudimentary checks on rulers and magistrates.
In Anglo-American history, the idea was expressed in Magna Carta in 1215. In its famous thirty-ninth clause, King John of England promised to his barons that “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized, outlawed, or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will he proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and the Law of the Land.” The idea that the law is superior to human rulers is the cornerstone of English constitutional thought as it developed over the centuries. It can be found elaborated in the great seventeenth-century authorities on British law, Henry de Bracton, Edward Coke, and William Blackstone. The ultimate outcome of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England was permanently to establish that the king was subject to the law.
Over time, the rule of law had come to be associated with four key components in the defunct Southern Cameroons. First, the rule of law means a formal, regular process of law enforcement and adjudication. What we really mean by “a government of laws, not of men” is the rule of men bound by law, not subject to the arbitrary will of others. The rule of law means general rules of law that bind all people and are promulgated and enforced by a system of courts and law enforcement, not by mere discretionary authority. In order to secure equal rights to all citizens, government must apply law fairly and equally through this legal process. Notice, hearings, indictment, trial by jury, legal counsel, the right against self-incrimination—these are all part of a fair and equitable “due process of law” that provides regular procedural protections and safeguards against abuse by government authority. Among the complaints lodged against the king in the Declaration of Independence was that he had “obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers,” and was “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.”
Second, the rule of law means that these rules are binding on rulers and the ruled alike. If the American people, as Madison wrote in Federalist 57, “shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.” As all are subject to the law, so all—government and citizens, indeed all persons—are equal before the law, and equally subject to the legal system and its decisions. No one is above the law in respect to enforcement; no one is privileged to ignore the law, just as no one is outside the law in terms of its protection. As the phrase goes, all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We see this equal application of equal laws reflected in the Constitution’s references to “citizens” and “persons” rather than race, class, or some other group distinction, as in the Fifth Amendment’s language that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It appears again in the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The rights of all are dependent on the rights of each being defended and protected. In this sense, the rule of law is an expression of—indeed, is a requirement of—the idea of each person possessing equal rights by nature.
A striking example of this came in 1770, after British soldiers fired into a crowd of colonists, killing five persons, in what is known as the Boston Massacre. Popular passions were overwhelmingly against the soldiers yet, in a remarkable testament to the significance of the rule of law, these British regulars were acquitted in a colonial court, by a colonial jury, and defended by none other than John Adams, who was to become one of the most committed stalwarts of the patriot cause. Adams wrote that this was one of the most disinterested actions of his life, and considered it one of the best services he ever rendered his country.
Third, the rule of law implies that there are certain unwritten rules or generally understood standards to which specific laws and lawmaking must conform. There are some things that no government legitimately based on the rule of law can do. Many of these particulars were developed over the course of the history of British constitutionalism, but they may be said to stem from a certain logic of the law. Several examples can be seen in the clauses of the U.S. Constitution. There can be no “ex post facto” laws—that is, laws that classify an act as a crime leading to punishment after the act occurs. Nor can there be “bills of attainder,” which are laws that punish individuals or groups without a judicial trial. We have already mentioned the requirement of “due process,” but consider also the great writ of “habeas corpus” (no person may be imprisoned without legal cause) and the rule against “double jeopardy” (no person can be tried or punished twice for the same crime.) Strictly speaking, none of these rules are formal laws but follow from the nature of the rule of law. “Bills of attainder, ex-post facto laws and laws impairing the obligation of contracts,” Madison wrote in Federalist 44, “are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”
Lastly, even though much of its operation is the work of courts and judges, the rule of law ultimately is based on, and emphasizes the centrality of, lawmaking. This is why, although we have three coequal branches of government, the legislature is the first among equals. But as those who make law are themselves subject to some law above them, this gives rise to the idea that there are different types of laws, some of which are more significant and important, and thus more authoritative than others. The rule of law—especially in terms of key procedural and constitutional concepts—stands above government. By definition and by enforcement it is a formal restraint on government. It judges government in light of a higher standard associated with those ideas. The more authoritative or fundamental laws have an enduring nature. They do not change day to day or by the whim of the moment and cannot be altered by ordinary acts of government.
This sense is captured in Magna Carta’s reference to “the Law of the Land,” a phrase written into all eight of the early American state constitutions, as well as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. It is reflected in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” The deep importance of this supremacy is seen in the fact that the oaths taken by those holding office in the United States—the president, members of Congress, federal judges—are oaths not to a king or ruler, or even to an executive or to Congress, but to the United States Constitution and the laws.
Conclusion
In the case of the Republic of Cameroon the BIG QUESTION mark as large as the size of Africa is: Can a Personality/Ethnic-Prone Constitution and laws be Personality/Ethnic-Proof? This is the brutal question the Prof.Ndiva Kofele Kale Defense Team has to confront squarely. All those victims of Biya’s “spectacular arrests” and dumping into dungeons had cautioned the Personality/Ethnic-Prone Constitution and laws of impunity for decades. Now, the chicks have come home to roost. Let the jail birds vomit the truth and, as the Holy Bible says,” the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). This is enduringly a political trial of the Biya regime.And, the world is ready to see the verdict.
This is what a country becomes when it decides that it will not live under the rule of law, when it communicates to its political leaders that they are free to do whatever they want — including breaking their laws—and there will be no consequences. There are two choices and only two choices for every country—live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. Cameroonians were hoodwinked into not collectively deciding that their most powerful political leaders are not bound by laws—that when they break the law, there will be no consequences. The country has thus become a country which lives under the proverbial “rule of men”—that is literally true, with no hyperbole needed—and the “spectacular arrests” and their attendant revelations are nothing more than the inevitable by-product of that choice.

Riding the Tiger: Cameroon’s Rule of Men Regime. Part I. By Tatah Mentan, Theodroe Lentz Professor of Peace and Security Studies

Introduction

Historical hindsight instructs the attentive world that the Biya regime cannot be accused of being interested in developing a democratic ethos to promote democratic as well as transparent institutions that are answerable to Cameroonians. Instead, the regime is still immersed in that whacky repressive culture intent on controlling, co-opting, containing, or simply coercing or cowing the populace into submission. Besides, logistically and militarily supported by France, that has extensive business “partnerships” with the regime, Biya has until now never been officially accused of crimes against humanity, although several heavily documented reports have been published on the mass human rights violations and massacres that took place in, for instance, February 2008. France is covering him, Switzerland is covering him, as well as others within the international community. They are therefore accomplices to gross human rights violations as well as crimes against humanity in Cameroon.
These foreign umbrellas covering Biya has combined with an ethnic-prone militia called a “national army.” The “security forces” have been trained to kill and to torture. Like ferocious animals they can only be content by shedding the blood of their own people. Human life has absolutely no value in their eyes. They are the best and most obvious symbol of Biya’s age-old bloodthirsty regime. Hence, President Paul Biya has seen no need to offer his vassals the luxury of establishing the rule of law. What is important to his village tyranny is the rule of men, implying the arbitrary use of political authority for the greedy interests of ruling cliques and their starving table companions at home and abroad. .Nemesis of this political myopia has caught up with the President. And, he is spectacularly arresting and jailing those with whom he leagued to bleed the country dry in the name of “embezzlement of public funds” today and organize electoral façades whose results are tabulated before any scheduling of the socalled elections. If Biya cared about the rule of law or the legal maxim whereby governmental decisions are made by applying known legal principles since he claims to have been ruined by legal studies in France, Cameroon would not have degenerated to this nauseating level of corruption. His religion-the rule of men-may not save him in the not too distant future.
Rule of Men vs. Rule of Law
All of the governments that mankind has instituted in the history of the world can be divided into two categories. Any and every state can be categorized into either rule of law governments or rule of men governments. History has proven that any nation founded upon the shifting sands of the whim of men will always degenerate into oligarchy and tyranny. However, a nation of virtuous, educated people, which is founded upon and holds to the bedrock of a rule of law system will maintain prosperity and freedom despite the natural occurrences and challenges of history. This elementary yet strikingly relevant dichotomy is misunderstood by many Cameroonians. And, this misunderstanding is one of the many reasons why Cameroon has been mistakenly led away from a rule of law system toward something that was not intended, rule of men or lawless tyrants.
First, it is important to define the two systems. A governmental system ruled by men is any system in which fallen man directs the course of the nation. This includes not only dictatorships and oligarchies where one man or a select few call all of the shots, but also democracies where majority opinion rules without any restraints or protections for minority opinion and individual liberty. In the case of America, for example, according to its Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure. Liberty and property will not be protected under such systems, and the nation will ultimately suffer under tyranny.
A rule of law system is quite the opposite. In a rule of law system, the country possesses a set of guidelines usually in a constitution, which sets the terms for governing. Only according to those blueprints for governing, then, can any men write and execute additional laws. The constitution is the law of the land, and everything else must be measured up against it. A constitutional republic is such a form of government. The constitution is written to assign tasks to the various branches of government and to assure the God-granted liberty and property rights of every citizen. Then, representatives of the people govern according to the constitutional limits of power with a constant concern for individual liberty and constitutional integrity.
Unfortunately, many Cameroonians have become confused regarding these two drastically different systems for governing. Cameroonians have been taught in school, by the media and by politicians that democracy is good, and that the more democracy we have, the better. This mistaken view is not simply a semantic error, as some might assert, but it is a dangerous misunderstanding. Most Cameroonians actually believe that the majority ought to rule; they do have a correct understanding of democracy, but they mistakenly advocate it because that is what they have been taught to do.
The biggest danger in the bizarre Cameroon brand of democracy is that the very things that government is instituted to protect (liberty and property) are in constant danger to the whim of the President and his kleptocrtic ethnocrats and mealy-mouthed sycophants. In a democracy, when a crisis occurs (whether real or manufactured), the majority calls for government solutions. Then, when politicians answer that call and government grows in size and influence over peoples’ lives, there is an equal and opposite decrease in the amount of liberty and property maintained by the people. 21st century Cameroon history is supposed to reflect this process in action. Interestingly enough, as the government gains more and more power, the majority actually begins to lose its voice and the country descends into oligarchic anarchy and, ultimately, senile and barbaric tyranny.
The only alternative for citizens who want to keep their liberty and property unmolested by majorities or oligarchs is the constitutional republic rule of law system. All governments pretending to be democratic are intended to be such a system. The Government has a job description laid out clearly and concisely in a few-pages-long document, in case any Cameroonian didn’t catch it on the first read through the Constitution. It reminds Cameroonians that any powers not given to the Government are reserved to the people. The obvious central concern of the Constitution in including this emphasis is to limit the amount of power that the native tyrants in government would be able to wield, regardless of what man might say.
The constitution is not meant to be read as a collection of mere suggestions for governing. It is not a piece of paper that can be discarded at will as indicated by Andze Tchoungui years ago. The literal rigidity of the document itself is described well by Thomas Jefferson when he exclaimed, “Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” The proverbial chains of the rule of law are meant to bind men down from their wayward tendencies.
Once upon a time in the then Southern Cameroons, citizens and politicians alike had a constant concern for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; laws were written and executed according to its mandates. Those were days when government was limited in its function because the politicians knew that their job description was limited indeed by the expressed powers of the Constitution itself. Those were the days before the “elastic clause” had been stretched to the moon and back by the gangsters of the Cameron Republic. And, those were days when the liberties of the citizens were top priority. Today, we would do well to remember that the law of the land ought to rule and that people (politicians or majority opinion) could only act according to that rule of law. If Cameroonians continue to move simultaneously toward democracy and oligarchy they will be disappointed to see that their future belongs to tyranny. Some day each ignorant citizen will wake up to these realities and will lament, as Woodrow Wilson did years after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in America, “I have unwillingly ruined my government.”

Long Distance Dedication: Mother’s Day. Now in Press: Growing up by Ntemfac Ofege.

Now in Press: Growing up by Ntemfac Ofege. Part of United Media Incorporated’s Children Education Series, CES. Long Distance Dedication. To my mother, Grace Shatu Lami, whose loving presence lingers on after all these years. Still Cut: My name is Rafael-Rene Munkwa. I am ten years old. My father’s name is Mr. Solomon Munkwa while my moth-er is Mrs. Maimouna Munkwa. Mamma sometimes called me Papi. She said that my grandmother gave me the name. I do not remember being born, but Mamma told me that I gave her more trouble than was my due. Mamma said that I first showed signs of coming on a Sunday morning and then I changed my mind about the whole business……

Les Non-dits de la Lettre Ouverte de Marafa Hamidou Yaya Par Ntemfac Nchwete Ofege Aloysius – Prophète.

1. Que les pactes entre le nord et le sud du Cameroun pour la conquête et le maintien du pouvoir restent en place malgré ce remous de surface. Ces pactes sont oisifs pour le groupe Anglos-Bamiléké qui est donc dans l’ante-chambre du pouvoir.
2. L’un de ces pactes dit clairement que ne peut être président de la République que soit un nordiste soit un ressortissant de la région du sud ! Or ces pactes … et le pacte nord-sud …engage les ressortissants d’un même état..L’état francophone ou l’état de East Cameroun ou bien le Cameroun Orientale …ce qui est aujourd’hui devenu La République du Cameroun. donc chez lez francophones !
3. Raison pour laquelle les premiers ministres..anglophones sont carrément dans le rôle du fait valoir. Non seulement ils n’ont rien à voir avec les gouvernements qu’ils sont supposes dirige..mais ils peuvent être arrêtes et malmené sur instruction directe du président de la république..un francophone.
4. Si pacte il y’avait entre Foncha et Ahidjo pour la conquête et le maintien du pouvoir ce pacte a été allégrement violer par les francophones…qui ont produits les deux présidents que le Cameroun a connu.
5. Qu’il sera trop simpliste, comme pense certains de demander que le prochain président soit anglophone. Je pense, pour ma part, que ceci ne résoudra jamais le problème de cohabitation devenu impossible entre francophones et anglophones. La re-création du l’état de West Cameroun qui avec l’état de East Cameroun ont fondent le Cameroun qui existe…est devenu impérative. L’alternative serait de pousser les anglophones vers une sortie légitimée et légale. Bienvenue la Republique Fédérale de Southern Cameroons aka Bimbia aka Ambazonia aka AmbaBimbia.
6. Donc, il n’ya plus et il n’y aura plus jamais un pacte durable entre anglophones et bamilékés et ceci poste 1992 ou bien depuis que les bamilékés ont décidés de faire route avec le régime Biya pour beaucoup de raisons d’ailleurs.
7. Donc..il est temps que d’autres instances revoir le dossier Cameroun dans son ensemble. L’arrivée de François Hollande avec sont discours sur la corruption et les dictateurs remet ce dossier a table.
J’en ai termine.
Au fait L’Albatros n’est autre que les actes posent par un dictateur dans une dictature.
TWEET DE thierry ngogang ‏ Dans quel but un ministre Cameroun s’est rendu dans le nord avec 300 millions de cfa ces derniers jours?

Albatross Affair: Mebara Found Not Guilty on Three of Five Charges

By Dibussi Tande

The Mfoundi High Court this evening, May 3, 2012, found Mr. Atangana Mebara, former Secretary-General at the Presidency, not guilty of three of the five charges against him in the “Albatross Affair”, the botched attempt to purchase a presidential aircraft for president Biya.
Mebara verdict in Le Jour
Frontpage of tomorrow’s Le Jour newspaper

The High Court found Mr. Mebara not guilty of the attempt to jointly embezzle $31 million with Kevin Walls, CEO of the London-based Airport Portfolio Management (APM), and Essomba Otele, head of APM’s Cameroon subsidiary, Asset Portfolio Management (APM).

This accusation stemmed from a letter that Kevin Walls sent to Mr. Mebara on June 5, 2003 advising him that GIA, a US-based firm which had received $31 million from the Government of Cameroon to purchase a presidential aircraft, could claim the money as arrears for aircraft it had leased CAMAIR.
http://www.dibussi.com/2012/05/albatross-affair-mebara-found-not-guilty-on-three-of-five-charges.html