Etudi 2018: Judicial Coup d’état? “At law, Prof. Maurice Kamto’s conduct is NOT reprehensible.” Justice Ayah Paul Writes from a legal & Political Perspective

Etudi 2018: Judicial Coup d’état? “At law, Prof. Maurice Kamto's conduct is NOT reprehensible." Justice Ayah Paul Writes from a legal & Political Perspective


One day after Prof. Maurice Kamto flag bearer of the MRC party for the 2018 Cameroons presidential election told Cameroonians that “My mission was to take a penalty. I did it and I scored,”  the Cameroon government and her surrogates have been caught between the devil and deep blue sea without knowing what to do after assuming that Kamto has declared himself as the winner of the 2018 poll.

Cameroon government and her surrogates claims only the constitutional council has the exclusive right to declare elections results in Cameroon and has called Katom’s action illegal.

But many wonder if actual the former Cameroon Minister of Justice Prof. Maurice Kamto now presidential candidate can be that stupid not to have understood the law.

Justice Ayah Paul former presidential candidate for the 2011 election writes on his Facebook page to clarify Kamto’s action from a legal and political perspective to what may have described by most Cameroonians as Judicial Coup D’etat meaning the legal experts are trying to use Cameroon law to oust Paul Biya

This is Justice Ayah’s post on his Facebook wall concerning Kamto’s saga
“October 9, 2018


Whereas it is common knowledge now that the Constitutional Council has exclusive jurisdiction (the exclusive legal right) to proclaim the results of certain elections in Camerouoon, the question as to the meaning of PROCLAMATION appears to remain elusive even to some lawyers. Many are a layman that have embarked upon frolics of their own. But that is not as intolerable as the assumptions of members of the learned profession, guided, perhaps, by sordid invested interests.

Lawyers are not unaware that, in the context of elections, proclamation involves the formal making of a public pronouncement relative to who among the candidates has carried the day.

Such pronouncements are buttressed (backed up) with statistics as to the scores of the various candidates. Often, the statistics are substantiated by each candidate’s votes at chosen levels.

Proclamation, then, is much more than the making of a statement in public about a candidate’s score at an election.

As a matter of fact, the law, (the electoral code in our context), makes it mandatory (compulsory) for the results at each polling station to be made PUBLIC on the spot at the close of the polls. If proclamation was equal to making public the results, it means that results are PROCLAIMED at each polling station.

This can only be nonsensical because it would defeat the exclusive prerogative of the Constitutional Council to enforce (ensure) the regularity of elections. Resorting to an analogy here could be instructive and salutary. Making public the results is like a product at the initial stage. If it is good, it will survive winnowing by the Constitutional Council. It is discarded otherwise. So the finished product could remain unchanged; it could be changed or sorted out.

As regards Professor Maurice Kamto’s pronouncements yesterday, it is palpably clear that he did nothing more than what the law permits. Making public his gross score at the election in subtle terms (without specifically stating the score in figures) was only repeating what the polling stations had already legally done. In fact, it is a contradiction in terms even to say that he “made public”. You cannot “make public” that which is already of public knowledge: you cannot make public the results already made public by the polling stations! Were that even the case, you cannot infringe the law by conduct that the very law permits.

If, therefore, the CPDM barons are jittery, there is the strong/powerful suggestion that their rival’s cautionary recurrence within the law is inimical to their machinations to turn the results around behind the scene. But at law, Professor Maurice Kamto’s conduct is NOT reprehensible. He cleverly chose his terms!



Justice Ayah Paul Abine wrote to his followers .

Barrister Akere Muna who formed a coalition with Kamto, told reporters that Kamto acted in conformity with the law according to Article 113 of Cameroon Electoral Law.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here