By Ndode N. Nkumbe
It is the duty of the State to protect the rights of its inhabitants wherever those rights are violated within its territory.
When individuals violate the rights of others, international human rights law imputes on the State the duty to investigate and to provide remedies that include inter alia; compensating the victims, ending the violation, ensuring that the violations do not recur and prosecuting the perpetrators.
That is a colossal responsibility the State is burdened with because it requires that agents of the State should be everywhere at all times in order to be able to respond to all the violations that take place on a daily basis. That is the ideal level of human rights protection that even the most human rights-conscious states are yet to attain.
Yet, the responsibility is not diminished by the inability of the State to meet it. Unfortunately, states are the greatest violators of the rights they undertake to protect. A State violates the rights of individuals through its agents working at various rungs of the administration.
The situation of victims in Cameroon is pathetic because victims of human rights violations by the administration or public authorities can seek redress mainly before the Administrative Bench of the Supreme Court in Yaounde. It follows that a victim of human rights violation by the administration in the forest of Mouloundou in the Eastern Region, or in far away Akwaya or Bakassi in the Southwest Region, or inaccessible Furawa in the Northwest Region is expected to file a complaint of such violation at the Administrative Bench of the Supreme Court in Yaounde.
This is because cases involving the administration give rise to a question of jurisdiction, there being a divide in Cameroon between administrative and ordinary courts, each with its separate jurisdiction. Protecting human rights through special administrative courts may, in principle, be as good as any other medium of protection. But in practice, in the Cameroonian context, it is not the ideal.
This is because currently there is only one administrative court in Cameroon, the Administrative Bench of the Supreme Court, situated in Yaounde, which is somewhat far away from many parts of the country especially considering the poor road and transport infrastructure of the country.
The consequence is that few can afford the expense and trouble it takes to take complaints of human rights violations to the Supreme Court. And since the court is the only one with jurisdiction to give a remedy by virtue of Article 9(1) of the 1972 Constitution, those who cannot get access to the court are left without a remedy. This exclusive jurisdiction of the Yaounde court in cases of human rights violations by the State is an obstacle to the effective protection of human rights in Cameroon.
In the light of this, it is submitted that the existing law be revised, giving ordinary courts jurisdiction in claims of human rights violations as is the case in most common law systems.
The argument that the smooth running of the administration will be impaired if suits were brought against the State in the exercise of its duties is old-fashioned especially in a State like Cameroon that has ratified almost all human rights treaties and which treaties prevail over national laws where there is a conflict. Such argument is a perpetuation of autocracy that was deemed to have been swept under the rug with the enactment of the 1990 liberty laws.
Human rights remedies are very important because without an effective remedy or even a medium to seek one, a right is largely useless. Second, the administrative Bench of the Supreme Court could be decentralised.
It is submitted that such courts could be set up in every seat of the high court (ideal) or appeal court (at worst) in order to bring the jurisdiction of the court closer to victims. Almost every administrative Division today has a high court. An administrative division of the Supreme Court in every Division will enhance the State's protection of the rights of its citizens.
Given that the ordinary courts in Cameroon have jurisdiction to hear cases of human rights violations by the State or the administration only in limited cases of trespass and arbitrary action (voies de fait) by the administration pursuant to Article 9(4) of the 1972 Constitution, the setting up of a division of the administrative Bench of the Supreme Court in every Division in the country with jurisdiction to hear all other cases of human rights violations will enhance Cameroon's human rights protection efforts and help the country to meet with its international obligation.
Comments