ELECAM Appointments: Wrong Questions And Wrong Answers!

By Tazoacha Asonganyi, Yaounde

It is usually said that there are several types of bad scientists, including those that provide the right answers to the wrong questions and those that provide the wrong answers to the right questions.

Much of the debate that followed the appointment of members of Elections Cameroon, ELECAM, has identified many such scientists.Section 8 (2) of law No.2006/011 of  December 29, 2006 creating ELECAM states that: "Members of the Electoral Board shall be designated from the midst of independent personalities of Cameroonian nationality, reputed for their stature, moral uprightness, intellectual honesty, patriotism, neutrality and impartiality".

Therefore, the right question under debate is whether Paul Biya violated the spirit and letter of this article, around which the whole law hinges. A reputed Magistrate like Hon. Paul Ayah has already clarified the question thus: "the term reputed [in section 8(2) of the law] is of the family of reputation;... reputation is the opinion the public holds of some person... such opinion springs from past and not future perceptions... resignation from one's party after appointment cannot retrospectively confer the prerequisite of reputed neutrality that was lacking at the time of appointment..."

Following the appointments, an activist like Hilaire Kamga and many others hurried into the fray, providing answers to the wrong question! Using section 11 of the law, which only reiterates section 8(2) by stating incompatibilities, they argued that Biya was within the law in his appointments, since the appointed persons have resigned from their partisan positions.

Others like Gregoire Owona of the CPDM Secretariat and a university don, Mouelle Kombi went into recalling the fact that most opposition leaders of today are former members of the CPDM. Whereas the assertion is correct, it had no relevance to the central question under debate.

Further, following the ridiculous ruling of the Administrative Bench of the Supreme Court on the grievances related to the appointments into ELECAM, another university don, Pius Ondoa (in an essay in a local newspaper) used the Colegrove vs. Green (1946) and the Baker vs. Carr (1962) rulings of the Supreme Court of the US to sustain the Administrative Bench's very disturbing argument that the appointment of ELECAM members is a "political question" and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Bad science indeed! The question is not the authority of Biya to appoint members of ELECAM; it is whether he respected the law in making the appointments.

The "political question" the university don refers to in the US was about the unfairness and the unconstitutionality of the legislation on the demarcation of electoral boundaries because they unfairly favoured some people or groups at the expense of others; therefore they violated the 14th Amendment principle of the citizen's "equal voice in his government".

In the US, the court was asked to say whether the law violated the spirit of the constitution; in our case, the court was asked to say whether Biya violated the ELECAM law by appointing certain persons into the board.

In Colegrove vs. Green, the US Supreme Court invoked the "political question" doctrine in a 4-3 decision to dismiss a suit challenging the demarcation of Illinois congressional districts.
The ruling ignited a debate on the "political question" in the court system in there.

In using Justice William J. Brennan to buttress his claims, Ondoa does not seem to know that the Justice held the view that a court cannot promote justice and freedom if the victims of injustice and oppression cannot get into it; that rights explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution have to be judicially enforced; and that there is no guarantee that power at the polls would be made real without Constitutional guarantees of equal participation fully enforced by the courts.

For these reasons, he devoted much of his career to making the US Federal Courts more accessible to ordinary people seeking justice for their grievances. Ondoa also presents the facts of Baker vs. Carr (1962) incorrectly. The 6-2 decision on the case was a reversal of the 1946 Colegrove vs. Green decision; it put an end to the judicial passivity that the political question represented.

Indeed, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the decision (Carr vs. Baker) authorising the Federal Court to decide challenges to the unfair apportionment legislation "was the most important case of my tenure on the Court".

Ondoa does not seem to know that the decision referred to here was written by Justice Brennan! He and fellow sophists have to look for justification for the so-called political question somewhere else.

If our courts cannot say what the law is, then we have a naked court system. The question whether Biya violated section 8 (2) of law No. 2006/011 of  December 29, 2006 creating ELECAM is still begging for a scientific answer.

As famously put by Vaclav Havel, democracy is not a matter of faith, but of guarantees. Our judiciary has to show that it can guarantee democracy in Cameroon by upholding the rule of law.

Call anywhere in the US for 1.9¢ per minute & no connection fees at MobileCaller.com.

Comments

[Samba]

Respected Prof. Asonganyi,

I have always been fascinated with your insight on not only topical political issues in Cameroon. You have held your head high above the stormy waters and I know how many Cameroonians look up to you to inform them. You have proven to your friends and detractors that you are the philosopher politician that indeed you are.

Many times I am tempted to ask when you find the time to read all that you and write prolifically as you do.

Your analysis of the Elecam debate is lucid and straight. Let the so called "sophist" continue to create their own questions and find answers to them. Truth is golden and lives on to posterity. We right-thinking Cameroonians will forever tap from your inspiration and think scientifically as you.

Be assured that Cameroonians, especially the youths may be deceived and manipulated but they know the truth and what is right.

My honest regards for your person and intellect.

Samba

[DR TAN OF CAMEROON]

CAMEROON POLITICAL PLAYERS AND PROCESS.
PROF, SOCRATES WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE IN CAMEROON AT SUCH A TIME LIKE THIS. [PHILOSOHER KINGS HE WANTED]
[ THE TERM REPUTE]. REPUTED FOR XXXXXXXXXX.
INDEPENDENT PERSONALITIES.
MR BIYA DID STUDY THE LAW. LAWYERS ALWAYS TRY TO BE SMART BY PLAYING WITH WORDS.
DID MR BIYA VIOLATE THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION?
YOU SAY, THEY WERE RIGHT TO SAY, OTHERS HAVE MOVED FROM ONE PARTY TO THE OTHER, OF COURSE, THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
YOU DEPEND ON AYAH TO SAY THE OPINION OF WHAT SOME BODY HOLDS OF ANOTHER DEFINES REPUTE, SOME PEOPLE NEVER HAVE ANY REPUTABLE THING OR OPINION TO HOLD OF ANYBODY, EVEN GOD. LAWYERS THEMSELVES WILL EXPOLIT THAT.[HOW MANY AVERAGE OPINION HOLDERS MAKE LEGAL DECISIONS IN CAMERRON. MAY BE A JURY OF OPINION HOLDERS WILL HELP HERE]. THIS SAME POST HAD SAID IN A PREVIOUS PUBLICATION THAT, AYAH SAYS TALENTS MAY COME FROM ELECAM, AND HE WAS CALLED MAVERICK. DOES THE POST REALLY BELIEVE IN THIS ARTICLE.
IN 2000. THE ACTIVE U.S.A SUPREME COURT, DECIDED FOR GEORGE BUSH OVER ALGORE WHO HAD WON A REPUTABLE ELECTION[WON THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY VOTE]. THE PEOPLE CRIED THAT AN ACTIVE SUPREME COURT, HAD STOLEN THE ELECTIONS. IN TEXAS, I WAS SUPRISE TO SEE THAT JUDGES ARE ELECTED INTO THE BENCH. I REALLY WAS SURPRISED TO STUDY THAT. COULD IT LEAD TO PARTISAN RULINGS AND JUDGEMENTS.
THE SUPREME COURT OF CAMEROON IS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
THERE IS NO INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. THEY HOLD MEETINGS EVERY DAY ON THIS AND DO NOTHING. NO JURY SYSTEM.
THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF POWERS[LACK OF AMBITION]. AMBITION IN POLITICAL SCIENCE LEADS TO CHECK. THAT IS WHY PELOSI CAN SAY I DONOT WORK FOR OBAMA .
DID HE RESPECT THESPIRIT OF THE LAW IN MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS,THE LAW WRITTEN BY HIM WAS DONE SO THAT IT COULD BE GIVEN MUTIPLE AND VARIED INTERPRETATIONS, AS YOU HAVE HELPED US TO UNDERSTAND.
MR BIYA DOES THE THINGS HE DOES BECAUSE HE CAN DO THEM, PERIOD.
THERE IS A GENERATIONAL FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP TODAY. WE ARE STOCKED NOW IN A DANGEROUS SO CALLED TWO PARTY OPTION, WHOSE RESULTS WE ALL KNOW. YOU HAVE ALL DONE YOUR BEST, BUT YOU DONOT HOLD THE SOLUTION TO THE BREAK THROUGH. MY PROBLEM IS WITH THE SLEEPING GIANTS. THEY ARE STILL READING THE DREAMS OF OLD MEN, WHO SHOULD BE ADVICING THEM AS THEIR VISION TAKE SHAPE.[DREAMS FROM OUR FATHERS].
THE THIRD REPUBLIC SHALL NOT BE THE SAME .
GRASSIAS.
DR THOMPSON AKWO NTUBA