By Yerima Kini Nsom
The 10 ‘Ambazonia’ leaders who were kidnapped at the Nera Hotel in Abuja in January 2018, extradited to Cameroon, tried on charges of terrorism at the Military Tribunal and slammed a life imprisonment, have unleashed an avalanche of the injustices, torture and dehumanisation they have suffered in the past eight years of their detention.
Their tear-provoking narrations constituted the climax of their case at the Supreme Court in Yaounde on January 15. It was the second hearing after the opening session of the case last December 18. The 10 detainees, who were tried on charges related to the ongoing armed conflict in the two Anglophone regions, unanimously dismissed their arrest, trial and sentence as a sum total of a travesty of justice and miscarriage of the law.
When their leader, Sisiku Julius Ayuk Tabe, took the floor, he roundly rejected parts of the report of the court which claimed that the detainees were in possession of arms, American Military uniform, marijuana, tramadol and other drugs. Ayuk Tabe who is said never to have touched anything harder than a kitchen knife, said he was surprised to hear that he was found in possession of a gun and drugs.
Another member of the Nera 10, Dr. Ogork Ntui, said he does not know why he is in prison. He said he was arrested when he travelled to Abuja to see how they could help the several Cameroonian refugees that had poured into Nigeria following the war in the Anglophone regions. Prof. Ntui told the Supreme Court that, throughout his trial at the Yaounde Military Tribunal, no witnesses testified to prove and buttress the charges of terrorism slammed against him. “I am a university professor. I don’t know when I became a terrorist,” he added. He urged the judge to use her conscience and render justice on the matter.
Another detainee, Eyambe Elias Ebai, Barrister-at-law, said they were charged with offences whose punishment is death sentence. He said he was surprised that their trial was marred by serious irregularities. He stated that their rights of defence were violated when the court sentenced them without their lawyers. He recalled that they pleaded in vain for the court to give them one week to constitute a new legal team to defend them. They had earlier disagreed with the lawyers that were defending them when the case started. Going by him, none of the four witnesses testified against them. Without evidence, he went on, the court was in a mad hurry to slam a life sentence on them. Barrister Eyambe Elias Ebai also told the Supreme Court that they never had any reply from the respondents on account of the five grounds of appeal that they filed at the Centre Court of Appeal. He said in total violation of the rights of the defence, the court simply confirmed the judgement of the Military Tribunal.
Taking the floor, Dr. Ndecheh Fidelis picked holes with the report of the court, saying he was in possession of a passport and Cameroonian national identity card at the time of his kidnap, but was surprised that one of charges brought against him was the non-possession of an identity card. He equally took exception to the fact the Yaounde Military Tribunal tried him in French, a language he does not understand.
For his part, Henry Kimeng, a Professor of Structural Engineering, told the court that he has been defending the Cameroonian flag ever since he left the country close to 40 years ago. He said he was surprised that he was abducted, blindfolded and brought before people who were carrying guns and later slammed strange charges and tried him at the Military Tribunal. He urged the court to ensure the reign of justice on the matter.
Dr. Nfor Ngala Nfor stirred some anxiety in court when he introduced himself as the Chairman of the Southern Cameroons National Council, SCNC. In order to drive home his point, Nfor Nfor walked the court down memory lane, pointing out that Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun were two different countries before coming together in 1961. He said a genuine agreement between both parties was later manipulated into an annexation of Southern Cameroons through the violation of the federal status in 1972 and 1984 by the Yaounde authorities. He said it was on such a premise that the SCNC started seeking for a peaceful separation with La Republique du Cameroon, which Yaounde authorities have rejected. While quoting other cases like Eritrea and Gambia, Nfor Nfor said he was wondering when self-determination became a crime punishable with a genocidal war.
Cheh Augustine Awasum held the court spellbound with a tear-inducing testimony that spoke volumes of his agonising plight. Prof. Awasum, one of the best three Professors of Surgery in Africa, narrated vividly the story of his kidnap, torture and deportation to Cameroon and trial and conviction by the Military Court. He was particularly irked by claims in the report of court that they were carrying guns and drugs at the time of their kidnap at the Nera hotel in Abuja. “Do we go to recreational grounds with guns?” he wondered. He said they were chained and brought to Cameroon, detained in very dehumanising conditions, humiliated for 11 months. While noting that the life imprisonment slammed on them was not predicated on any evidence, he said he was praying hard for God to forgive the judge who sentenced them. He said a huge sum of money he had was simply taken away by those who kidnapped him.
Another detainee, Shufai Blaise Berinyuy, Barrister-at-Law, took exception to the whole trial at the Military Tribunal. He said at the time of his abduction at the Nera Hotel, he was in swimming pants and is surprise to hear from the report that emanated from the Military Tribunal that he was carrying guns. He asked the court if it is possible for anybody to hide guns in a swimming pant because he was in swimming pants the time security forces kidnapped him. He corroborated the view by other detainees that no witnesses were used to prove the charges of terrorism brought against them. He said they were simply asking the Supreme Court to ensure that justice is done on the matter.
Taking the floor, Tassang Wilfred Fombang, a teacher, said as the Executive Secretary of the Cameroon Teachers Trade Union, CATTU, he was trying to save the English sub system of education from the contamination of Francophone teachers who did not master the English Language. He said he struggled to solve the issue with the authorities amicably and failed before he led teachers into a strike action. He said if struggling to protect the English sub-system of education is terrorism and if preserving the Common Law system is terrorism, then he will admit that he is a terrorist.
The court session that was presided by the President of the jury, Justice Marie-Louise Abomo, flanked by two colleagues, Justice Ngo Mandeng Pauline Christine and Justice Eyango Rene Lucien and Justice Eboua Henri as the Advocate General, was calm and serene. Before the court gave the floor to the appellants to express their views, some of their lawyers had taken turns in corroborating the grounds of appeal in the matter.
Taking the floor earlier, Barrister Eta Besong Junior emphasised on the fact that the accused persons were never arraigned by the Military Tribunal as provided for by sections 338 and 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code, CPC. He insisted that the CPC makes the plea of the accused persons at the commencement of the case mandatory. He urged the court to render the judgment of the Yaounde Military Tribunal null and void given that it violated such a procedure. Harping on jurisprudence, he cited another case in which the Supreme Court dismantled a judgment because the same procedure was not respected
Another lawyer, Barrister Paddy Yong came down hard on the ruling of the Yaounde Centre Court of Appeal on the matter. He said two members of the panel that delivered the ruling on September 17, 2020, had long been transferred out of the court on August 10, 2020. He said they were armed with the presidential degrees that appointed the two judges to other courts. Due to this irregularity, he urged the court to declare the ruling a nullity.
Barrister Joseph Akuwiyadze hammered on the point that the Military Tribunal did not have the jurisdictional competence to try civilians. He said Cameroon had ratified conventions on fair trial that prohibit civilians from being tried at the Military Tribunal. Since none of the 10 people concerned is a military person, he went on, the Supreme Court should render the judgment null.
For his part, Barrister Akere Muna urged the Supreme Court to ensure the rights of citizens. He told the court that even when grounds of appeal are imperfectly stated, it is the responsibility of the court to fix them so as to ensure that the rights of citizens are respected. He told the court to always ensure the reign of justice because it is the prerequisite for peace. Barrister Akere Muna was responding to the report of the court that indicated that six out of the seven grounds of appeal before the court, were not properly formulated.
In response, the Advocate General, Justice Eboua Henri, reacted to the elements of appeal on the ruling of the Centre Appeal Court. He said any public servant transferred out particularly stays in the same office until a notification note is sent to him or her.
He equally argued that, by virtue of the 2014 law, the Military Tribunal has the jurisdictional competence to handle offences related to terrorism and insurrection. The lawyers defending the government led by Maitre Mandeng, corroborated the views of the Advocate General, emphasizing that even though the law is hard, it remains the law. After listening keenly to both parties, Justice Abomo also called on those who were calling her to examine her conscience while delivering the ruling, to equally examine their consciences. She adjourned the matter to March 19 for judgment.