By Yerima Kini Nsom
For eight long years, they have languished in prison, their lives suspended and their freedom a distant dream. Then, a few days ago, the Nera 10 Ambazonia detainees arrived at Cameroon’s Supreme Court with the quiet hope that this, finally, would be their day of reckoning. But in a stunning twist that has sent shockwaves through the nation’s legal circles, their long-awaited appeal was abruptly derailed—not by legal argument, but by a colossal administrative blunder that has left observers questioning the very integrity of Cameroon’s justice system.
The morning began with a poignant ritual. At 7:30 a.m., an old van delivered the 10 men, including the prominent Sisiku Julius Ayuk, to the Supreme Court premises. Despite nearly a decade behind bars, they appeared remarkably alert and composed in their dark attire, a testament to their enduring spirit.
Barrister Shufai, a splash of vibrant colour in his handmade Graffi gown, stood as a symbol of cultural defiance. The air crackled with anticipation—this was the final frontier, the last judicial review. Yet the court doors remained stubbornly shut for another agonising hour, an ominous prelude to the day’s bewildering events.
When proceedings finally commenced before the three-member jury presided over by Abomo Marie, the courtroom braced for the legal battle ahead. Instead, it was Attorney General Madji da Madjida, the state’s prosecutor, who rose—not to present his case, but to dramatically recuse himself. His reason? He had previously served as a judge on the very Appeal Court panel that, in 2021, upheld the life sentences of these same men.
The revelation landed like a bombshell. The man tasked with prosecuting their final appeal was, in fact, one of the judges who had already sealed their fate. It was a profound conflict of interest, a legal and ethical quagmire that legally mandated his withdrawal, effectively “washing his hands” of a case he had once judged.
The shock and dismay were palpable. Senior Counsel Batonier Akere Muna, a veteran of Cameroon’s legal landscape, though frustrated, conceded to the adjournment, acknowledging the legal necessity of a recusal. Yet the question hung heavy in the air: How could such a fundamental oversight occur at the highest echelons of the judiciary?
Barrister Paddy Yong, lead counsel for Sisiku Ayuk and the Nera 10, struggled to contain his disbelief outside the courtroom. “Five years after this case has suddenly been called up to the Supreme Court, and abruptly there is an adjournment. What just happened here?” he demanded, his voice laced with a mixture of frustration and exhaustion.
Yong highlighted the agonising delays that have plagued the case, a cruel testament to the slow grind of justice. “Today we were very pleased, last week or two weeks ago, when we were informed that the matter had been listed on the court list. We filed submissions to the Supreme Court on the 31st of August 2021, and if you look at what the law says, we were supposed… we were expecting that the matter should be listed on the court list within a maximum of three months.”
His words underscored the immense human cost of these protracted legal battles. “Our clients have been in prison now for about eight years. So we want everything possible to have this matter heard on the merits.”
A critic who chose anonymity told The Post at the court premises that the administrative lapse—allowing a former Appeal Court judge to be assigned to the Supreme Court hearing of the very case he judged—exposed a deeply concerning flaw. “The implication is clear: the system has allowed the very person who had once affirmed their conviction to be part of the process to review it. This creates an undeniable ethical and legal quandary that should have been identified much earlier,” they said.
A System Under Scrutiny
Batonier Akere Muna echoed the sentiment, expressing his personal sacrifice and the broader implications for the nation’s judicial system. “I’m surprised that they could designate the Avocat Général, who is the person who heard the case in the Court of Appeal, which of course was intellectually honest enough to recuse himself—and that recusal is very difficult to have any argument against, so we can only wait to see what will happen.”
Akere Muna’s words painted a picture of a nation grappling with its judicial processes and international pressures. “But the political institution of the country commands celerity, and frankly speaking, for them to be out—the UN has said so, that they should be out—and I think the country needs them out, and many other places as well, for any kind of balance in our country.”
He concluded with a weary acceptance of the situation: “So I came—I was supposed to travel, I changed my day to travel because of the matter—so I came fully prepared for a trial, for a hearing. What cannot be cured must be endured.”
The recusal, while legally sound, casts a long and troubling shadow over the proceedings. It also highlights the agonisingly slow pace of justice that has become a hallmark of this case. For the Nera 10, who have spent nearly a decade incarcerated, their next day in court is now scheduled for 15 January 2026.