After seven hours of debate, the Yaoundé Military Tribunal initially rejected the request for a stay made by the lawyers of the beneficiaries of Martinez Zogo, Léopold Maxime Eko Eko, Justin Danwe, Clément Booh, and the State of Cameroon. This request for a stay is related to the fact that the counsels for these five defendants had duly filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal two weeks ago. Thus, a fundamental question arose during the debates: Is the ruling of the Court of Appeal a preliminary ruling or a final ruling on the merits of the case? The debate therefore focused on the nature of the Court of Appeal’s ruling. Does it have a suspensive effect or not? After several hours of debate, the president of the Yaoundé Military Tribunal ruled:
The Court of Appeal’s ruling is not a preliminary ruling
The tribunal cannot indefinitely postpone a case
The appeal does not have a suspensive effect
The tribunal orders the continuation of the debates.
During the continuation of the debates, the main point of contention was the ambiguous role of the State representatives who are both civil parties and civilly responsible. Me Guy Léonard Gueyo, lawyer for the accused Mvilongo, is among the counsels who oppose the dual role of the State as both a civil party and civilly responsible. “I am among those who oppose this dual role because the State of Cameroon cannot deny today that its agents acted with its resources. We are talking about elements of the Dgre who allegedly used State resources. If there is no trial, pending the status of the civil parties, the State should at least wait for the debates to advance and, obviously, at the end of the debates, if it is not involved and has suffered damage, it can then express its wish,” said Me Guy Léonard Gueyo.
In contrast, Me Jacques Mbuny, lawyer for Lieutenant-Colonel Justin Danwe, is pleased that this question is being raised again. “If the State comes today as a civil party, it means that it considers itself a victim from the outset. I would like to remind you that this is about the torture or assassination of a human being or a private person, meaning that the Dgre did not lose an individual. This is a private interest, and obviously, the damage must be direct, as required by law,” explained Me J. Mbuny. The hearing was suspended for 30 minutes to allow the tribunal to rule on the State’s role in this trial.
At the end of this hearing, the Dgre (Direction générale de la recherche extérieure) was held civilly responsible. The hearing was adjourned to September 9, 2024, for the assistance of all the defendants by their counsels and the continuation of the debates. From the next hearing, indicated Me Charles Tchoungang, lawyer for Jean Pierre Amougou Belinga, we will see the physical configuration of the hearing. “The courtroom will change, meaning they will move from the public prosecutor’s side to sit next to the defense. For the former President of the Cameroon Bar Association, this suggests an extremely difficult hearing because the civilly responsible party is trying to change its role as a civil party. “This also means that it will be quite difficult to convince and produce documents that will allow us to reconstruct everything that happened in this heinous crime and show everyone the truth,” added Me C. Tchoungang.
It is recalled that on February 17, 2023, the main defense lawyer for J.P. Amougou Belinga and Bruno Bidjang had informed the national and international public that when this case begins to clear up, people will be afraid to choose early on who the real culprits and masterminds of this case were. Me Tchoungang therefore believes that they are on the right track and concludes with the argument that on September 9, he will be there again to enlighten the public on the truth of this case, which is starting to drag on.
As a reminder, the first hearing of the Court of Appeal to examine the counsels’ request was set for July 18, 2024. On that day, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, which aimed to validate access to the procedural file. The progress of the case was then conditioned by the notification of this decision of the Court of Appeal to the military tribunal. This was done with the re-establishment of the file in the registry. Meanwhile, a total of five parties appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. They actually wanted the multiplication of the investigation file and hoped, de facto, to benefit from a stay or even a postponement of the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision, but in vain!
Culled from The Observer007
