*By Christopher Fon Achobang
There is a dangerous proverb quietly governing public life in Cameroon: a thief from my tribe is innocent; a whistleblower is the criminal.
Even those celebrated as moral authorities are not immune to this disease. Once corruption wears familiar skin, truth becomes “tribal attack,” and justice becomes “hate speech.”
This was my fate when I pursued the case of Justice Evande Mwambo Njie Paul-Rellie for abusing his judicial office to access funds belonging to a deceased man. Instead of debating the facts, Mola Njoh Lithumbe accused me of harbouring “anti-Bakweri sentiments.”
Thus, a legal question was converted into an ethnic drama.
Evidence was replaced with emotion.
Law was replaced with lineage.
A Judge, a Dead Man’s Account, and a Colonial Law
In *Suit No. HCK/21M/2009* at the Meme High Court in Kumba, Justice Evande Mwambo approved an application allowing a stranger to the estate of the late Okpu David, aka Don Sheriff, to receive money lodged in the deceased’s ECOBANK account. The deceased had left a will. None of his heirs had filed a claim.
To justify this manoeuvre, the learnt judge invoked the *1948 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, granting himself powers as “Administrator-General.” It was legal archaeology, digging up colonial fossils to justify modern misconduct.
Enter Barrister Phillip Forsang Ndikum , a lawyer known for confronting fraud and embezzlement wherever they hide. He challenged the ruling, arguing that the applicant had no legal authority to represent the estate and that the judge was manifestly biased.
The response?
Barrister Ndikum was obstructed from appearing before the court.
ECOBANK was fined FCFA 300,000.
And impartiality was escorted out of the courtroom.
The Wig Falls
On 4 November 2009, the President of the South West Court of Appeal, Justice Asuagbor, recused Justice Evande Mwambo for judicial bias and suspended the ruling. The *White Book* on Civil Procedure was cited: a judge who has an interest in a matter is incapable of acting in it.
In plain language: a judge cannot be both umpire and player.
Justice Evande declined to respond to reporters. Silence became his defence.
How the Debate Was Hijacked
One would expect this case to provoke national reflection on judicial ethics. Instead, it provoked ethnic protectionism.
I was not asked:
“Did a judge attempt to divert a deceased man’s money?”
I was asked:
“Why are you attacking a Bakweri man?”
This is how corruption survives in Africa: not through cleverness, but through kinship. A tribal shield is more effective than any legal argument.
The robe becomes sacred. The village becomes the court of appeal.
My campaign for accountability became so distorted by tribal interpretation that it turned fatal for Justice Evande himself, not because truth was wrong, but because truth was politicised.
A National Illness
Cameroon suffers not only from corruption but also from selective morality. We condemn theft in theory but excuse it in practice when the thief shares our surname, dialect, or ancestral hill.
Judges claim their “hands are tied,” yet their pockets remain remarkably free. Colonial laws are resurrected when convenient. Modern statutes are ignored when inconvenient.
This is not justice.
It is ethnic laundering of crime.
I did not fight Justice Evande because he was Bakweri.
I fought him because he was wrong.
If asking that a dead man’s money not be stolen makes one “anti-tribal”, then perhaps Cameroon needs more such criminals.
Until we learn to separate justice from tribe, corruption from culture, and law from loyalty, the courtroom will remain another village square, where truth loses, and relatives win.
In Cameroon today, the most dangerous enemy of justice is not the thief.
It is the tribe that applauds him.
* Christopher Fon Achobang, is a freelance journalist who advocates for the total restoration of the State of Ambazonia.
