Justice for Sisiku and His Cabinet not Possible in Yaoundé. Their Trial Is a Screaming Example of Judicial Thuggery. Sisiku and co court case come up on Thursday, 7th February 2019, the same day as Ambazonia shuts down. What are the indicators that highlighted the fact that it is a dead end? BaretaNews brings to you 5 Indicators:
1) The immediate causes of the present upsurge of Ambazonian nationalism are found in Yaoundé’s final attempt to wipe out the Common Law system and the brutal phasing out of the English system of education. The resistance by Common Law Lawyers met with brutal repression on the streets of Buea and Bamenda.
A government that humiliates officers of justice is incapable of ensuring justice for anyone. If lawyers and sitting judges can’t get justice, then who will? Worse, the trial of the
2) The Prosecution in this case has confiscated identification papers of Sisiku and his team, and then charge them of “defaut de CNI”, nonpossession of identification papers. Is a justice system that indulges in such base tactics capable of ensuring the fair trial?
3) Be not fooled. Can legality be founded on illegality? Having violated international law, does the judiciary in Yaoundé have any moral authority to sit in judgement over people they abducted and kidnapped?
4) During the first opening of hearings of the matter before Justice Abega, President of the Yaoundé Military Tribunal, her ruling to the effect that hearing had not begun so that the prosecution’s list of witnesses can be accepted is indicative of what lies ahead. It should be noted that the law requires that the defendants be served the list of witnesses against them at least 5days to the opening of hearings. This, the prosecution didn’t do. It served the list of witnesses on the defense just a few hours to the opening of hearings, and Judge Abega had to deny she had opened hearings and adjourned the matter. Charade!
5) The fact that the defendants are being tried in the very language (French) and instrument of assimilation and repression is very significant. Perhaps more telling is the judge’s stance that arguments on preliminary objections are irrelevant to the trial and so there is no need for interpretation, talk less of competence in the matter by the expert. Can people, even terrorists be tried in a language they don’t understand?
Where is the UN? Where is the AU? Who is supposed to defend their