AYUK TABE & CO: Gov't Fails To Proof CameroUnian Nationality While Defendants Proofed Refugee Status
- Linda EYONG Suzy
- Feb 20, 2019
- 3 min read
These are updates from the Kangaroo court in Yaounde on the case between the state of Cameroon H.E. AYUK TABE Julius and nine others.
The case commenced at 12 :37pm with the prosecution invoking the powers of the trial court to maintain order in court in conformity with the Criminal Procedure Code.
The defense also made an observation to the court bordering on the security of lawyers who are being monitored in court by security forces and also the ventilation system in court which is bad.
Thereafter the prosecution reminded the court that they were in possession of documents to justify the Cameroonian nationality of the accused persons, which they sought to tender in court,...
...but we on the defense objected as the said documents were neither originals nor certified true copies from originals as provided by law. They were photocopies thus didn't meet the admissibility test under the Criminal Procedure Code.
After intense debate, the trial judge failed to rule on admissibility of the said documents and rather insisted that the defense should tender documents justifying the refugee status of the accused as we asserted, to rule on the two at once (a rather strange way of conducting proceedings).
The documents we tendered justifying their refugee status were original documents actually obtained from the UN Refugee Commission in Nigeria.
The prosecutor replied that the documents were fake, but didn't produce any evidence to show that the documents from the UN refugee Commission were fake as alleged.
After intense debates the court went on recess to rule on the admissibility of the documents tendered. Upon resumption the court admitted all the documents tendered by the prosecutor and defense, and ruled that the accused persons are Cameroonians and that four of them, based on the documents we tendered are refugees, while the other six accused including Ayuke Sisisku are asylum seekers, and that this status doesn't confer any immunity from prosecution with regard to the 1951 UN Geneva Convention on refugees and Resolution 1373 of UN Security Council.
The court found that the Ambazonian leaders on trial qualified as refugees and persons seeking asylum. Then, curiously, the court ruled that the Yaounde Military Court had jurisdiction in the case, the international instrument on the status of refugees notwithstanding. - AYAH Paul ABINE, Defense Counsel
The court further mentioned that even if the accused persons have renounced their Cameroonian nationality they can be judged by the military tribunal based on the dispositions of the 2014 law on Anti Terrorism and the 2017 Military Justice Code.
Worst of all, that the court was proceeding to hear the case there and then despite the oral notice of appeal by the Defence on the issue of lack of jurisdiction. - Pa AYAH added.
After reading out the interlocutory ruling we announced our intentions to file appeal against the said ruling. Just to mention that the presiding judge erred in law when he ruled that the military tribunal have jurisdiction to try the accused persons.
The court refused we can't file an appeal against the ruling claiming it wasn't a ruling he delivered and that it was a "mention". All the lawyers of the defense walk out in protest of the partiality of the presiding judge
As the court was unwilling to lend an impartial ear to the Defence on their right of appeal, or even just a short adjournment to enable the Defence to digest the court’s ruling, the dozens of Anglophone lawyers walked out of the court!!! - AYAH Paul ABINE
What is your take about the proceeding and the fact that the defense team walked out of the court in protest?
Comments