Christian Ntimbane Bomo on Cabral Libii's Claim to Constitutional Court

• Deputy Cabral Libii argued that only the Vice-President is authorized to request a Constitutional Court declaration of vacancy.
• Christian Ntimbane Bomo, President of the Héritage party, criticized Libii's position and highlighted the ambiguity surrounding Article 38(3).
• The modification of the law on April 14, 2026, introduced new provisions that have sparked controversy over the interpretation of Article 38(3).
• The debate has sparked a heated discussion among politicians, civil society members, lawyers, and judges.
• The case may be relevant to clients with interests in Cameroonian politics or governance.

However, this provision does not explicitly address scenarios such as resignation or death, leaving room for interpretation.

The debate over a potential vacancy of power at the highest level of government in Cameroon has intensified as President Paul Biya's private stay in Europe continues. The dispute centers around the interpretation of Article 38 of the law governing the Constitutional Court, which was modified on April 14, 2026. According to Article 38(3), the Constitutional Court is only empowered to declare a vacancy of the presidency upon the request of the Vice-President of the Republic in cases where the President's term has been definitively terminated. However, this provision does not explicitly address scenarios such as resignation or death, leaving room for interpretation.

The controversy began when Deputy Cabral Libii argued that only the Vice-President is authorized to request a Constitutional Court declaration of vacancy. In response, Christian Ntimbane Bomo, President of the Héritage party, published a statement on Facebook criticizing Libii's position and highlighting the ambiguity surrounding Article 38(3). Bomo pointed out that the modification of the law did not explicitly grant the Vice-President the power to request a Constitutional Court declaration in cases of resignation or death.

The debate has sparked a heated discussion among politicians, civil society members, lawyers, and judges. The Héritage party, which supports Libii's position, believes it is necessary to clarify the interpretation of Article 38(3) to prevent potential constitutional disputes.

The law governing the Constitutional Court was modified on April 14, 2026, introducing new provisions that have sparked controversy. According to Article 38(3), the Constitutional Court is only empowered to declare a vacancy of the presidency upon the request of the Vice-President in cases where the President's term has been definitively terminated. However, this provision does not explicitly address scenarios such as resignation or death, leaving room for interpretation.

The modification of the law was made under Article 6(5) of the Constitution, which empowers the Constitutional Court to declare a vacancy of the presidency in cases where the President's term has been definitively terminated. The new provision appears to have been intended to clarify the process for declaring a vacancy, but its ambiguity has led to controversy.

The debate highlights the need for clear and unambiguous laws that prevent potential constitutional disputes. Lawyers and compliance officers should note that this case may be relevant to clients with interests in Cameroonian politics or governance.

The dispute over the interpretation of Article 38(3) has significant implications for Cameroon's political landscape. If the Constitutional Court is empowered to declare a vacancy of the presidency upon the request of the Vice-President in cases where the President's term has been definitively terminated, it could have far-reaching consequences for the country's governance.

The controversy also highlights the need for clear and unambiguous laws that prevent potential constitutional disputes. Lawyers and compliance officers should be aware of this case and its implications for clients with interests in Cameroonian politics or governance.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that the article highlights a potential constitutional dispute in Cameroon, with implications for the interpretation of Article 38 of the law governing the Constitutional Court. This may be relevant to clients with interests in Cameroonian politics or governance.

Source: Original reporting via Actu Cameroun