Moussa Njoya: Christophe Bobiokono's Judicial Inculture in Cameroon

• Politologist Moussa Njoya has publicly accused journalist Christophe Bobiokono, director of Kalara newspaper, of 'judicial inculture' and 'manipulation' regarding Cameroonian legal matters.
• The core of their dispute involves the procedures for transferring military magistrates, which Njoya argues differ from those for civil magistrates, citing Lieutenant-Colonel Cerlin Belinga's case.
• Njoya questioned the abrupt removal of Belinga from a case, particularly before he could re-examine Colonel Otoulou, and noted the reappearance of Journal Kalara coinciding with this event.
• The politologist corrected Bobiokono's understanding of the 'presidential plane affair,' clarifying it involved two distinct legal cases (BBJ-2 and Albatros).
• Njoya broadly criticized Bobiokono's legal competence, alleging a lack of formal legal education and unprofessional conduct, such as sleeping in courtrooms.

Politologist Moussa Njoya has publicly leveled serious accusations against journalist Christophe Bobiokono, director of the Kalara newspaper, alleging 'judicial inculture' and 'manipulation' in his reporting and commentary on Cameroonian legal matters.

Politologist Moussa Njoya has publicly leveled serious accusations against journalist Christophe Bobiokono, director of the Kalara newspaper, alleging 'judicial inculture' and 'manipulation' in his reporting and commentary on Cameroonian legal matters. Njoya's critique emerged in a new tribune, where he directly addressed Bobiokono, noting that the journalist had blocked him on all social media platforms.

Njoya contends that Bobiokono consistently resorts to personal attacks and peripheral subjects rather than engaging with factual arguments. This pattern, according to Njoya, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of legal principles and judicial processes within Cameroon, particularly concerning the movement and authority of magistrates.

A central point of contention in the debate between Moussa Njoya and Christophe Bobiokono revolves around the transfer and authority of `magistrats militaires Cameroun`. Njoya asserts that military magistrates, especially those serving in the 'siège' (such as investigating judges, court presidents, and vice-presidents of military jurisdictions), can be transferred at any time without the involvement of the Superior Council of Magistracy. This, he argues, contrasts sharply with the procedures for civil magistrates, who typically require such council approval for movement.

Njoya highlighted the specific case of Lieutenant-Colonel Cerlin Belinga to illustrate his point. He noted that Belinga transitioned from the prosecution ('parquet') to the bench ('siège') as a vice-president and investigating judge. Njoya challenged Bobiokono to identify a similar instance within civil jurisdictions that occurred without the Superior Council of Magistracy's intervention, thereby underscoring what Njoya perceives as a distinct procedural framework for military judicial personnel.

Moussa Njoya further questioned the circumstances surrounding Lieutenant-Colonel Cerlin Belinga's abrupt removal from a specific case. This removal, Njoya pointed out, occurred just as Belinga was preparing to re-examine `Colonel Otoulou`, who had been accused of significant shortcomings during a preliminary investigation. The timing was particularly notable, happening after experts Oloumou and Bitdjocka had testified and the first witness from a joint inquiry commission had been rigorously questioned.

Njoya also drew attention to the reappearance of `Journal Kalara`, Bobiokono's publication, which had reportedly been absent from newsstands, coinciding with Belinga's sudden departure from the case. Additionally, Njoya refuted Bobiokono's attempt to draw parallels with the `Affaire avion présidentiel Cameroun`. Njoya clarified that this complex case actually comprised two distinct matters: the BBJ-2 affair involving Marafa and Fotso, and the Albatros affair concerning Mebara and Ambassador Mendouga, explaining why the accused in these separate proceedings were not tried together. He emphasized that in any legal proceeding, a witness's status can change to that of an accused, and new accomplices can be discovered.

Beyond the specific procedural arguments, Moussa Njoya's critique extended to Christophe Bobiokono's overall legal competence and conduct within the `droit judiciaire Cameroun`. Njoya explicitly stated that Bobiokono, despite presenting himself as a judicial chronicler, has never attended a law school or read a substantive legal text. He accused Bobiokono of frequently sleeping during court sessions at the military tribunal, suggesting a lack of engagement and understanding.

Njoya recalled a recent hearing where Léopold Maxime Eko Eko, former Director General for External Research (DGRE) and currently an accused in the Martinez Zogo assassination case, reportedly reminded Bobiokono about the nature of his accusations, implying that Bobiokono's approach often leads to public embarrassment. This ongoing public dispute highlights significant concerns regarding the interpretation and application of judicial processes, particularly concerning `magistrats militaires Cameroun` and the broader integrity of legal discourse in the country.

This article exposes a public debate among prominent figures regarding the interpretation and application of Cameroonian judicial procedures, particularly concerning military magistrates and the Superior Council of Magistracy. Lawyers and compliance officers should be aware of these public discussions as they reflect ongoing scrutiny of judicial integrity and process, which could influence the political and public context of legal cases in Cameroon.

Source: Original reporting via Actu Cameroun