By David Atangana
The President of the Constitutional Council, Justice Clement Atangana, and two other members — Emmanuel Bonde and Adolphe Minkoa — have been dragged to court by the Cameroon Renaissance Movement political party, the party’s lawyers have said.
A complaint to that effect has been filed with the judge of the Yaounde Court of First Instance in the Center Region.
They are accused of criminal acts, including encroachment on legislative power and collectively violating the law on their status as members of the constitutional Council, an impartial institution charged with arbitrating electoral disputes and interpreting the constitutionality of laws.
The lawsuit comes few days after Justice Clement Atangana reportedly participated in a meeting of the ruling CPDM party that endorsed President Paul Biya candidate for the 2025 elections.
Adolphe Minkoa, MMI learnt is an appointed member of the Olympic Committee, while Emmanuel Bonde is a member of the political bureau, of the ruling CPDM party.
Such partisan loyalty demonstrated by the Constitutional Council members, including its president, defeats the impartiality of the institution.
“We make it our professional duty to bring to your attention a copy of the complaint with civil action by our client the MRC, which we have just filed against you personally with the investigating judge of the Court of First Instance of Yaoundé Administrative Center, which already constitutes an act of criminal procedure within the meaning of the law establishing the status of members of the Constitutional Council,” reads a notification letter served the defendants by a battery of CRM Lawyers led by Barrister Hyppolite T Meli.
The lawyers note that the case is aimed at causing the defendants to comply “with the provisions of Article 23 of Law 2004/0005 of 21 April 2004 establishing the status of members of the Constitutional Council, as amended and supplemented”.
During the 2018 post-elections litigation, the CRM party raised these issues before the Constitutional Council, but the council outrightly rejected them on grounds that MRC lacked the legal backing to raise the issues.
It remains unclear whether the present case will sail through in a lower court this time around.
