Lawyers in Cameroon’s English-speaking regions are disgruntled again and they think the government is sliding back to actions that provoked the 2016 lawyers and teachers strike, which later escalated into the ongoing armed conflict.
This is because of a presidential decree of July 16, 2025, stripping lawyers of their right to practice concurrently as Notaries Public, something which is unique to Common Law lawyers.
A Notary Public is a public officer who performs specific legal duties, including administering oaths for affidavits and witnessing the signing of documents like contracts, deeds, or powers of attorney.
In Common Law jurisdictions, lawyers are also trained to practice as Notaries Public, unlike in the Civil Law systems where Notaries are only appointed by the President of the Republic.
For years, lawyers in the Anglophone regions have been performing the duties of a Notary Public until the recent decree.
Anglophone lawyers think this decree is another attempt by Cameroon’s Francophone-majority government to “assimilate” the Anglophone minority, who have historically decried marginalisation by the government.
Barrister Anyang Lewis Forchenallah, a Buea-based Constitutional Lawyer, has petitioned the Constitutional Council to nullify the July presidential decree.
Legal Battle Intensifies Over Decree
On August 19, 2025, a group of Anglophone lawyers, led by Senior Barrister Emmanuel Nkea, formally protested the decree by presenting a petition to the Governor of the South West Region, Okalia Bilai, in Buea.
The lawyers condemned Decree No. 2025/316 of July 16, 2025, which regulates the profession of Notaries Public, arguing that it undermines their legal rights and the bijural nature of Cameroon’s legal system.
Barrister Anyang Lewis Forchenallah, a prominent notary public and managing partner of Anyang Lewis Law Firm in Buea, filed a detailed petition with the Constitutional Council on August 21, 2025, seeking to declare Articles 116(1) and (2) of the decree unconstitutional.
The petition argues that the decree violates Article 62(2) of the 1996 Constitution, which mandates that laws consider the specificities of certain regions, such as the Common Law practices in the North West and South West Regions.
It also contravenes Section 3(1) and (3) of Law No. 2019/024 of December 24, 2019, which recognizes the special status of these regions based on their language and historical heritage, including the Anglo-Saxon legal system.
Forchenallah’s petition argues that, under the Common Law system, lawyers traditionally practice concurrently as notaries public, a practice rooted in the Southern Cameroons High Court Law of 1955 and reinforced by Cameroon’s Commonwealth membership.
The decree’s provisions, which allow Anglophone lawyers to serve as notaries only until presidential appointees replace them and require them to renounce their legal practice to continue as notaries, are seen as an affront to this heritage.
“It will be injustice of the highest order if lawyers in the South West and North West Regions are prevented or stopped from exercising the profession of notaries public, and it will seriously affect the population of people of the two English Regions negatively,” Barrister Forchenallah stated in his petition.
Additionally, the petition argues that the decree violates the doctrine of the hierarchy of legal norms, as it attempts to override Section 74(1) of Law No. 90/059 of December 19, 1990, which permits Anglophone lawyers to act as notaries public.
“Legally, a decree cannot repeal a law which is an act of parliament,” Forchenallah stated, adding that the law ranks higher than a presidential decree.
Historical Context
The decree has reignited tensions akin to the 2016 protests, when Anglophone lawyers and teachers demonstrated against perceived marginalization of the Common Law and English-language education systems.
The protests escalated into the ongoing Anglophone Crisis, a conflict that has claimed thousands of lives and displaced over 700,000 people.
Anglophone lawyers view the decree as part of a pattern of assimilation and are accusing the government of disregarding the bijural framework established at Cameroon’s reunification in 1961.
Forchenallah’s petition also invokes the doctrine of necessity. It urges the Constitutional Council to admit the case despite procedural limitations under Article 47(2) of the 1996 Constitution, which restricts who can refer matters to the Council.
He appeals to the justices’ conscience under Article 37(2), arguing that the decree poses an imminent threat to over 1,000 lawyers in the Anglophone regions and their clients, with no alternative legal recourse available.
The Constitutional Council has yet to respond to the petition.
