Cameroon Returns to UN Human Rights Scrutiny as Old Questions Remain Unresolved

Cameroon will return before United Nations human rights experts next week for another examination of its record, with questions expected on extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, military trials of civilians, restrictions on journalists and opposition figures, the Anglophone conflict and the independence of the electoral system.

The review by the UN Human Rights Committee is scheduled for October 22 and 23 in Geneva, as part of a session running from October 19 to November 6. The Committee monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Cameroon ratified in 1984.

But for Cameroon, the central question is no longer whether these concerns will be raised. Many of them have been raised repeatedly for years.

The more difficult question is what happens after the hearings end.

Previous UN reviews have produced detailed recommendations, deadlines and requests for follow-up. Some of the same problems nevertheless continue to appear in subsequent examinations, raising questions over whether another round of questioning in Geneva will translate into measurable change inside Cameroon.

The questions have barely changed

The Human Rights Committee prepared its current list of issues in December 2024.

Among other things, it asked Cameroon to explain what had been done to end impunity for serious human rights violations allegedly committed during the conflicts in the Far North and the North West and South West regions.

The Committee requested statistics on investigations, prosecutions, convictions and punishments, including cases involving members of the defence and security forces.

It also asked Cameroon to explain why civilians continue to be prosecuted before military courts and whether the government intends to amend the 2014 anti-terrorism law, which UN experts have repeatedly criticised over its broad definition of terrorism and its application to journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and political opponents.

The Committee is also seeking answers on allegations of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence involving security forces in conflict areas.

It specifically asks what action followed the February 2020 Ngarbuh killings, where the Cameroonian government eventually acknowledged that soldiers and members of a local vigilante group were involved in an operation in which civilians died.

Other questions cover prolonged pre-trial detention, detention in unofficial locations, restrictions on peaceful demonstrations and opposition activities, and the protection of journalists.

The Committee wants an update on investigations into the killings of journalists Martinez Zogo and Jean-Jacques Ola Bebe. It has also asked Cameroon to explain what safeguards exist to ensure the independence and impartiality of Elections Cameroon, ELECAM.

These are not new subjects.

In its previous examination of Cameroon in 2017, the same Committee raised concerns over extrajudicial killings, torture, secret detention, poor prison conditions, military trials of civilians, restrictions on journalists and protesters, and questions surrounding ELECAM’s independence.

A follow-up deadline that came and went

At the end of the 2017 review, the Human Rights Committee singled out three areas requiring follow-up: extrajudicial killings; torture and other cruel or degrading treatment; and freedom of expression and assembly, including the protection of journalists and human rights defenders.

Cameroon was asked to report back by November 10, 2019.

UN follow-up records subsequently showed no date of receipt for the required report. The Committee sent Cameroon a reminder in April 2021, with another deadline in June that year.

Cameroon eventually submitted its sixth periodic report in December 2025, several years after the next full report had originally been expected.

That history matters because treaty reviews depend heavily on governments returning with evidence that recommendations have actually been implemented.

The Committee can question governments, publish findings, request follow-up and assess implementation. It does not itself prosecute officials, amend national laws or compel domestic authorities to carry out its recommendations. That leaves implementation largely dependent on what states do after the international scrutiny has ended.

What happened when Cameroon faced UN experts in 2024

Cameroon appeared before a different UN treaty body, the Committee against Torture, in November 2024.

That hearing offers a recent example of the gap that can emerge between what government representatives tell UN experts and what the Committee ultimately concludes from the evidence before it.

During the dialogue, a Cameroonian representative said the government was committed to human rights and that isolated cases of torture were investigated and punished.

The representative also rejected the idea that the crisis in the English-speaking regions amounted to a conflict between Anglophones and Francophones, describing it as a crisis caused by a small number of separatists and saying it was “coming to an end.”

On detention, another government representative told the Committee that there was “no record of any cases of abuse or negligence in prisons” and that prisoners were “never held incommunicado.”

The Committee’s findings, published after the hearing, were markedly different.

UN findings contradicted key government assurances

The Committee against Torture said Cameroon’s prisons were operating at 164.25% of capacity as of April 15, 2024.

It cited chronic overcrowding, poor sanitation, inadequate ventilation, insufficient food and water, limited healthcare, and prison violence.

On secret and incommunicado detention, the Committee noted Cameroon’s assertion that no secret detention facilities existed.

But it said it remained deeply concerned by credible reports that people from the Far North, North West and South West suspected of links to Boko Haram or separatist groups had been held illegally and incommunicado in unofficial detention facilities.

The Committee also said it had received consistent reports of torture, summary executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary and prolonged detention, abductions, attacks on civilians and sexual violence in conflict areas.

It criticised what it described as inadequate investigations and prosecutions, saying the situation lent credibility to allegations that serious abuses were going unpunished.

Its conclusions also addressed journalists, activists and political opponents.

The Committee said it remained concerned by reports of intimidation, arbitrary detention, prosecution before military courts, torture, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial execution involving human rights defenders, journalists, members of civil society, opposition figures and protesters.

It specifically cited the cases of Martinez Zogo, Longue Longue and Ramon Cotta.

In other words, some of the assurances given during the hearing were followed within weeks by findings that raised many of the same allegations the delegation had rejected or minimised.

Cameroon says progress has been made

Cameroon’s latest report to the Human Rights Committee presents a different picture.

The government says investigations are opened when allegations of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, are reported, and that perpetrators are brought before competent courts where the evidence supports prosecution.

It also points to institutional and legal measures adopted over recent years, including the creation of the Cameroon Human Rights Commission, the establishment of a national mechanism for the prevention of torture, disarmament and reintegration programmes, gender-based violence strategies and instructions to security forces reminding them of the prohibition of torture.

Those measures will form part of the government’s case in Geneva.

But the Committee’s questions suggest it wants more than references to laws, policies and institutions.

It is asking for figures: how many investigations, how many prosecutions, how many convictions, which officials were sanctioned, what compensation victims received and what changed after earlier recommendations.

The anti-terrorism law remains under scrutiny

One of the clearest examples of continuity between past and present reviews is Cameroon’s 2014 anti-terrorism law.

The Human Rights Committee criticised the legislation in 2017, particularly the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and allegations that counter-terrorism measures had been accompanied by arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial killings.

Seven years later, the Committee against Torture again said the definition of terrorism was overly broad and raised concerns that the law had reportedly been used against perceived government critics.

Now, ahead of the October 2026 review, the Human Rights Committee is asking yet again whether Cameroon plans to amend the same law and stop its application in ways that violate freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

The repetition raises a simple accountability question: if the same legal concern appears in successive UN reviews over almost a decade, what has the review process changed?

The Anglophone crisis is again on the agenda

The North West and South West conflict is also expected to feature prominently.

The Human Rights Committee’s questions address alleged abuses by both sides.

It asks what Cameroon has done to protect civilians from killings, kidnappings, torture, sexual violence and child recruitment by separatist armed groups.

At the same time, it asks about documented allegations against security forces, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances and torture.

The Committee has also requested information on discrimination against Cameroon’s English-speaking minority and on whether reforms intended to promote bilingualism have produced meaningful change.

This sits uneasily with the assertion made by a government representative during the 2024 torture review that the crisis was “coming to an end.”

Nearly two years later, kidnappings, armed attacks, military operations, separatist violence and displacement remain part of daily life in sections of both regions.

Another review, but what comes after?

The purpose of the Geneva hearings is not simply to put Cameroon on trial before an international audience.

Treaty reviews give governments an opportunity to explain their record, challenge allegations and present evidence of reforms. Civil society organisations can also submit information, allowing Committee members to compare official accounts with other evidence.

The real measure of the exercise, however, comes after the delegation leaves Geneva.

In Cameroon’s case, previous Committees have already recommended investigations into alleged abuses, action against torture and secret detention, better protection of journalists, limits on military jurisdiction over civilians, reforms to counter-terrorism laws and improvements to prison conditions.

Several of those issues are now back on the agenda.

This makes the October review a test not simply of how well Cameroonian officials answer questions for two days, but of whether they can show that previous commitments and recommendations resulted in identifiable changes.

If the process ends with another set of concluding observations that reappear almost unchanged at the next review, the question will remain: is international scrutiny producing accountability, or simply documenting the same failures from one reporting cycle to the next?

Cameroon’s public examination before the UN Human Rights Committee will take place on October 22 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. and October 23 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., Geneva time. The hearings will be webcast live through UN Web TV.