English
English
Français
Case Pitting Sisiku Ayuk Tabe and co is still ongoing at the military court in Yaounde .
At press time, the prosecution had tendered machetes, dig axes, hunting guns, knives in the court room as proof against the accused.
All the lawyers defending the Ambazonian leaders withdrew their appearances, over what they qualify as unfair trial, but the court has continued without counsel for the defense.
“The attitude of the judge does not only confirm his bias and personal interest in sentencing the accused persons, but equally reveals the presumed outcome of the proceedings…” Barrister Ayukotang Ndep Nkongho told Mimi Mefo Info.
Barrister Ayukotang Ndep writes:
“Today at the Yaounde Military Tribunal, the defense Counsel for Sessekou AYUK Julius TABE, NFOR NGALA NFOR, TASSANG Wilfried and Seven (7) others moved the said Court at exactly 1:55pm to stay the proceedings pursuant to the motion to the President of the Yaounde Court of Appeal challenging the independence of the Presiding Judge Lieutenant Colonel MISSE NJONE Jacques B.
To buttress the motion, the defense Counsel referred the Court to the following provisions of the Cameroon Criminal Procedure Code:
- Sections 591(e), 592,594 and 598 of the Cameroon Criminal Procedure Code on the Challenge against a Magistrate of the Bench;
- Sections 1(i) on the rights of parties (in this case the rights of the accused persons which is to challenge or reculse a judge who to the accused persons appear to be bias); and
- Sections 3(1) a and b on the sanctions of the infringement of any rule of criminal procedure.
Despite these motions of the defense Counsel, the Presiding Judge MISSE NJONE Jacques B. in utmost violation of the cited provisions and the rights of the accused persons continues to hear the second prosecution witness even without completing the hearing of the first prosecution witness who was not in court today.
This attitude of the said Judge not only confirm his bias and personal interest in sentencing the accused persons, but equally clearly reveal the presumed outcome of the proceedings.
The attitude of this judge is a clear violation of the very notion of FAIR TRIAL. What a shame!”
