REFORMING THE CAMEROON PARLIAMENTARY MICRO FUND SYSTEM

***This is the most comprehensive document ever written in Cameroon that explains how the micro fund ought to be used, and which has also described in detail the character of the fund. The lack of project accomplished data on how this fund has been used by MPs is a compelling reason to re-examine the fund’s application***

By

Jackson W. Nanje

 

                                                              

Background and history of the Micro Fund

Micro financing is an idea that originated from Bangladesh, championed by Muhammad Yunus. Yunus, a Professor of Economics in Chittagong University in Bangladesh, witnessed with anguish the difficulties that the rural poor encountered in securing small business loans from banking institutions in Bangladesh. This prompted him to launch an action-research program in 1976. As a result of his research, he “designed a framework which will bring the rural poor within the viable banking network” (D.S. Gibbons; 1994). Yunus called the project “The Grameen ‘Village’ Bank Project”. His objectives were simple:

“to extend banking facilities to the poor, to eliminate exploitation of the poor by money lenders, to create opportunities for the self-employed for the country’s vast unutilized and under-utilized  manpower resources, to bring the poor within the folds of some organizational format which they can understand and operate from which they can find socio-political and economic strength through mutual support and, to reverse the age-old vicious circle of low-income, low-savings, low-investment and low-income into an expanding system of low-income, credit, investment, more income, more credit, more investment and more income”. (D.S Gibbons; 1994)

          Professor Yunus’ idea was to make financial resources available to the disadvantaged rural poor at favorable terms and conditions and also on reasonable and appropriate terms”. In this way, millions of small pursuits can add to create the biggest development wonder”. The success of Professor Yunus’ Grameen or Village Bank Project, which started in Jobra with the lending support of the Bangladesh Bank, soon spread to other villages with astounding results. As a result of the successes which the program achieved, many lending institutions started making funds available to the poor throughout the country. This laudable effort of Professor Yunus’ has today helped Bangladesh’s rural population to gain economic and political might. Suffice it to know as well that Bangladesh was once upon a time the poorest nation on planet earth. The micro lending aspect of Professor Yunus has helped to change the fortunes of this nation.

          It is known that the government of Cameroon has similar micro financing programs which make loans available to farmers and to small businesses. But the bureaucracy involved in order for the rural dwellers to secure such loans is regrettable. It is also true that institutions like the defunct FONADER was created to assist farmers in securing small micro funds but the institution collapsed as a result of the rich borrowing from it and not paying back, thereby defeating the purpose for which the bank was formed. The government of Cameroon has long concluded that the MPs, as representatives of the people are the most trusted personnel to transfer these funds, which is to assist the rural dwellers in carrying out small projects of their own since they know their problems better than anyone else.

     Today in Cameroon the government has set aside a sum of 8million CFA, conveyed through Parliamentarians to assist the rural poor in each constituent to finance their small business plans that require small sums of money. As Professor Yunus thought, it is only when Parliamentarians start making these funds available to the rural poor that we can start seeing the advancement of our society. The bureaucracy that is involved in making those other funds available to the rural poor is one of the reasons why the government decided to use the Members of Parliament to funnel these Funds to the rural poor. What is the Parliamentary Micro Fund and how has it been administered in Cameroon?

      The Parliamentary Micro Funds in Cameroon are funds that the government provides yearly to members of parliament to disburse to their constituents in enabling them carry out micro projects of their own. The funds are non-refundable. This is one of the several methods that the government of Cameroon attempts to improve on the welfare of its citizens. If these funds have been/are properly disbursed, write-ups such as this one would carry words of praise of the program. Unfortunately, a lot has been desired of the fund in terms of management, and, that is why many articles have been written requesting a shift in the current managerial method.

        This article will therefore examine the usefulness of the fund; how parliamentarians have been putting the funds into use or the mechanism of disbursement; and, how the funds could be put into proper use. We shall equally discuss method(s) of monitoring the funds and we shall also clarify readers what happens to these funds in the situation where the receiving Member of Parliament (MP) is deceased.

       This discourse may not be welcomed by Members of Parliament because, it will open up avenues for local Mayors, Traditional Council authorities and the people to start demanding explanations on how these funds are used. This will certainly clear up any misunderstandings that the people had pertaining to the use of these funds by MPs. It is a known fact that the MPs have never really accounted to anyone on the use of these micro project monies since the establishment of the fund in 1996; therefore, the gap between the recipient and the disburser is going to be made clearer and narrower in this discourse.

     As we attempt to examine the character of the Micro Fund, we shall likewise examine the challenges of the fund’s application and ways of ensuring transparency and accountability. What this writer will not delve into is to quantify this fund; that is, whether it is too small, moderate, or too large? Instead, he will examine the method(s) of its application and instruct on a better way to put the funds into use. Even though we do not seek to indict any MP for the abuse of the Micro Fund in the past, it is wise to say that the fund has never withstood any form of scrutiny in its application of any measurable standard by any independent evaluation agency, to determine if more money is needed or not. In addition, a suggestion on a better way to put the fund into use is needed because, Cameroonians have had serious concerns over time in what they believe has been a poor management of the micro fund by parliamentarians and to it, they are demanding a different way in its application.

          In a compiled report by Journalism Interns of the University of Buea and those of the School of Journalism (ASMAC) in Yaoundé, which were posted in the August 2007 issue of the Post Newspaper in Cameroon, the concerns of the people they interviewed were summed up as follows: that the fund lacks accountability and transparency in its application; that the 8million is too small and should therefore be increased; that the fund needs a third party or a neutral agency to monitor the disbursement to constituents or recipients; that they wanted to know the validity of this type of project in general; that grants should be given based on need; and finally, that the 8million is quite adequate but its application is lousy.

                             How useful is the Micro Fund to a Constituency?

      Indeed, this is a very interesting question but that which should be rephrased here because of the way the funds is being misused. Consequently, the right question should be---can the micro funds be put into better use or for the intended purpose for which the funds are programmed for? For a country which is marred in corruption, to put 1,440,000,000FRS annually in the hands of corrupt men and women, who are paid more than most civil servants in the country is a way to enable corruption. And in a country where they are the only ones to determine how these funds ought to be disbursed, the future of the micro fund is gloomy.

      The report that was compiled by students of both Journalism Schools of Buea and Yaoundé sadly expressed the disappointments that have characterized the management of the micro fund. Yet, this has not changed the character of the fund in terms of disbursement, transparency and accountability by parliamentarians in a government which is supposed to be of, for and by the people. They parliamentarian determine everything and the people have no say or have no influence in their government or how this fund should be disbursed or to whom it should be disbursed to.

     To respond to the original question on the usefulness of the micro funds; a fund whose intended need is to address the problems of the rural poor, it has never been useful to the Cameroon rural poor. For the micro fund to see its full potential, the structure of the fund must be determined first. To this, I am proposing that the Speaker of the House commissions an independent body out of the parliamentary ranks to determine the future of the micro fund. The Kenyan Constituency Development Fund should be a case for this Independent Commission to replicate.

                   Lack of accountability and transparency in the fund’s application

         We are aware of the fact that every business must have a plan; and the lack of a plan to judiciously spend the 8million CFA grant which the government channels through Members of Parliament to execute micro projects in their constituencies is a source of the dichotomy. If the government continues to funnel these funds into the hands of these MPs, they will never realize the intended purpose of the fund. Just as it was suggested by J.N Mokake, a Pensioner in Buea (the Post Newspaper; 2007), the money is quite enough but its use is wanting. In this same report, John Ngwa Tabifor, a businessman in Bamenda reiterated that the amount given to parliamentarians is quite enough but the management of the fund is what is seriously lacking. “If you cannot manage one thousand, you cannot manage a million”, Mr. Tabifor opined.

     The expressions above are direct testimonies from those who believe (they are in the majority) that if the fund was properly managed, with different oversight committees setup, as it is done in other countries, many would not be complaining as they do now. In addition, the mere fact that MPs have failed to establish management committees of the fund explains why a review, which will include planning, execution, monitoring and complain department to advise on possible shortcomings is a necessity for the fund’s sustenance. 

        Those who want the Micro Fund to be increased to a substantial amount in order to enable a wider sponsorship of projects like the suggestion made by Eric Mbah, an attorney in Bamenda (The Post Newspaper; August 7, 2007), might just get their wish; but first, if the parliamentarians are the only means to ensure the fund’s availability, and we know through them the project has been cheerless, then, the people should demand for a change in management. This is because, with the MPs acting as managers, they have been very ineffective. So, we must urge the government to device other means of disbursing the funds to its intended recipient. Such means must include accountability, transparency and monitoring of the fund and must exclude the MPs as sole managers of the funds as well.

     In the evaluation of the MPs as managers of the Micro Funds Project we got a negative score. This score was based on the sampling of opinions done by the Interns of the University of Buea School of Journalism and ASMAC Journalism students in Yaoundé posted on the Post Newspaper. Now, instead of demanding that the project, which has never been tested, receive an increase in the amount, we should rather overhaul or give the project a face lift. The facelift can be in the form of having an Independent Commission to execute the Project with Independent auditors to monitor and report the results of the project activities to a government agency with an independent oversight committee. The question would be how do you pay for this program? We shall explain this later.    

         There are some who are adopting a more radical approach. They want a total elimination of this project and to replace it with a more meaningful and result oriented one, which will not give Members of Parliament an opportunity to further corrupt the system. Their complaints are that, over the many years of the fund’s existence, results of the project have been hardly noticeable. My concern with this radical approach is the lack of alternative solution to replace the existing micro fund project they condemn. A solution must follow a complaint, which they have not provided. To abolish the program which is designed to help the rural poor without suggesting an alternative solution to replace the previous one creates more problems because, even though many MPs have never put the funds into their intended use, some of them still do something in their constituencies.

     Before we start examining ways to fix the Micro Fund, let’s look at the overall statistical characterization of the fund posted on the table on the page below. The computations below illustrate the annual disbursement to Members of Parliament in a five year term. Part information obtained from www.dibussi.com. This table below is based also on statistics obtained from www.citypopulation.de/Cameroon.html on July 2001-2007. However, the yearly computations were done by  www.nanjecreativethinking.blogspot.com   

Regions in Cameroon Nos. in Parliament Population per Region 8million Per Year (CFA)Per MP Total Received Per 5Years Term CFA Amt given to date(15years) 1996 to 2011 Far North 29 2,721,000 232,000,000 1,160,000,000 3,480,000,000 Center 28 2,501,200 224,000,000 1,120,000,000 3,360,000,000 Western 25 1,982,100 200,000,000 1,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 North West 20 1,840,500 160,000,000    800,000,000 2,400,000,000 Littoral 19 2,202,300 152,000,000    760,000,000 2,280,000,000 South West 15 1,242,700 120,000,000    600,000,000 1,800,000,000 North 12 1,227,000   96,000,000    480,000,000 1,440,000,000 South 11    534,900   88,000,000    440,000,000 1,320,000,000 Eastern 11    755,000   88,000,000    440,000,000 1,320,000,000 Adamawa 10    723,600   80,000,000 400,000,000  1,200,000,000 Grand Total 180 15,730,300 1,440,000,000 7,200,000,000 21,600,000,000

Partial Data collected from Institut Nationale de la Statistique Cameroun. This data is assuming that the Micro Fund Project has existed for only fifteen years even though some reports say the fund has existed for twenty years.

     We do not know how much politics is involved in gerrymandering the districts in determining how many parliamentarians should represent each of the regions; but what we do know is that the size and population of a region should determine the number of parliamentary representation in each of the regions. If you look at the diagram above, there is no rational explanation why the North West and Western Regions with less population, for example, should have more representatives in parliament than the Littoral region with slightly higher population if politics were not involved. Moreover, though it costs more to accomplish same transactions in Littoral Region than in the two regions cited above, the amount, barring any political gerrymandering, should be more for the Littoral Region with a higher population. Or, why should the South Region with less population have one more parliamentary seat than the Adamawa with a slightly higher population? This is one of the many things that the government must address because it dents the authenticity of the Micro Funding. At the time that this document was written, we could not get the current statistics to represent the current Cameroon population of 16million people per the number of parliamentary seats. Therefore, it may be overbearing to say that the population then represents also the number of parliamentarians from each of those regions.

                 How the Micro Fund is applied in other countries

      As the government makes her budget for each fiscal year, there are some omissions that were overlooked by municipalities. The government, through the legislative branch, provides small funds annually for these forgotten projects to be re-scheduled. The stipend provided annually is eight million francs (8,000,000FRS approximately $16,000.00) to each of the one hundred and eighty (180) Members of Parliamentarians to address some of these concerns. In Ndian division for instance, which has three (3) MPs, the annual stipend is twenty-four million francs (24,000,000FRS approx. $48,000.00) and the total in the South West region is one hundred and twenty million francs (120,000,000FRS approx. $240,000.00) for all fifteen (15) MPs. The breakdown in the divisional representation in the South West Region for instance, is as follows:  Ndian division has three (3) MPs, Fako division has three (3), Meme division with three (3) MPs, Manyu division also with three (3) MPs, Lebialem with one (1) MP and, finally, Kupe-Muanengouba with two (2) MPs.

      In the United States for instance, Members of the House of Representatives (MHR), whom we refer to in Cameroon as Members of Parliament, usually attach projects they want executed in their respective jurisdictions onto the national budget in that fiscal year. The MHR ensures that his/her vote of the President’s Annual National budget is tied to the approval of his/her variously attached projects to the budget. A member of the House of the Representatives whose item is attached onto the budget can only vote for the passage of the budget if his/her projects is still on the budget. It is a system worth emulating even though it is often criticized as “putting pork” on the national budget and, comparatively to the Micro Fund Project in Cameroon, it is quite transparent and result oriented. In this system, what has to be done in an MP’s jurisdiction is not hidden as it is the case with the Micro Fund budget in Cameroon. Furthermore, inspectors would inspect the project and present an up to the minute report on the progress of the project or of work done---but in Cameroon, the MP is the arbiter of his or her own executed projects. To this writer, this seems to be the most important reason for the fund’s review.

     In Kenya, the Micro Fund is known as the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). Their system is what the Cameroon Parliament should seek to emulate. However, diverting to the Kenyan system without properly employing the rightful tools to make the current system in use useful, it won’t make such a shift a better alternative. Nonetheless, for as long as the Cameroon system has been a bone of contention between those who want it fixed and the resistance often placed by MPs, it is rather imperative to try the Kenyan Model. What therefore is the Kenyan Model?

        The Kenya Model, which is relatively newer than the Cameroon Model, was established by a Parliamentary Act in 2003. From the onset of the fund’s establishment, about 2.5% of the Kenyan government’s annual revenue was reserved for Members of Parliament to take back to their respective constituencies to finance already identified projects. In the budget year of 2006/2007, the amount was raised to 3.5% as a result of the increase need of constituencies. Unlike the Cameroon Micro Project Fund, which has stagnated at the 8million mark, the Kenyan Constituency Development Fund has increased from 2.5% to 3.5% with an increase in the government’s budget. And this increase was authorized by a Parliamentary Act, which proposes four management structures:

 (a) Constituency Fund Committee;

 (b) National Management Committee;

(c) District Project Committee; and,

 (d) Constituencies Development Committee (CDC).

        The CDC has a total of 15 members who work under the direct supervision of the Member of Parliament who approves all the projects proposed by the constituency. These 15 members are selected from a broad spectrum of the constituency. To be a member, one is expected to be in good moral standing within the constituency. At the National level, the first three-quarters of the 3.5% of the fund are shared equally between the constituencies but the last one and a quarter of the 3.5% of the fund is shared to each of the constituencies based on their poverty index ratio. As a result of this appropriation or redistribution of the last quarter of the 3.5%, the impoverished constituencies shall definitely receive more money than others to ensure a balanced and sustainable development throughout the country. In Cameroon, the population of the area and not the poverty index determines how much money of the micro fund that the constituency receives. Furthermore, unlike the Kenyan system, where there was a need to increase the fund from 2.5% to 3.5% of the budget, the Cameroon Constituencies’ disbursement has disappointingly stagnated at 8million CFA despite the glaring rise in the poverty index in many known constituencies. In addition, the CDC allocates 3% as administrative cost, 5% for emergency fund allocation, and 10% for bursary. The Cameroon Parliamentary Micro Fund does not have any funds set aside for contingencies.

     The other unique characteristic of the Kenyan system is the fact that the 3.5% allotment is calculated as a percentage from the budget. Therefore, if the budget increases due to economic growth of the country, there is a substantial gain in the micro fund allocation as well. When this increase happens, it gives constituencies latitude in solving more problems than they did the previous years. Such considerations in the Kenyan Constituency Development Fund, which improves the overall welfare each constituency, could be emulated by the Cameroon system that is urgently in need of reform.

         Another distinctive feature of the Kenyan Constituency Development Fund is the commission that has been set up to manage the activities of the fund. This is an annual audit committee which includes the following organs:

              1.  Local Development Committee,

              2.  Constituencies Development Committee,

              3.  The District Project Committees,

              4.  The Constituencies Fund Committee,

              5.  The National Management Committee,

              6.  The Departmental Heads; and,

              7.  The NGOs and CBOs and other Stakeholders.

       In Cameroon, even though this is an important aspect which has been brought to the attention of parliamentarians on several occasions, they have stalled such a lofty idea by progressive MPs who had attempted to table the bill for discussion, debate and to amend a system which has been so counter-productive to the people they ought to be serving. Equally important, even as apparent as it is that the bill would improve delivery and the welfare of constituents, I predict continuous resistance of its passage by the MPs because it would marginalize their interest when someone else, order than the parliamentarians are brought in to manage the fund.

        Lastly, with the Kenyan CDF, a Complaint Sub-committee has been established under the auspices of the National Management Committee with its sole purpose of arbitrating complaints and anomalies. This is a reverse in Cameroon whereby the MPs are the sole manager and they have designed the disbursement of fund to enrich themselves and not for the delivery of service to their constituents.

         Finally, every society operates differently; so, if the Cameroon Legislative Body decides to use the Kenyan system, what may have worked for Kenya may not necessarily work for Cameroon. However, for the mere fact that for over fifteen disastrous years of the fund’s existence, with no tangible result, no data to back any accomplishments, no transparency and no accountability, the lousy and careless disbursement of the fund to MPs, the voices of the people should compel and open debate on the issue in the presence of video camera on the parliamentary floor for Cameroonians to see how their parliamentary representatives intend to reform this extremely unrewarding and broken system. The people must see how discussions are done in parliament and observe with keenness who votes yes or no on key issues that affect their constituencies. This method empowers constituents over their elected representatives and will compel them to be accountable to them.  

            

                         What happens to a deceased MP’s Micro funds?

          Another issue which has always demanded explanation is that which concerns the funds of a deceased Member of Parliament? Does the constituent loose the money as a result of the death of their MP? No, the money is not lost. The deceased no longer gets his or her monthly salary; but the micro fund money is given to the MP nearest to the deceased MP’s jurisdiction of the same party. This nearby MP would then meet with the deceased’s constituents in determining the application of the fund until such time that a new representative is elected. For instance, when Hon. Nkele Mboe, an MP of the SDF party who is from Meme division passed away in 2007, his funds were given to the nearest MP of the same party who happens to be from Batibo to administer in his jurisdiction. The only drawback to this is that the funds are not given in time. So, as a result of the delay in disbursing the funds, the constituents are deprived of such funds for quite awhile---and, this ultimately retards progress in the area even though when alive, the fund never made it to their constituents.

     I would suggest, even though quite unrelated to the theme of this write-up that, the Cameroon lawmakers should muster the courage and pass a bill for the President to sign into law which will authorize an election of a new MP to replace the deceased MP so as to prevent the constituents from suffering from a continuous loss of their MP and his/her wages. The law should authorize the governor of the Region to oversee the organization of such intra-party election to replace the deceased MP after consulting with party hierarchy.

                    

                  How have Parliamentarians used these funds in the past?

     For a current Member of Parliament who earns approximately fourteen million francs (14,00,000FCFA or $28000.00) per year and a financial incentive of approximately 10,000,000FCFA or $20,000.00 for car allowance given to them during their inaugural year in parliament, other incentives like the (1,300,00 CFA or $2600.00 each), which was given to each of them during the Special Session in July, 2011 to discuss the bill on the Diaspora Voting Rights, one would think that the money/incentives that they do receive should be enough for them. The greed of the MPs becomes quite discernible when you compare their earnings with about 90% of the workforce in Cameroon---to know why they cannot judiciously apply the Micro Funds, 8million francs---to its intended use without misusing the fund as it has always been the case.  Furthermore, since the constituents hardly notice when these monies come and how it is put into use, and the cost of any project executed, which in the most part is known only by the MPs, much doubt is been raised on the effective use of the fund.

     The eight (8) million francs which is given to each MP usually should be used in the repair of bridges, pipe-borne water installations, purchase of classroom furniture and small allowances to indigenes to finance some of their small business initiatives in their respective jurisdictions. The MPs are not accountable to no one in particular, and hardly do they present any report to parliament detailing how the funds were judiciously used in their respective jurisdictions. Also, no supervision of any project executed by the MPs has ever been done by a third party. All what is known of the fund is based on the “false report” they submit to “Aux Cabinets des Questeurs de l’Assembée Nationale, of “ghost projects”, if any, that they claimed to have accomplished” at the beginning of the parliamentary year in March. It is completely unacceptable that the receiver of the fund is also the one that distributes (that is if s/he actually distributes the funds) the fund and audits the fund’s use as well. No system in the world tolerates such gross abuse and managerial incompetence but excusably in Cameroon.

     If we examine how the MPs have used the micro funds from the inception of the fund, the argument to change the method of the fund’s application is a valid one. The MPs’ control and supervision of the micro funds has been a disaster; and looking back at the total amount of money disbursed onto the program to date (15 years), twenty one billion francs (21,600,000,000 FRS) without any tangibly discernible result, and a comparative analysis of a similar program implemented in a developing country like Kenya, with tangible results to show for, it is time for the government of Cameroon to eliminate or revamp the Micro Project Program. The blasphemy by MPs, who, on very rare occasions would showcase a few things they have bought with the money to some uneducated, uninformed constituents, often with the media present, who ignorantly heap praises to these isolated, not so cherished blackmails by these MPs, cannot substitute for a better use of the money. Rather, what is required of them is to set up a commission that will evaluate what needs to be done in their constituencies; how it should be done; who is to do it; how it should be monitored; and finally, on what program future application of the funds shall be used on. Then and only then can we start appreciating the use of the funds.

      The absence of parliamentary data to provide explanations on how these funds have been used in the past in each of the 180 constituencies explains why a re-examination of its use is of absolute necessity. The lack of data does not only explain the carelessness of the fund’s execution by Members of Parliament but it puts the parliamentarians in a defenseless position that, as managers of the funds in the past, they have been failures. The need for an independent commission to take over the fund’s management is very important.  This cannot be emphasized enough.

       On March 16, 2010, www.JournalduCameroun.com reported that the Speaker of the House, Hon. Cavaye Yeguie Djibril expressed his disappointments at MPs who had not submitted reports of projects they had executed in their various constituencies. This explains the immediacy why the fund has to be re-organized and re-packaged; and especially as the MPs cannot even provide report, which to this writer is irrelevant because of lack of details to be presented to the Speaker’s who, under any normal circumstances, is not suppose to examine or demand for the reports. If the fund was well structured the same agency that gives out the fund should never have been the same agency to examine the books. An Independent Agency, as it is done in other countries, should have been commissioned to examine the fund’s use and then, present such report to the parliament and to news outlets for the public to compare the validity or authenticity of such reports. This method will reduce the corrupt practice that has characterized the fund’s application for almost fifteen years today.

                            The effective management and use of the Micro fund

       We now know that the micro fund has never been put into any effective use by members of Cameroon House of Assembly since the fund’s creation in 1996. We also know that transparency and accountability of the fund has been another serious problem. We equally know, on examination of the Kenyan Constituency Development Fund, which is a similar fund as the Cameroon Micro Project Fund, that, its method of application is far better than the Cameroon Parliamentary Micro Fund in terms of transparency, accountability and organizational structure. It is evident too, that, problems of corruption and accountability have been reported about the Kenyan CDF; however, the structure of the CDF is worth emulating. We are also aware of the fact that with the Cameroon Micro Fund project the only agency that gives the fund to MPs is the same agency that examines the fund’s application. More importantly, and unlike the Cameroon MPs, the Kenyan MPs are quite committed to ensure the effective use of the Constituency Development Fund. The issue now is how do we restructure the Micro Fund Project to meet the demands of the people or their constituencies? Or, at best, how can we model the MFP after the Kenyan CDF which has a proven workable record? In addition to all that has been explained about the Kenyan CDF, the transparency of the system is such that the Cameroon fund should attempt to copy from. With the CDF, each of the constituencies operates a website which describes:

a.        A summary report of past projects and on-going projects;

b.       When new funds of new projects are received;

c.        How the funds are divided based on its projects and based on the prescription of the board members that control the fund;

d.      A suggest corner of what future funds could be used for; and,

e.       All these activities are transparently displayed for all to see on the respective websites of each of the constituency.

      Check out the website activities of these two constituencies in Kenya that receive the micro project funds: Narok South Constituency at www.cdfnaroksouth.go.ke  and the Mukurwe-ini Constituency at www.mukurweini.net  These are examples of only two such constituencies that are making the internet an integral tool of transparency and accountability of the Constituency Development Fund available for their constituents to see firsthand, on the utilization of the fund.

      Knowing all these, it is the writer’s strong recommendation that:

a.       The Cameroon Micro Fund Project should be fashioned after the Kenyan Constituency Development Fund which, despite its shortcomings, is producing concrete results than the Cameroon’s project. For as long as Cameroonians have complained about the current form of the fund’s application, there should be a complete paradigm shift in the fund’s application. And this new shift should emulate the Kenyan system---which largely puts the fund in the hands of morally adjusted citizens of the country with all the fund’s auditing criteria in place.

b.      The MPs should supervise the application of this special group’s application of the fund and document on how the fund is/was used and make recommendation which should be handed to the MP for submission in parliament.

c.       The House of Parliament should appoint an Independent Commission to audit how each constituency uses the funds and provide a separate report from that submitted by the MPs. They should likewise provide recommendations that must corroborate that which has been submitted by the MPs in parliament to ensure accuracy. Absent of a corroborative report investigate must be done to address the discrepancy.

d.      Yearly reports by both the MPs and the Independent Commission should determine the strengths and weaknesses of the fund. The reports also should explain if more funding is needed for the fund or not.

e.       This is the age of technology; therefore, constituencies should choose to represent their activities on the World Wide Web whereby, more individuals could access and contribute ideas to enable a better direction of the fund.

f.        Finally, the Cameroonian MP should never make any argument that would warrant the fund under their misguided care again. They have been very hostile to the fund and instead of the government leaving this fund in their care, an Independent Commission that should be friendlier to the fund’s application should be put in place.

             How can the three constituencies in Ndian division put Fund into proper use?

     Each year, the Ndian constituencies receive a total of twenty-four million francs from the government of Cameroon (because there are three parliamentarians from the division) as their share of the Micro Fund. If we want to explicate how the MPs have used these monies in the past, we shall be engaging ourselves in a futile cause. What we need to demand of our MPs is to bring the funds they receive to their constituencies and have a select committee manage and program the use of this fund. This committee should be modeled after the CDF because it has proven track record. Also, the Ndian people should set up an interactive website where people can read of the status of projects and make recommendations as to the effective use of the fund.

At the present time, with Ndian constituencies still very much undeveloped, a combine use of the money to carry out specific major projects like building a state-of-the art hospital in the division with the use of the entire five years disbursement of the three MPs can solve a major problem of healthcare for instance, in the area. We know that with one hundred and twenty million francs for the entire five year term of the three MPs from Ndian division, coupled with a guaranteed-to pay five hundred million francs loan from banks, it could be used to build a state-of-the art hospital for use in the entire division. This will immediately solve the healthcare problem which is a big problem in the area. 

     I will opine that while some MPs can dismiss this report as another write-up that questions and berates what they think is great work they do for their constituencies, the Cameroon people will rate this reporting as a call and a response to the problem which the Speaker of the House, Djibril Cavaye, has been adamant against because of the flattering and misrepresented reports his MPs provide annually to him. That is what must change now.

***This is the most comprehensive document ever written in Cameroon that explains how the micro fund ought to be used, and which has also described in detail the character of the fund. The lack of project accomplished data on how this fund has been used by MPs is a compelling reason to re-examine the fund’s application***