CRIME SUSPECTS AND THE LEGALITY OF MEDIA PARADE

"The media has the responsibility to hold the government accountable for the people. “It is the constitutional power given to the media to hold the government responsible and accountable to the people, ensuring the police, the courts and other agencies of government do their jobs.”

By Judge Divine Metiege 

In Cameroon, media parades of crime suspects, where individuals are presented to the public or media before trial have been a subject of controversy regarding its legality and ethical implications. The Cameroonian legal system, like many other countries, upholds the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and aims to protect the rights of individuals accused of crimes. This is adumbrated in section 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

 

Section 8:

(1) Any person suspected of having committed an offense shall be presumed innocent until his guilt has been legally established in the course of a trial where he shall be given all necessary guarantees for his defense.

(2) The presumption of innocence shall apply to every suspect, defendant and accused

According to the preamble of the Constitution of Cameroon, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.

- The law shall ensure the right of every person to a fair hearing before the courts. 

- Every accused person is presumed innocent until found guilty during a hearing conducted in strict compliance with the rights of defense.  

- Every person has a right to life, to physical and moral integrity and to humane treatment in all circumstances. Under no circumstances shall any person be subjected to torture, to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.

 This suggests that media parades could potentially violate the presumption of innocence by subjecting suspects to public scrutiny before their guilt has been established through due process.

Furthermore, media parades can also infringe upon an individual's right to privacy and may have negative consequences for their reputation, regardless of whether they are ultimately found guilty or innocent. The forces of law and order are bound to protect citizen’s lives and property and manage the security architecture of the country.  In an attempt to justify the discharge of the entrusted responsibility, suspects of crime and criminality suffer character assassination while being paraded before the media even before they are found guilty by the court. The name changes to the accused person or a defendant. When trial starts, he may plead guilty or not guilty after the charges are read to the fellow. If he pleads guilty, the court may convict him, depending on the nature of the offense. That is called a summary trial.

“After conviction, following summary or normal trial where witnesses and other evidence are taken, the court will deliver judgment by either convict the fellow or discharge and acquaint the accused. If the accused person is convicted, the name changes from the accused to convict. At this stage, the media can pronounce to the whole world that the person is a criminal. To parade somebody not based on fact, may constitute infringement of his right, and the implication is that the suspect can sue the police. The CPC in its section 154 and 155 frowns at such judicial police officers, Examining Magistrate or courts that puts prejudicial proceedings to the public, documents, suspects, defendants or accused statements or pictures when full judgment hasn’t been rendered.

Section 154: of the CPC states inter alia that

(1) Preliminary inquiries shall be secret.

(2) Anyone participating in the proceedings shall be bound by professional secrecy subject to the penalties provided for in section 310 of the Penal Code; provided that the secrecy of preliminary inquiries shall neither apply to the Legal Department nor to the defense.

(3) Notwithstanding the provision sub-section (1), the Examining Magistrate may, if he considers it necessary for the discovery of the truth, hold some of the proceedings in public or cause the State Counsel to publish some of the facts which have been brought to his knowledge.

(4) Any press release made by an Examining Magistrate, by virtue of sub-section 3 above shall, under pain of the penalties provided for under section 169 of the Penal Code, be published by media without comments, be they written, spoken or televised.

“Section 155:

(1) Publication by any whatsoever of news, photographs, and opinions concerning any pending preliminary inquiry shall, subject to the penalties provided for in section 169 of the Penal Code, is forbidden until the proceedings are closed by a no-case order or until the accused appears before the trial court upon a committal order by the Examining Magistrate.

(2) The same shall apply to any public expression of an opinion on the guilt of the accused.

Section 156:

(1) any publication adversely affecting the honour or private life of a person by any of the means provided under section 152 of the Penal Code, shall be punishable under section 169 of same.

(2) Any person convicted under this section shall be subject to the forfeitures provided under the 30 of the Penal Code.” wherein the media house, the judicial police officers, examining magistrates, or the courts may be implemented forfeitures of section 30 of the penal code

Section 169 – Prejudicial Comment

 Whoever refers publicly to any judicial proceedings not yet terminated by final judgement in a manner liable to influence, whether intentionally or not, the opinion of any person for or against any party, shall be punished with imprisonment for from fifteen days to three months and with fine of from ten thousand to one hundred thousand francs.

 Nothing in this section shall apply to an account in good faith of proceedings in open court.

 Where the offense is committed through the print media, radio or television, the imprisonment shall be from three months to two years and the fine from one hundred thousand to five million francs.

Section 170 – Forfeitures

(3) Upon conviction under any of the last five

(4) forgoing sections, the court may impose the

(5) forfeitures described by section 30 of this

(6) Code.

Section 310 of the penal code – Professional Confidence

(1) Whoever without permission from the person interested in secrecy reveals any confidential fact which has come to his knowledge, or which has been confided to him solely by reason of his profession or duties shall be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years and with fine of from twenty thousand to one hundred thousand francs.

(2) Subsection (1) shall apply neither to statements to the prosecution or police concerning facts which may amount to a felony or misdemeanor, nor to answers in court to any question whatever.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall release from the duty of professional confidence:

(a) A physician or surgeon, save within the scope of a commission from the prosecution or of his reference as an expert referee.

(b) A public servant under orders in writing from the Government.

(c) A minister of religion or counsel.

(4) Upon conviction the court may order the forfeitures described by section 30 of this Code.

Sections 30 through 35 of the penal code is legally known as ACCESSORY PENALTIES

Section 30—Definition

The forfeitures applicable under this code shall be the following:

(1) Removal and exclusion from any public service, employment or office.

(2) Incapacity to be a juror, assessor, expert referee, or sworn expert.

(3) Incapacity to be guardian, curator, deputy guardian or committee, save of the offender's own children, or member of a family council

(4) Prohibition on wearing any decoration.

(5) Prohibition on serving in the armed forces.

(6) Prohibition on keeping a school, on teaching in any educational establishment, and in general on holding any post connected with the education or care of children.

Section 31—Where Applicable

(1) A life sentence shall carry with it for life the forfeitures prescribed by the last preceding section.

(2) Any other sentence for felony shall carry with it the same forfeitures for the duration of the sentence and for the ten years following its expiry or released on license unrevoked.

(3) The court may in any case covered by the last preceding subsection, for reasons to be recorded in the judgement, relieve from one or more of the said forfeitures, or reduce their duration to no less than two years.

(4) To a sentence for misdemeanor, and where so authorized by law the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgement, add, for not more than five years, one or more of the forfeitures prescribed by the last preceding section.

Section 32—Forfeitures in Absence

Where sentence for felony is passed in the absence of the accused, any forfeiture shall take effect from the date of the publication of the notice prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.

B—Other Accessory Penalties

Section 33—Publication of Judgement

(1) Where the court may order publication of its judgement, it shall be posted in a manner to be prescribed by decree for up to two months in the case of felony or misdemeanor or fifteen days for simple offence.

(2) In such case the court may order publication of its decision in such newspaper as it may appoint, on radio or television.

(3) Any such publication shall be at the expense of the offender.

(4) Nothing in this section shall restrict publication by press, or radio or television or any fair comment.

Section 34—Closure of Establishment

Where the court may order closure of a business or industrial establishment, or of any other premises devoted to gainful activity, which was used for the commission of an offence, such closure shall imply a ban on the exercise of the same business or industry or activity in the same premises, whether by the offender or by any other to whom he may sell, transfer or let the establishment or premises.

Section 35—Confiscation

(1) On conviction for any felony or misdemeanor, the court may order confiscation of any property, moveable or immoveable, belonging to the offender and attached, which was used as an instrument of its commission, or is the proceed of the offence.

(2) Such confiscation may not be ordered on conviction for a simple offence unless specially authorized by law.

 Secondly, the media must be conscious of reporting crime and avoid tagging suspects in criminal identity. The proper way to handle cases of that nature is to allow the suspect to voice his side of the story and not to allow the Police to dominate the show. If, at the end of trial, court discharge and acquaint the accused, the person can sue for defamation of character,” the media that publish such parades are equally guilty. Any Media, judicial police officer, Examining Magistrate or court the exposes judicial proceedings is liable to pay damages.

“Section 169 of the penal code – Prejudicial Comment

(1) Whoever refers publicly to any judicial proceedings not yet terminated by final judgment in a manner liable to influence, whether intentionally or not, the opinion of any person for or against any party, shall be punished with imprisonment for from fifteen days to three months and with fine of from ten thousand to one hundred thousand francs.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to an account in good faith of proceedings in open court.

(3) Where the offence is committed through the print media, radio or television, the imprisonment shall be from three months to two years and the fine from one hundred thousand to five million francs.

Section 170 of the penal code – Forfeitures

Upon conviction under any of the last five forgoing sections, the court may impose the forfeitures described by section 30 of this Code.”

It is worth noting that while there may not be explicit legislation regarding media parades in Cameroon, international legal frameworks and human rights standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasize the presumption of innocence and fair trial rights.

Ultimately, it is essential for the legal system and law enforcement authorities in Cameroon to ensure that the rights of crime suspects are upheld, including respecting their presumption of innocence and protecting their right to privacy.

The media has the responsibility to hold the government accountable for the people. “It is the constitutional power given to the media to hold the government responsible and accountable to the people, ensuring the police, the courts and other agencies of government do their jobs”.

METIEGE DIVINE NJIKANG IS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT IN DONGA MANTUNG-NKAMBE IN THE NORTHWEST REGION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON

                  Mofako Balue Chieftaincy Debacle: We all know how this chapter will end.

A story has never ruptured the moral fabric of the Balue tribe than that which’s brewing in Mofako Balue. What’s at

ByJackson W. Nanje

stake—which the Balue chiefs and the Mofako community must address and preserve —is the tumultuous nature of the selection of their chief. The preservation of the customs and traditions of the Balue people in general and the Mofako Balue people in particular must be reflected in the selection process, and this is what the Balue chiefs must preserved.

           What is at issue in Mofako Balue? 

Throughout the twenty-seven (27) Balue villages chiefs are selected by the Kingmakers through a rigorous process and approved by the people in an open setting. Chieftaincy has never been carried out through an election process. This is the system dynamics the rogue Dikome Balue Subdivisional Officer, George Tonye, who is absolutely not in touch with the realities (customs and traditions) of the Subdivision (because he does not live there for obvious reasons) he is trying to adopt in our beloved Mofako Balue. Outrageous!

There was first a chosen one, Tata Henry Ibue Momoh Sakwe, who was unanimously selected by the Kingmakers and embraced by the community gathered in the village square (ETANA). There are videos to substantiate this exercise in the village. Then, a document twist was introduced by the other contestant, Tata Kingsley Elangwe Nanje, justifying that some of the Kingmakers wanted but him as chief. For those not versed with the traditional rites like District Officer, George Tonye, the chieftaincy is hardly conferred to a man who is married to a foreign wife for fear that the village may be sold to that foreign wife. Such esteemed position is given to people with moral rectitude not individuals with questionable character. Unlike in some known tribes in the Southwest Region, where titles are auctioned, it is not the case with the Balue tribe. if someone attempts to circumvent the process with malice afore-thought, heads will roll.

                 Balue Chiefs address the Mofako Balue quagmire. 

The Balue chiefs sitting at the former president’s (Chief Dr. John Ahmadou Mokube) house in Limbe unanimously issued a scathing proclamation in support of Tata Henry Ibue Momoh Sakwe claiming that his process passed the smell test. The Balue Chiefs Proclamation on November 25, 2023 in support of the crowned Tata Henry Ibue Momoh Sakwe, was quite timely enough to preserve our customary practice.

Normally after the village crowning process the crowned individual submits his documents to the District Officer who then transmit them to the Senior Divisional Officer for onward transmission to the Ministry of Territorial Administration for formalization and final approval. This is usually the process The rogue District Officer has comprised a legitimate process by entertaining another candidate who has not been vetted by the Kingmakers and embraced by the community.

The District Officer shamelessly organized two meetings in November to begin the process anew to the chagrin and consternation of the Mofako Balue and the Balue communities. Why circumvent an already vetted process?! This is why the Prime Minister, Head of Government, and a traditional ruler himself who understands the process, has asked to meet with the Balue Chiefs and the supervising District Officer, to come explain why the whole village was summoned to Kumba twice to address the Chieftaincy selection by him, which is in the purview of the Kingmakers in each village. The District Officer or the Senior Divisional Officer must not interfere in the selection process of chief. Their work begins when the selection process is over and the crowned chief's documents are submitted for onward transmission.to Yaoundé.

The Kingmakers had already done the right thing; the villagers acknowledged their choice; the Balue Chiefs equally did the absolute correct thing upholding the customs and traditions of the Balue tribe; and, Prime Minister has done the needful to resolve the grudging parties.

The verdict is anxiously awaited!!! I know the customs and traditions of the Balue tribe shall prevail.