By Franck Essi

—

Neutrality impossible to justify in a context of collapse

For more than two decades, Cameroon has been experiencing a gradual but now obvious collapse of its republican foundations. As crises multiply – political, security, social, institutional – the rule of law is eroding, institutions are falling apart, and justice is losing its protective function and becoming, in many cases, an instrument of domination or destruction.

In this context, one key player in the judicial system can no longer hide behind a posture of cautious abstention or institutional reserve: the Cameroon Bar Association. For the silence of those who are the guarantors of the defence has, at this stage, become a professional, ethical, patriotic and historical failing.

What the country is going through is no longer anecdotal. It is an undeclared state of emergency, in which the principles of law are violated on a daily basis, procedures are systematically circumvented, and fundamental freedoms are methodically trampled upon.

Faced with this, the Bar Association can no longer avoid going to war – a non-violent but determined, legal, moral, institutional and civic war – against those who are destroying the rule of law.

—

I. The creeping state of emergency: a widespread violation of fundamental guarantees

Tens of thousands of Cameroonians can now testify to traumatic experiences with the judicial or security system: brutal arrests, prolonged police custody without valid reason, detention in unauthorised places, denial of access to a solicitor, denial of medical care, humiliation, physical or psychological torture.

These practices are not only illegal; they are unconstitutional and in direct contradiction with national, regional and international legal instruments ratified by the Cameroonian state:

• The Constitution guarantees, in its preamble, the right to security, physical integrity, individual liberty, a fair trial and protection against arbitrary arrest.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure (in particular Articles 116, 119, 121 and 122) strictly regulates police custody, requires the immediate presence of a lawyer, limits the length of detention and prohibits detention in unauthorised places.
• The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Articles 5 to 7) guarantees human dignity, the right not to be subjected to torture, the right to a fair trial, and the right to have one’s case heard.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 5, 9, 10 and 11) prohibits torture and arbitrary detention and guarantees the presumption of innocence.
• The Convention against Torture, ratified by Cameroon, requires States to take effective measures to prevent any act of torture on their territory.
• The Nelson Mandela Rules strictly regulate conditions of detention and stipulate, in particular in rules 24 to 32, the obligation to provide access to healthcare, family visits and respect for human dignity.

And yet, every day, we see extremely serious incidents:

• Illegal police custody extended beyond the legal time limits, sometimes without any procedural documents;
• Detention in secret locations, without access to lawyers or notification to families;
• The confiscation of medication, even in cases of chronic illness;
• Refusal to transfer detainees to hospitals, even in critical medical situations;
• Deaths in detention, in unexplained circumstances, without independent autopsies or institutional responses;
• Pregnant women and minors held in detention, in flagrant violation of basic principles of criminal justice.

These incidents are not exceptional. They are documented, repeated and systemic. Each violation is a reminder that the country is now living in an undeclared state of emergency.

—

II. Security and post-election crises: a turning point in the decline

The crises in the North-West, South-West and Far North, as well as the post-electoral crisis of 2018, have established a dangerous precedent: security is used as a permanent justification for the suspension of the rule of law.

The post-election crisis of 2025 marks another turning point:

• Mass arrests of civilians;
• Incommunicado detentions;
• Fabricated charges;
• Confiscation of medicines from sick people;
• Systematic obstruction of access to legal counsel;
• Deaths in detention due to lack of medical care or violence;
• In some cases, summary executions or deaths following acts of torture.

These acts constitute flagrant violations of:

• Article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the right to health in detention;
• The Convention against Torture (Articles 2 and 11) ratified by Cameroon;
• The UN Mandela Rules (in particular rules 24 to 32 on medical care).

—

III. Justice as an instrument of social and political violence

Beyond violations linked to political or security crises, a worrying trend has taken root: the exploitation of the justice system in ordinary social conflicts. When citizens find themselves in disagreement with a prefect, mayor, senior official, well-connected businessman or local leader, the justice system turns against them. It becomes a weapon, rather than a protection.

Land disputes lead to arbitrary imprisonment. Citizens who denounce acts of corruption are prosecuted for defamation or threatened with sloppy criminal complaints. Traders or traditional leaders are locked up on the basis of unverified denunciations, sometimes simply for defending their community.

Police stations become chambers of reprisal, gendarmerie stations instruments of pressure, and even the courts themselves sometimes yield to a logic of hierarchical obedience to the detriment of their constitutional mission. The weak are sacrificed, the powerful are protected.

—

IV. Attacks on lawyers: a red line crossed

When those whose role is precisely to defend the law are themselves attacked, it is a sign that the system is completely broken.

In recent years, Cameroonian lawyers have suffered:

• Physical violence, including in courtrooms;
• Repeated threats for defending certain cases deemed « sensitive »;
• A ban on access to certain detention centres, without explanation;
• Direct pressure on their families or law firms;
• Administrative obstacles used as a means of indirect pressure.
• Etc

However, the legal profession is protected:

• By Cameroonian law, which guarantees the independence of lawyers in the exercise of their duties (Law No. 90/059, Articles 6, 7 and 28);
• By the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted in Havana, which require States to guarantee lawyers the freedom to practise without intimidation or harassment;
• By their professional oath, which binds every lawyer to defend the law and freedoms.

When a lawyer can no longer meet with their client, when they are threatened for pleading in accordance with the law, it is not only the lawyer who is in danger. It is the right to defence of the entire population that is collapsing.

—

V. The myth of neutrality: what the law requires of the Bar Association

Faced with this situation, some will oppose the Bar Association’s principle of « neutrality »: not getting involved in politics, remaining « balanced », avoiding « confrontations » with those in power. This position is not only morally questionable, but also legally untenable.

The Bar Association is not a private club of professionals concerned with preserving their privileges. It is an institution charged with a public service mission:

• Organising access to legal representation;
• Protecting the independence and security of solicitors;
• Ensuring respect for fundamental rights related to fair trial;
• Alerting when justice is threatened.

When the Constitution guarantees the right to defence, it is not referring to an abstract principle. It confers a concrete responsibility on lawyers and the Bar Association that represents them. To remain silent is therefore:

• Betraying the oath;
• Failing to uphold professional ethics;
• Abandoning those subject to trial;
• Becoming complicit in a system of injustice.

The Bar Association cannot hide behind a façade of neutrality to evade a duty that is, at this stage, legal, ethical and historical.

—

VI. A tradition of struggle enshrined in history

History, in Cameroon as elsewhere, reminds us that lawyers are often the last line of defence when everything else is faltering.

In Cameroon, the profession has played a major role in:

– the mobilisations of the 1990s for democratic openness;

– the defence of prisoners of conscience;

– challenging special courts for civilians;

– the battles for civil liberties.

In Cameroon, figures such as Yondo Mandengue Black (1938-2025), President of the Cameroon Bar Association from 1982 to 1986 and the country’s first honorary lawyer, embodied this tradition of resistance. Sentenced in 1990 to three years’ imprisonment for his democratic activism, he catalysed a broad mobilisation in favour of civil liberties. The principle that guided his entire life was: « The law is not a weapon in the hands of the strongest, but a shield to protect the weakest. »

Me Yondo Black, who passed away on 16 October 2025, just on the eve of the post-election crisis, leaves behind a legacy that the Cameroonian Bar cannot and must not betray. His example proves that the Bar can be a historical force – and that it must be so, especially at critical moments.

In Africa, lawyers have been at the heart of the struggle:

– in South Africa against apartheid;

– in Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Mali, when regimes attempted to lock down or confiscate justice;

– in several countries where bar associations opposed emergency laws and abusive constitutional revisions.

Around the world, examples are multiplying:

– in France, bar associations mobilised against laws that restrict freedoms;

– in the United States, lawyers organised to block measures contrary to fundamental rights;
– In India, there have been protests against authoritarian abuses.

Each time, one thing is clear: when lawyers stand up, arbitrariness recedes. When they remain silent, it flourishes.

Thus, throughout history, lawyers have been a counterweight to power. The Bar must resume this historic role.

—

VII. What it means to go to war: a multi-pronged strategy

For the Bar Association, going to war does not mean exposing itself to arbitrariness without a strategy, nor does it mean resorting to verbal escalation. It means mobilising all the legal, professional, media and symbolic levers at the profession’s disposal to confront, in a frontal and methodical manner, the collapse of the rule of law. This requires a clear stance, courageous actions and a confident vision.

Here is what this entails:

1. Going to war means systematically documenting violations

No battle can be fought without evidence. The Bar Association must establish or strengthen a permanent legal monitoring and documentation mechanism responsible for:

• Collecting proven facts of arbitrary detention, torture, denial of justice, and obstacles to the practice of law;
• Classifying these facts by nature, location, actors involved, frequency, and severity;
• Publishing regular reports in the form of legal bulletins or thematic monitoring reports;
• Producing reference files for national and international appeals.

This documentation work must become a central weapon in the fight for justice. It is no longer a question of reacting on an ad hoc basis, but of building a body of irrefutable evidence and arguments that can be used in all courts, in all forums for debate, and against the silence of institutions.

2. Going to war means demanding full access to all places of detention

There can be no justice where places of detention become grey areas.

The Bar must:

• Firmly demand access for all lawyers to places of deprivation of liberty, including those that are not officially recognised (secret centres, military bases, intelligence service basements, etc.);
• Set up permanent monitoring teams in the country’s main prisons;
• Intervene as soon as an arrest is reported by mobilising a pool of lawyers on call;
• Take immediate legal action (summary proceedings, habeas corpus, denunciation of arbitrary detention) for any refusal of access or any obvious violation.

This requirement must be public, assumed and non-negotiable. It must be based on Cameroonian positive law but also on Cameroon’s binding international commitments.

3. Going to war means defending threatened lawyers as bastions of the Republic.

When a lawyer is attacked, the rule of law is undermined. The Bar Association must actively, visibly, collectively and strategically protect its members. This involves:

• Immediate legal support (defence, recourse, urgent proceedings) for any lawyer who is threatened, assaulted or prosecuted abusively;
• Collective mobilisation, including in the form of symbolic strikes, when a lawyer is prevented from carrying out their duties;
• Strong public statements on behalf of the profession, reminding everyone that an attack on a lawyer is an attack on justice itself;
• A monitoring and early warning system that can be activated in each regional or local bar association.

More than ever, the Bar must be a shield for its members, not a silent observer.

4. Going to war means regaining the initiative in the legal balance of power

The law is not neutral. It can be defensive, but it can also become offensive.

The Bar Association must:

• Systematically file appeals before national courts, even when there is a risk of inertia or refusal to investigate;
• Mobilise the competent regional and international courts to denounce recurrent violations of the rights of the defence, arbitrary arrests and obstacles to the profession;
• Directly challenge national public institutions (National Assembly, Senate, Constitutional Council) on the basis of the legal provisions in force;
• Assist citizens who are victims of violations of their rights through teams of volunteer lawyers, organised by region or jurisdiction.

The aim is to repoliticise the law, in the noble sense of the term: to make it a lever for transformation, protest and action.

5. Going to war means mobilising the symbolic and civic power of the Bar

Justice is also a matter of opinion. It is built in the courts, but also in the public sphere. The Bar must step out of its corridors and into the city.

This means:

• Organising symbolic marches in robes, silent but powerful;
• Holding public conferences denouncing violations, with online broadcasts;
• Conducting public education campaigns on the law in neighbourhoods, schools and universities;
• Making solemn appeals to the Republic, the people, the elites, other professional bodies and civil society.

The Bar must assume its role as the public conscience and moral guardian of justice. It can no longer be content to react. It must drive, provoke and awaken.

6. Going to war means building lasting strategic alliances

The defence of the rule of law is not the monopoly of lawyers. It must be based on solid alliances with other professions and social forces:

• Lawyers, magistrates of integrity, court clerks, law professors;
• Trade unions committed to social justice;
• Journalists specialising in justice and fundamental rights;
• Religious or community leaders aware of the moral crisis;
• Collectives of young people, women and intellectuals.

The Order must become the catalyst for a broad ethical front in the service of the Republic.

7. Going to war means preparing for the long haul

This fight will be neither short nor easy. It will require:

• A long-term vision, rooted in principles;
• Greater professional discipline to resist pressure;
• Collective courage to face adversity;
• A structured memory, to write history.

The Bar must build institutional resilience in the face of repression. It must anticipate reprisals, strengthen its internal solidarity, and preserve the dignity of the profession, even in times of hardship.

My firm conviction is that justice cannot defend itself.

Cameroon is going through a period in which justice is under threat, citizens are vulnerable, lawyers are under attack, and popular sovereignty is being trampled upon. When all these signs converge, inaction becomes treason.

The Bar Association must make a clear choice.

Either it stands up and becomes the bulwark that citizens expect, the ultimate bulwark against creeping dictatorship.

Or it remains silent and enters the dark pages of history.

Going to war, under these conditions, is not a political choice.

It is a professional choice.

An ethical choice.

A republican choice.

And history, sooner or later, will judge.