By Ajong Mbapndah L
Chief Charles Taku, immediate past President of the International Criminal Court Bar Association- ICCBA, says the trial and life sentence slammed on Julius Ayuk Tabe and others does little to foster the peaceful settlement of the current dispute as articulated by the international community. In an interview with Pan African Visions, the legal luminary says there were serious fair trial violations in the rushed process that culminated in the sentence for Ayuk and others arrested in Nigeria and brought to Cameroon .
To Chief Taku, the prompt condemnation of the sentences is a clear indication that the leadership of the struggle will unite no matter what to confront this and other challenges on the way towards attaining their defined objectives
“International justice may never entirely look away from impunity and atrocity crimes;” Chief Taku said in warning to those excelling in gross human rights abuses.
Chief Taku, what is your reaction to the jail sentences to Julius Ayuk Tabe and his co-detainees abducted from Nigeria?
The trial and its outcome do not advance the objectives of a peaceful settlement of the dispute favoured by the International Community.
From what you have learned, on what grounds did the court based its arguments in giving its verdict?
The information that I have about the judgment is incomplete. However, I have learnt that the trial, conviction and judgment took place in one day, underscoring the fact that the trial might have been rushed. I cannot second guess the reasons for the rush to convict and sentence them to life imprisonment. There must be serious fair trial violations in such a rushed process.
Is there any legal precedent for this kind of cases in Cameroon?
Precedents exist within the legal framework that existed in the past. Since the enactment of a new Criminal Procedure Code a few years back, it is no longer possible to conduct a trial of this magnitude in a single day, deliberate, convict and enter judgment. Each process in a trial requires procedural fair trial imperatives that may give rise to interlocutory appeals. Without a copy of the judgment before me, I am unable to ascertain the fair trial hurdles the tribunal panel surmounted to attain this feat.
What options are available for Ayuk and others, could the judgement be appealed?
This is one case where the integrity of the trial will be tested on appeal. Fair trials and the due process of the law has taken central stage in the international human rights regime. This appellate outcome of this trial and judgment will surely define the extent to which Cameroun is compliant with international human rights treaty obligations.
Looking at the whole conduct of the case, what does this tell the world about justice in Cameroon?
The world will surely not make an informed determination about the quality of justice in Cameroon and Cameroon’s commitment to its international human rights multilateral treaty obligations based on an informed evaluation of this and other judgments. What I am certain is that, international human rights bodies have expressed strong reservations about submitting civilians to court-martials and military justice. This type of justice is unconstitutional even under the operating Cameroun’s constitutional arrangement.
Just a hypothetical question Chief Taku, if this case was on trial in the kind of common law system that Anglophones Cameroonians clamor for, how different would the process have been?
A fundamental attribute of justice is fundamental fairness. Through fair trials, the standards and precedents for future trials are established, including trials in which the judges themselves may be defendants some time along the line. This is the threshold on which the common law system that Southern Cameroonians once upon a time enjoyed and are clamoring for. To underscore the rationale for this quest for a credible system of justice where rule of law and fair trials are well-founded, permit me to quote the memorable submissions of the Hon. Justice Robert H. Jackson of Counsel for the United States before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg established to hold Nazi war criminals accountable for the crimes that shocked the conscience humanity on November 21, 1945, reminded the Military Tribunal and the world at large that: “Fairness is not a weakness but an attribute of our strength. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice”
At a time when people are calling for dialogue, what impact do you think the sentencing of Ayuk, and others could have on the present crisis?
The trial, conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment of Sisiku Ayuk Tabe and others may complicate the much sought after but so far elusive dialogue to examine the root causes of the crisis. I strongly call for the vacation of these sentences and their release to facilitate the dialogue and the peace process.
Some people have mooted the idea of a Presidential pardon or the kind of amnesty that was granted to people like Issa Tchiroma, and others accused of plotting the 1984 coup d’état, do you see this as an option?
I cannot second-guess the political calculations of the government of Cameroon in pursuing this route when the international community is insistently calling for an all-inclusive dialogue with no preconditions to tackle the root causes of the conflict. Most people believe that these sentences and others before and perhaps after, will not bring about an acceptable solution to the crisis that is claiming the lives and property of millions of civilians. The sentences will complicate and aggravate the peace and security situation. Will an amnesty or pardon attenuate the situation? I sincerely cannot tell. What I believe is that a prompt vacation of the sentences no matter how, may be a palliative to calming the storm in attempts to averting an escalation in times when the mode of the international community is for a negotiated settlement.
There has been near unanimity from all segments of the fractured leadership in condemning the verdict, could this move have the unwitting effect of uniting the various leadership factions of the Southern Cameroons struggle?
Indeed, there were clear indications that the various components of the leadership were pussyfooting towards some form of unity towards the prosecution of the struggle and the proposed peace process. This move towards unity might have been fast tracked had some activists not kept the fuel of disunity, needless rancor and misdirected antagonism alive. Activists have played a critical role in this struggle and may continue to do so. However, they must be alive to the fact that their intended audience is more sophisticated that some of them can image. They must finetune their language of delivery of their ideas or commentary to meet acceptable degrees of decency, respect and humility. The prompt condemnation of the sentences is a clear indication that the leadership of the struggle will unite no matter what to confront this and other challenges on the way towards attaining their defined objectives.
And for all those perpetrating gross human rights abuses, could the ICC that you are part of hold them accountable someday?
I am just a lawyer at the international criminal court and other international criminal tribunals but I may venture to state that International justice may never entirely look away from impunity and atrocity crimes.
Excellent articulation of this legal luminary. The sentencing might unite the restorationist leaders but their actions without caution smack of a disjointed objective approaching the stage of oblivion. Their focus and strategy needs total overhaul to be relevant again.