By Magistrate Metiege Divine Njikang
The repeated prolongation of the mandates of municipal councillors and parliamentarians in Cameroon raises serious constitutional and legal concerns. While often justified on grounds of security, continuity, and administrative convenience, such extensions reveal significant lapses in adherence to the Constitution of Cameroon and the Electoral Code of Cameroon.
Article 15(1) of the Constitution provides that:
“The National Assembly shall comprise members elected by direct and secret universal suffrage for a five-year term of office.”
Yet, repeated extensions have resulted in mandates exceeding this constitutional duration. Although Article 15(4) permits extension in limited circumstances, its strict conditions appear not to have been fully respected. This paper further argues that the justification based on lack of financial resources is unfounded, given that electoral expenses are ordinarily provided for within the national budget during the relevant fiscal year.
Introduction
The essence of constitutional democracy lies in the periodic renewal of the people’s mandate through elections. The Constitution of Cameroon clearly establishes fixed terms for elected representatives, reinforcing the principle that sovereignty resides in the people.
Article 15(1) states:
“The National Assembly shall comprise members elected… for a five-year term of office.”
Furthermore, Article 15(4) provides:
“In case of serious crisis, the President of the Republic may, after consultation with the President of the Constitutional Council and the bureaux of the National Assembly, decide, by law, to extend or abridge its term of office.”
Thus, extensions are strictly exceptional, conditional, and procedurally regulated. However, recent practices raise serious concerns regarding compliance with these constitutional safeguards, especially where justifications appear inconsistent or unfounded.
Body: Lapses in the Prolongation of Mandates
- Derogation from the Constitutional Duration of Mandates
The Constitution fixes a five-year mandate without ambiguity:
“…elected… for a five-year term of office.” (Article 15(1))
Repeated extensions without constitutional amendment amount to a de facto alteration of constitutional provisions through ordinary legislation, which is legally questionable.
2. Failure to Comply with Mandatory Consultation
Article 15(4) requires:
“…after consultation with the President of the Constitutional Council…”
The Constitutional Council of Cameroon plays a central role in safeguarding constitutional legality. The absence or lack of transparency surrounding such consultation constitutes a serious procedural lapse.
- Misapplication of the “Serious Crisis” Justification
The Constitution limits extensions to:
“case of serious crisis…”
However, the Anglophone crisis has existed since 2016, during which elections have been conducted.
This creates a contradiction: Elections were feasible under the same conditions, Yet the same conditions are later invoked to justify extensions
This selective reliance weakens the credibility of the justification and suggests subjective application of constitutional provisions.
- Unfounded Reliance on Financial Constraints
Another justification often advanced is the alleged lack of financial resources to organize elections. This argument is legally and administratively untenable.
In practice: When an electoral calendar is established, The corresponding electoral budget is incorporated into the national budget for that fiscal year
Therefore: The claim of lack of funds is unfounded, as electoral expenditures are foreseen, planned, and appropriated in advance within the State budget.
To invoke financial constraints in such circumstances reflects either: Poor fiscal planning, or A pretext lacking legal credibility
In either case, it cannot constitute a valid constitutional ground under Article 15(4).
- Undermining the Role of the Constitutional Council
The Constitution provides that: “The Constitutional Council shall ensure the regularity of presidential and parliamentary elections.”
By not fully involving the Constitutional Council of Cameroon, the process weakens constitutional oversight and erodes institutional checks and balances.
- Silence and Limits of the Electoral Code
The Electoral Code of Cameroon is founded on the principle of periodic elections.
However: It does not regulate repeated extensions, It provides no clear limits or safeguards, This legal vacuum permits discretionary actions, contrary to democratic norms.
- Violation of Democratic Principles
A bill has just been tabled before the National Assembly, amending Article 170 of the 2012 Electoral Code. The text provides for unlimited extensions of municipal mandates.
Unlimited. No cap. No democratic justification.
Let’s break down the official argument.
The government invokes “financial and logistical constraints” to justify the inability to organize municipal elections.
“We do not have the means to organize elections but we do have the means to indefinitely keep in place officials who are favorable to us.”
The current law already provided for an extension reasonable, limited to 18 months. That was not enough. They needed to remove all limits. Govern without a deadline. Rule without an end.
What this bill really says.
It does not speak about logistics.
It speaks about fear.
Fear of universal suffrage.
Fear of the ballot box verdict.
Fear of a people who, in 2025, have already said no.
So the rules of the game are changed.
Not before the match after the defeat.
This is the clinical definition of a constitutional coup: using legal instruments to strip democracy of its substance, while maintaining the appearance of legality.
The Conference of Presidents has declared the text admissible. Of course.n In a National Assembly aligned with the regime, admissibility is not a legal filter. It is a mere formality. The Constitutional Laws Committee will examine an unconstitutional text and no one in that room will speak out. This is what the word “official” produces when it is no longer controlled by the people.
To the Cameroonian citizen reading this. This bill is not just about municipalities.
It is about you. Your right to choose those who govern you.
Your right to sanction those who have betrayed you.
That right is being taken away from you.
Not in the shadows. In broad daylight. At 3 p.m. In front of cameras.
The question is no longer whether the regime is undemocratic.
The question is: how far will you allow this to go?
Share. Comment. Refuse silence.
An informed people is a people that resists.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion
While the Constitution of Cameroon allows for extensions under exceptional circumstances, Article 15(4) clearly conditions such power on:
A serious crisis
Prior consultation with the Constitutional Council
Adoption by law
The failure to fully satisfy these conditions, coupled with inconsistent reliance on security grounds and the unfounded argument of financial constraints, renders repeated prolongations constitutionally questionable and legally fragile.
Recommendations
Strict Compliance with Article 15(4)
“…after consultation with the President of the Constitutional Council…”
must be fully respected and made transparent.
Reject Financial Excuses as Grounds for Extension
Electoral funding must be treated as a mandatory constitutional obligation, not a discretionary expense.
Constitutional Clarification
Amend the Constitution of Cameroon to define limits and safeguards.
Limit Extensions Strictly
“In case of serious crisis…” must be objectively defined and narrowly applied.
Strengthen the Electoral Code
The Electoral Code of Cameroon should regulate postponements clearly.
Reaffirm Electoral Periodicity
Elections must remain the primary and regular means of renewing mandates.
Final Note
The justification of financial incapacity, in the presence of a pre-approved electoral budget, exposes a critical weakness in the rationale for mandate prolongation.
Ultimately, while extensions may be legally conceivable, their current application in Cameroon reflects procedural lapses, constitutional inconsistency, and democratic risk, calling for urgent reform and strict adherence to constitutional principles.
