Politics
By Julius A. Agbor, PhD
The Biya government recently passed a bill through the lower chamber of parliament instituting the death penalty on anyone guilty of terrorism. Article 2(1) of the law defines terrorism as any act or threat with consequence being death, bodily or material harm to humans and the environment alike. Falling within the scope of terrorism are all acts undertaken with the aim of intimidating the population, instigating fear, or coercing the victim, the government or national and international organizations to take certain actions or renounce from taking a particular position. The law also characterizes as terrorism, any attempt to disrupt the normal functioning of public services as well as any attempt to incite general uprising among the population.
There are three crucial problems with this law. The first is that it terrorizes the Cameroonian people in that the scope of what is considered terrorism clearly encroaches into the domain of individual liberties and expression. If Cameroon is a democracy, then its citizens have the right to use every peaceful means of expression, including popular uprising, to coerce its government to go in a particular direction. This law forbids that by pronouncing the death penalty on anyone caught instigating Cameroonians to rise up against the government. While most Cameroonians agree on the need to stamp out terror and its perpetrators from the national perimeters, we need to agree on how to go about that. Mr. Biya with his rubber stamp legislature should not have abrogated to themselves, the right to choose the methods of dealing with this worldwide phenomenon. My sense is that Mr. Biya, as cynical as he is, is taking advantage of the present dispensation to legally outlaw protests and potential acts of insurrection.
The second issue is that, Mr. Biya failed to engage the broader Cameroonian fabric (civil society, religious groups and the academia) in discussions on a crucial topicas this and a referendum would have been warranted given the gravity of the sanctions suggested (which are now law). That again suggests that Mr. Biya is not acting in the best interest of Cameroonians but is rather seeking to eternalize his grip on power. The third issue is that Mr. Biya’s government lacks the credibility to implement this law. This is a government with a reputation for infringing civil liberties, cannibalizing opposition leaders and rigging elections. Can such a government be trusted with the will to decipher between a political opponent and a terrorist? Clearly not!
Mr. Biya and his agents must know that even if Cameroonians do not massively revolt against this law, history will judge this government,either in presence or abstentia. Further, Mr. Biya must know that by making peaceful change in Cameroon impossible, he is making violent revolution inevitable.
[1] Author is a political economist, research associate at Stellenbosch University (South Africa) and a former research fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. Email:
- Details
- Ngwa Bertrand
- Hits: 2521
By Julius A. Agbor, PhD
The Biya government recently passed a bill through the lower chamber of parliament instituting the death penalty on anyone guilty of terrorism. Article 2(1) of the law defines terrorism as any act or threat with consequence being death, bodily or material harm to humans and the environment alike. Falling within the scope of terrorism are all acts undertaken with the aim of intimidating the population, instigating fear, or coercing the victim, the government or national and international organizations to take certain actions or renounce from taking a particular position. The law also characterizes as terrorism, any attempt to disrupt the normal functioning of public services as well as any attempt to incite general uprising among the population.
There are three crucial problems with this law. The first is that it terrorizes the Cameroonian people in that the scope of what is considered terrorism clearly encroaches into the domain of individual liberties and expression. If Cameroon is a democracy, then its citizens have the right to use every peaceful means of expression, including popular uprising, to coerce its government to go in a particular direction. This law forbids that by pronouncing the death penalty on anyone caught instigating Cameroonians to rise up against the government. While most Cameroonians agree on the need to stamp out terror and its perpetrators from the national perimeters, we need to agree on how to go about that. Mr. Biya with his rubber stamp legislature should not have abrogated to themselves, the right to choose the methods of dealing with this worldwide phenomenon. My sense is that Mr. Biya, as cynical as he is, is taking advantage of the present dispensation to legally outlaw protests and potential acts of insurrection.
The second issue is that, Mr. Biya failed to engage the broader Cameroonian fabric (civil society, religious groups and the academia) in discussions on a crucial topicas this and a referendum would have been warranted given the gravity of the sanctions suggested (which are now law). That again suggests that Mr. Biya is not acting in the best interest of Cameroonians but is rather seeking to eternalize his grip on power. The third issue is that Mr. Biya’s government lacks the credibility to implement this law. This is a government with a reputation for infringing civil liberties, cannibalizing opposition leaders and rigging elections. Can such a government be trusted with the will to decipher between a political opponent and a terrorist? Clearly not!
Mr. Biya and his agents must know that even if Cameroonians do not massively revolt against this law, history will judge this government,either in presence or abstentia. Further, Mr. Biya must know that by making peaceful change in Cameroon impossible, he is making violent revolution inevitable.
[1] Author is a political economist, research associate at Stellenbosch University (South Africa) and a former research fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. Email:
- Details
- Ngwa Bertrand
- Hits: 2250
By Julius A. Agbor, PhD
The Biya government recently passed a bill through the lower chamber of parliament instituting the death penalty on anyone guilty of terrorism. Article 2(1) of the law defines terrorism as any act or threat with consequence being death, bodily or material harm to humans and the environment alike. Falling within the scope of terrorism are all acts undertaken with the aim of intimidating the population, instigating fear, or coercing the victim, the government or national and international organizations to take certain actions or renounce from taking a particular position. The law also characterizes as terrorism, any attempt to disrupt the normal functioning of public services as well as any attempt to incite general uprising among the population.
There are three crucial problems with this law. The first is that it terrorizes the Cameroonian people in that the scope of what is considered terrorism clearly encroaches into the domain of individual liberties and expression. If Cameroon is a democracy, then its citizens have the right to use every peaceful means of expression, including popular uprising, to coerce its government to go in a particular direction. This law forbids that by pronouncing the death penalty on anyone caught instigating Cameroonians to rise up against the government. While most Cameroonians agree on the need to stamp out terror and its perpetrators from the national perimeters, we need to agree on how to go about that. Mr. Biya with his rubber stamp legislature should not have abrogated to themselves, the right to choose the methods of dealing with this worldwide phenomenon. My sense is that Mr. Biya, as cynical as he is, is taking advantage of the present dispensation to legally outlaw protests and potential acts of insurrection.
The second issue is that, Mr. Biya failed to engage the broader Cameroonian fabric (civil society, religious groups and the academia) in discussions on a crucial topicas this and a referendum would have been warranted given the gravity of the sanctions suggested (which are now law). That again suggests that Mr. Biya is not acting in the best interest of Cameroonians but is rather seeking to eternalize his grip on power. The third issue is that Mr. Biya’s government lacks the credibility to implement this law. This is a government with a reputation for infringing civil liberties, cannibalizing opposition leaders and rigging elections. Can such a government be trusted with the will to decipher between a political opponent and a terrorist? Clearly not!
Mr. Biya and his agents must know that even if Cameroonians do not massively revolt against this law, history will judge this government,either in presence or abstentia. Further, Mr. Biya must know that by making peaceful change in Cameroon impossible, he is making violent revolution inevitable.
[1] Author is a political economist, research associate at Stellenbosch University (South Africa) and a former research fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. Email:
- Details
- Ngwa Bertrand
- Hits: 2816
By Julius A. Agbor, PhD
The Biya government recently passed a bill through the lower chamber of parliament instituting the death penalty on anyone guilty of terrorism. Article 2(1) of the law defines terrorism as any act or threat with consequence being death, bodily or material harm to humans and the environment alike. Falling within the scope of terrorism are all acts undertaken with the aim of intimidating the population, instigating fear, or coercing the victim, the government or national and international organizations to take certain actions or renounce from taking a particular position. The law also characterizes as terrorism, any attempt to disrupt the normal functioning of public services as well as any attempt to incite general uprising among the population.
There are three crucial problems with this law. The first is that it terrorizes the Cameroonian people in that the scope of what is considered terrorism clearly encroaches into the domain of individual liberties and expression. If Cameroon is a democracy, then its citizens have the right to use every peaceful means of expression, including popular uprising, to coerce its government to go in a particular direction. This law forbids that by pronouncing the death penalty on anyone caught instigating Cameroonians to rise up against the government. While most Cameroonians agree on the need to stamp out terror and its perpetrators from the national perimeters, we need to agree on how to go about that. Mr. Biya with his rubber stamp legislature should not have abrogated to themselves, the right to choose the methods of dealing with this worldwide phenomenon. My sense is that Mr. Biya, as cynical as he is, is taking advantage of the present dispensation to legally outlaw protests and potential acts of insurrection.
The second issue is that, Mr. Biya failed to engage the broader Cameroonian fabric (civil society, religious groups and the academia) in discussions on a crucial topicas this and a referendum would have been warranted given the gravity of the sanctions suggested (which are now law). That again suggests that Mr. Biya is not acting in the best interest of Cameroonians but is rather seeking to eternalize his grip on power. The third issue is that Mr. Biya’s government lacks the credibility to implement this law. This is a government with a reputation for infringing civil liberties, cannibalizing opposition leaders and rigging elections. Can such a government be trusted with the will to decipher between a political opponent and a terrorist? Clearly not!
Mr. Biya and his agents must know that even if Cameroonians do not massively revolt against this law, history will judge this government,either in presence or abstentia. Further, Mr. Biya must know that by making peaceful change in Cameroon impossible, he is making violent revolution inevitable.
[1] Author is a political economist, research associate at Stellenbosch University (South Africa) and a former research fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. Email:
- Details
- Ngwa Bertrand
- Hits: 2459
By Julius A. Agbor, PhD
The Biya government recently passed a bill through the lower chamber of parliament instituting the death penalty on anyone guilty of terrorism. Article 2(1) of the law defines terrorism as any act or threat with consequence being death, bodily or material harm to humans and the environment alike. Falling within the scope of terrorism are all acts undertaken with the aim of intimidating the population, instigating fear, or coercing the victim, the government or national and international organizations to take certain actions or renounce from taking a particular position. The law also characterizes as terrorism, any attempt to disrupt the normal functioning of public services as well as any attempt to incite general uprising among the population.
There are three crucial problems with this law. The first is that it terrorizes the Cameroonian people in that the scope of what is considered terrorism clearly encroaches into the domain of individual liberties and expression. If Cameroon is a democracy, then its citizens have the right to use every peaceful means of expression, including popular uprising, to coerce its government to go in a particular direction. This law forbids that by pronouncing the death penalty on anyone caught instigating Cameroonians to rise up against the government. While most Cameroonians agree on the need to stamp out terror and its perpetrators from the national perimeters, we need to agree on how to go about that. Mr. Biya with his rubber stamp legislature should not have abrogated to themselves, the right to choose the methods of dealing with this worldwide phenomenon. My sense is that Mr. Biya, as cynical as he is, is taking advantage of the present dispensation to legally outlaw protests and potential acts of insurrection.
The second issue is that, Mr. Biya failed to engage the broader Cameroonian fabric (civil society, religious groups and the academia) in discussions on a crucial topicas this and a referendum would have been warranted given the gravity of the sanctions suggested (which are now law). That again suggests that Mr. Biya is not acting in the best interest of Cameroonians but is rather seeking to eternalize his grip on power. The third issue is that Mr. Biya’s government lacks the credibility to implement this law. This is a government with a reputation for infringing civil liberties, cannibalizing opposition leaders and rigging elections. Can such a government be trusted with the will to decipher between a political opponent and a terrorist? Clearly not!
Mr. Biya and his agents must know that even if Cameroonians do not massively revolt against this law, history will judge this government,either in presence or abstentia. Further, Mr. Biya must know that by making peaceful change in Cameroon impossible, he is making violent revolution inevitable.
[1] Author is a political economist, research associate at Stellenbosch University (South Africa) and a former research fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. Email:
- Details
- Ngwa Bertrand
- Hits: 2841
The Boko Haram Islamist militant group raided a cement facility owned by the French group Lafarge as part of an attack on two towns in northeast Nigeria on Thursday, witnesses said. "The gunmen kept shouting 'Allahu Akbar' (God is great) and firing guns haphazardly. They went into the cement factory and took away some vehicles," said Samail Adnan, who lives in Ashaka, in Gombe state.
A company staff member, who asked not to be identified, said the factory was evacuated before the raid. Lafarge is a leading producer of building and construction materials with 23 production sites and more than 11,000 employees in Africa.
It was the latest militant attack in northeastern Nigeria, where Boko Haram maintains a stronghold. At least five people were killed on Monday when two female suicide bombers blew themselves up in an attack targeting a crowded market in the northeastern Nigerian city of Maiduguru. Two teenage girls blew themselves up at the same crowded market a week earlier, claiming the lives of at least 44.
- Details
- Ngwa Bertrand
- Hits: 3658
Subcategories
Biya Article Count: 73
# Paul Biya and his regime
Explore the political landscape of Cameroon under the rule of Paul Biya, the longest-serving president in Africa who has been in power since 1982. Our Paul Biya and his regime section examines the policies, actions, and controversies of his government, as well as the opposition movements, civil society groups, and international actors that challenge or support his leadership. You'll also find profiles, interviews, and opinions on the key figures and events that shape the political dynamics of Cameroon.
Southern Cameroons Article Count: 549
.# Southern Cameroons, Ambazonia
Learn more about the history, culture, and politics of Ambazonia, the Anglophone regions of Cameroon that have been seeking self-determination and independence from the Francophone-dominated central government. Our Southern Cameroons section covers the ongoing conflict, the humanitarian crisis, the human rights violations, and the peace efforts in the region. You'll also find stories that highlight the rich and diverse heritage, traditions, and aspirations of the Southern Cameroonian people.
Editorial Article Count: 885
# Opinion
Get insights and perspectives on the issues that matter to Cameroon and the world with our opinion section. We feature opinions from our editors, columnists, and guest writers, who share their views and analysis on various topics, such as politics, economy, culture, and society. Our opinion section also welcomes contributions from our readers, who can submit their own opinions and comments. Join the conversation and express your opinions with our opinion section.
