Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:18:56.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom of Expression in the Cameroonian Democratic Transition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2008

Charles Manga Fombad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Freedom of expression is not only a fundamental human right but also constitutes one of the essential elements in the establishment of a democratic society. No country can seriously profess to be a democracy, or pretend to be making efforts towards this, if its citizens cannot freely express their opinions. Recent moves to introduce freedom of expression in Cameroon have come at a particularly difficult time. Like most African countries, it is on the horns of a dilemma. As it struggles to cope with an ever deepening economic crisis, it has come under strong internal and external pressure to democratise. The winds of change which blew into Africa at the end of the 1980s, when former communist-block single-party régimes collapsed, appeared to herald the beginning of a new era. But as leaders are increasingly pressed by impatient citizens to unfreeze their political, social, and economic rights, tyrants and dictators posing as democrats seem to be determining the nature and guiding principles of the new order.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Modern African Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 211 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lamb, David, The Africans: encounters from the Sudan to the Cape (London, 1982), p. 57, my emphasis.Google Scholar

2 Law No. 90–52 of 19 December 1990, hereinafter referred to as the MC Law.

3 See Haiman, Franklyn S., Speech and Law in a Free Society (Chicago, 1981), p. 10.Google Scholar

4 Glasser, Ira, Visions of Liberty. The Bill of Rights for All Americans (New York, 1991), p. 151.Google Scholar

5 This phrase appears in Sections 7, 27, and 51, proviso 2 of the MC Law of 1990.

6 Glasser, op. cit. p. 115, fn. 4.

7 See Fombad, Charles Manga, ‘The Scope for Uniform National Laws in Cameroon’, in The Journal of Modern African Studies (Cambridge), 29, 3, 09 1991, pp. 443–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Ordinance No. 62/18 of 12 March 1962 relating to the suppression of subversive activities.

9 Law No. 66-LF-18 of 12 December 1966 on press activities.

10 See, generally, Joseph, Richard (ed.), Gaullist Africa: Cameroon under Akmadu Ahidjo (Enugu, 1978), pp. 203–7.Google Scholar

11 Ibid. pp. 184–5, and Le Vine, Victor T., The Cameroon Federal Republic (Ithaca, 1971), pp. 77–80.Google Scholar

12 Law No. 65-LF-24 of 12 November 1965 and Law No. 67-LF-I of 12 June 1967.

13 Law No. 90–48 of 19 December 1980 amended Ordinance No. 72/5 of August 1972 relating to the jurisdiction of the military tribunals.

14 Section 4(1) of Law No. 90–60 of 19 December 1990 to set up and organise the state security court.

15 Law 90–61 of 19 December 1990 amended certain provisions of the Penal Code.

16 Section 154 (new) of the Penal Code.

17 Ibid. Section 154(2) (new).

18 Section 240 of the Penal Code.

19 Ibid. Section 113 (new).

20 See The New York Times v. Sullivan, 376, US 1964, p. 254.

21 Section 305 (2) (a), (b), and (c) of the Penal Code.

22 See Donnelly, Richard C., ‘The Right to Reply: an alternative to an action for libel’, in Virginia Law Review (Charlottesville), 34, 1948, p. 867.Google Scholar

23 See MC Law, Ch. IX, Sections 52–9 on corrections and reply, and Ch. X, Sections 68 and 69 on sanctions for refusing to publish a correction or reply.

24 Glasser, op. cit. p. 12, fn. 4.

25 Treitel, G. H., The Law of Contract (London, 1987 edn.), p. 366.Google Scholar

26 Rwkardson v. Mellish, 2, 299, 1824, Bing, p. 252.

27 R v. Cheltenham Commissioner, 1, 1841, QB, p. 467.Google Scholar

28 Griffith, J. A. G., The Politics of the Judiciary (London, 1981 edn.), p. 88.Google Scholar

29 R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, 1, 1924, BK, p. 256.Google Scholar

30 See, generally, Febvre, L. and Martin, H., The Coming of the Book (London, 1976), p. 300 et seq,Google Scholar and Birn, Raymond, ‘Book Production and Censorship in France, 1700–1715’, in Carpenter, Kenneth (ed.), Books and Society in History (New York, 1983), p. 1561.Google Scholar

31 See Sternberg, Alan, Five Hundred Years of Printing (Baltimore, 1974 edn.), pp. 264ff.Google Scholar

32 In this unreported case, Affaire État du Cameroun C/Célestin Moaga, Njawe Pius et le Messager, Douala, 1991, the accused were found not guilty in January 1991 of insulting the Head of State, and the claim for damages on his behalf was dismissed as unfounded. They were, however, found guilty of contempt of members of the judiciary and parliament, sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for three years, and fined 300,000 francs each.Google Scholar

33 In Affaire Ministére de l'Administration Territorial et Andze Tsoungui C/Galaxies, Douala, 1992, also unreported, the accused received a one-month's suspended sentence, and were ordered to pay damages of million francs, for alleging that the Minister had been involved in a fraud and misuse of government property.Google Scholar

34 de Tocqueville, Alexis, The Ancien Régime and the French Revolution (London, 1966 edn.), p. 78.Google Scholar

35 Emerson, Thomas I., Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (New York, 1963), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

36 Grant, Irving, The Bill of Human Rights: its origin and meaning (Indianapolis, 1956), p. 52.Google Scholar