Chapter 11 – Justice in Service of the Citizen and Development
In a civilized society, no one has the right to take justice into their own hands; thus, the mission of delivering justice must be entrusted to public institutions, tied firmly to the Judicial Power. To deliver justice better, these institutions must be independent from the Legislative and Executive branches. It is the heavy duty of the State to organize the institutions charged with administering justice. Yet, justice in Cameroon — both in its organization and its functioning — faces problems that demand thoughtful solutions.
The Problem of Justice in Cameroon
The justice system of the Cameroonian State is in crisis. A crisis reflected in the “divorce” now consummated between this justice and the citizens who seek it. The State aimed to build a modern justice system — one that, through its structures and operating rules, meets the demands of a supposedly universal nation-state model in its liberal form. But this justice system, relying on techniques and methods imported from the West, collides with the misunderstanding of citizens who are insufficiently prepared to face a dispute resolution system designed for a society unlike their own. Thus, State justice is rejected. The solutions the State implemented to restore dialogue between justice and citizens have proven futile.
The crisis of State justice is far from an isolated phenomenon. It must be understood within the broader crisis of State law, essentially marked by Western influence. Indeed, Cameroonian State law is built on philosophical principles once prevalent in Europe, now a bygone era. Cameroonian State law is but a transplant of legal solutions crafted elsewhere, which the intellectual elite — educated in Western schools — sought to impose on everyone as the supreme arbiter, granting it a monopoly on social regulation. Formally, this law exists; it’s written on paper. But it’s ignored in Cameroonian neighborhoods and villages. A large part of society lives outside the law of the State.
The courts where State law is applied are deserted by Cameroonian litigants. For them, State justice lacks credibility. For most Cameroonians, it is a justice system made for “whites,” “intellectuals,” and the rich. It becomes clear why so few Cameroonians turn to State courts to resolve disputes, especially non-criminal ones. In criminal justice, however, citizens must present themselves and comply. This is because, in criminal justice, the plaintiff is always the Public Prosecutor’s Office, a public institution wielding vast powers — notably the power to compel defendants to appear before the State judge.
Beyond all that has been said, it must be recognized that Cameroonian justice, as imposed on citizens, suffers from a crisis linked to many ailments. Courts are far too few; judges are far from independent in their work; they face daily pressures of all sorts when delivering justice; the overwhelming power of the Public Prosecutor’s Office stands opposite weakened lawyers, who lack sufficient authority to counterbalance the exorbitant powers given to prosecutors. The misuse of liberty deprivation leads to the perception that justice serves to oppress citizens.
The UNIVERS Party intends to propose solutions to reduce, as much as possible, the extent of these ills gnawing at Cameroonian justice today, so that the institution of justice truly serves citizens and development.
Measures to Take for Justice
Measure 1 — At least one court in every Arrondissement
Judicial organization laws stipulate that there should be at least one court of first instance in every Arrondissement of Cameroon. Unfortunately, this remains theoretical. Today, one must travel to a departmental capital to find a court before which justice can be sought. Cameroonian justice is therefore geographically very distant from the people. UNIVERS believes it’s important to enforce these laws, providing at least one court per Arrondissement. Justice would thus be geographically closer to citizens. Increasing courts must be accompanied by massive recruitment of officials to staff them.
Faced with the geographical remoteness and difficult access to courts, Cameroonians have developed a reflex: whenever they want to claim their rights, they go to police or gendarmerie stations, found almost at every corner of the country. The State governance should embrace this tendency and adapt to it. Justice offices could be created within these police and gendarmerie stations. Young magistrates, or even law graduates, could be assigned to handle minor disputes between citizens. Police officers receiving complaints about civil matters or minor offenses could simply refer them to the justice office located within the police or gendarmerie building.
Measure 2 — Democratize access to the judge’s function
In Cameroon, judges are appointed by decree of the President of the Republic, as President of the High Council of the Judiciary. No matter what people say, the judge is far from independent. Their career progress depends on the quality of their relations with those in the Executive branch. If justice is to be truly delivered in the name of the people, access to the role of judge must be democratized. UNIVERS proposes this democratization on two (2) levels: access to the judge function and designation of judges for specific cases.
UNIVERS proposes that access to the judge function be through democratic election. Judges would be elected for a fixed, renewable term. The electorate would consist of legal professionals within the court’s jurisdiction — sitting judges, prosecutors, lawyers, bailiffs, notaries, clerks, and judicial police officers. Candidates must have at least ten (10) years of professional experience in one of these groups. Law professors, senior civil servants, and private sector executives with legal training and professional legal experience may also stand. This would create a true judge corporation, overseen by a "High Council of Justice," chaired by a judge elected by Council members. Judges on this Council would themselves be elected by active judges.
This election system would make judges more careful with their decisions, knowing they answer to a knowledgeable electorate who observe their judicial conduct and can punish them by withholding re-election.
The second democratization level lets litigants choose the judge(s) for their cases. Judges appear on an official list displayed at the courthouse. Litigants select judges from this list to hear their disputes. If both parties choose a single judge, they agree on the choice; otherwise, a draw decides. For a panel, each party selects one judge, who together pick a third to chair the panel. If they fail to agree, the chair is drawn by lot. This system encourages judges to be more conscientious, aware that litigants’ satisfaction affects their career. An evaluation system would score judges based on appeals against their decisions: no appeal means high points, appeal means fewer, annulment by higher court even fewer. Judges who want to renew their mandate must reach a point threshold. Candidacy for higher courts requires a minimum points tally from previous terms.
Measure 3 (should be Measure 4 in original text) — Reduce the exorbitant powers of the Public Prosecutor’s Office
The Problem
The Public Prosecutor’s Office defends the public interest and ensures laws are respected and enforced in courts. Prosecutors embody this office. It’s often said the Prosecutor is just a party in the trial. But the judicial system grants it exorbitant powers to wield against litigants, especially in criminal matters. The Prosecutor can order pretrial detention against the accused, who is then deprived of liberty and unable to freely prepare their defense — like a boxer locking up his opponent, preventing training before the match. The scales of justice tip heavily in favor of the Prosecutor.
Moreover, procedural rights make the Prosecutor the true "Janus" of justice in Cameroon: they can stall investigations by shelving case files, delay requisitions, block hearings by their absence, and intervene in enforcing judgments, which lets them block execution of unfavorable decisions.
Solutions
For fair justice guaranteeing equal opportunity to all parties, the judge must regain full control of the judicial process from start to finish, including execution of judgments. Criminal trials should proceed even if the Prosecutor refuses to attend summons. Procedural barriers allowing Prosecutors to block cases must be removed, freeing judges from procedural dependence. Detention orders must be issued only by judges, not Prosecutors. Enforcement of judgments must be the exclusive domain of execution judges, even in criminal cases. Judges should have direct authority over law enforcement in executing court decisions — a power currently lacking.
Measure 4 – The Need for Every Individual to Justify Their Material Wealth
In Cameroon, a common phenomenon sees public servants suddenly acquiring considerable wealth—luxury cars, lavish homes, hefty bank accounts—despite their modest government salaries. Their extravagant lifestyles raise few eyebrows; instead, they are praised, celebrated when publicly distributing money, and held up as clever examples of how to “make the most” of a government position. Investigations may reveal no direct embezzlement, yet the truth is often clear: their wealth stems from corruption, which typically leaves no trace.
Under the current political system, such officials sleep soundly. The presumption of innocence protects them, and proving corruption is notoriously difficult. However, under the UNIVERS Party, any sudden and suspicious enrichment will carry a presumption of fraud. The burden will fall on the newly wealthy individual to prove the lawful origin of their assets. Until such proof is provided, those assets will be seized by the State. If legitimacy is demonstrated, the property will be returned.
All individuals appointed to public office positions that carry a risk of corruption will be required to declare their assets beforehand, preventing unjustified suspicion later. This presumption of fraudulent enrichment will not only apply to civil servants. Any citizen experiencing sudden and suspicious financial gain will be subject to the same scrutiny. This approach aims to dissuade those who believe criminality is a viable path to wealth.
Measure 4 – Protecting the Role of the Defense Lawyer
Problem
Defense lawyers play a crucial role in the justice system, especially in balancing the immense power of the public prosecutor. However, their current legal status in Cameroon lacks protections, undermining their credibility and influence. Unlike magistrates and police officers, who enjoy “jurisdictional privilege,” lawyers have no such safeguard. A prosecutor can thus launch criminal proceedings against a lawyer in the very jurisdiction where the lawyer works—possibly to settle personal scores. Lawyers can be unjustly detained or held in custody by their frequent courtroom adversaries.
How can a lawyer assert authority before a prosecutor who could humiliate them at will? What credibility remains when a lawyer is treated like their own clients? This situation seriously damages public trust and the integrity of the legal process. For the sake of justice, lawyers deserve protection—of their dignity, their reputation, and their authority.
Solution
Lawyers must be granted, at minimum, the same jurisdictional privilege afforded to magistrates and police officers. No lawyer should be prosecuted or judged by a regular criminal court. While no one is above the law, all criminal cases involving lawyers should be heard behind closed doors by a special judicial panel. This panel should include judges appointed by the President of the Superior Council of the Judiciary and must include at least one representative of the Bar Association.
Measure 3 – Ending the Detention of Non-Threatening Individuals
Problem
In Cameroon, pretrial detention is often weaponized—used to humiliate, extort, or coerce the accused. Although the criminal procedure code theoretically protects people with known residences from such detention, the practice remains widespread, even for minor offenses and when the accused poses no threat to society.
Solution
The UNIVERS Party believes that only truly dangerous individuals—violent offenders, homeless individuals without known ties, repeat offenders—should be detained. To preserve evidence or protect a case, alternative restrictions can be applied: banning access to certain places or contacts, supervised monitoring, and other dignified measures.
Only those who violate these conditions should be subject to preventive detention. Such cases must be treated with urgency, and if delays persist, the accused should be released to await trial freely.
The penal code itself must be revised to eliminate prison sentences for offenses committed by individuals who pose no societal danger. Fines and community service must be prioritized. Prison should be reserved only for violent offenders, repeat criminals, and those who pose a real threat. Sentencing should focus more on safety measures than purely punitive ones.
Fines must be scaled according to income to remain dissuasive. In all cases, fines can be replaced with community service of equivalent value. Even incarcerated individuals may work off part of their sentence through meaningful labor.
Measure 4 – Rethinking the Purpose of Prison
Prison must no longer be a place of suffering but a space for rehabilitation and recovery. For the UNIVERS Party, a criminal is a sick citizen who needs treatment. Prison should transform wrongdoers into law-abiding individuals.
During their time in prison, inmates will receive civic education, legal literacy training, and psychological support. Those without professional skills will be trained in trades or crafts. Upon nearing release, inmates should participate in day-release community work to prepare for reintegration.
Reintegration support must also include employment and social assistance programs. No prison in Cameroon should exceed its capacity. If overcrowding occurs, inmates close to release, or who meet criteria established by law, will be released to make space.
Measure 5 – Combating Judicial Delays
One of the major flaws in Cameroon’s justice system is the slowness of legal proceedings. Litigants wait months or years for rulings, during which time injustice prevails. Delays are often blamed on a lack of courtrooms, staff shortages, or financial constraints.
But beyond these logistical issues lies a core procedural flaw: cases are brought before judges unready to be judged. Hearings are postponed for months due to missing documents, unpaid court fees, or delays in filing arguments—resulting in cases that drag on for over a year.
Solution
The UNIVERS Party proposes institutionalizing a pre-trial "case preparation" phase for all matters—criminal or civil—managed by a dedicated "pre-trial judge." This judge meets with both parties to organize the case, set strict deadlines (a few hours to a few days), and ensure all materials are in place before passing it on to the trial judge for a final hearing.
This system will greatly reduce procedural delays and restore timeliness and efficiency to the justice system.