The Concept of Stealing Big: A Legality in Cameroon?

The romance between law and morality has consequently seduced the law to punish actions against morality, like stealing, killing, and abortion. Focusing on stealing, which is a mammoth virus to morality, the law has crafted special measures to prevent or eradicate some of these actions in society.

That is why the penal code of Cameroon has classified and punished in its sections 318, 319 and 320 the act of stealing (theft) into simple theft, aggravated theft, special theft, and section 184 on Missopriation, with imprisonment terms or payment of fines.

Though the parliament and law enforcement officers seem to be acting on the above provisions of the law to protect private and public properties, there is a wave of solid rumour circulating in bars and other avenues that if you want to steal in Cameroon, steal big and you will be set free or almost free.

The consistency of this phrase in the vocal cavity of some Cameroonians has attracted my attention to investigate the veracity of these allegations, which are pointing at the incompetence of our judiciary.

But before we detonate the allegations surrounding its application in Cameroon, it is germane to apprise with the meaning of this concept in society.

From street investigation, I gathered that the concept means that in Cameroon, whenever one is given the opportunity to steal, especially as a government worker or agent, one should steal a reasonable amount that will cause the ears and mouths of people to tremble and shout.

Put in simple terms, steal hundreds of millions or billions. Do not steal 10 million to 49 million; steal at least from 50 million upward. Do not also steal or misappropriate common items like phones, gas bottles, flat-screen TVs, etc.

From a societal perspective, perpetrators of the act of stealing have been stratified into common thieves and white-collar thieves. They forge ahead to brandish a difference between the two criminals below.

Difference between simple thieves and white-collar thieves

(1) Street linchpins have buttressed their point by holding that common thieves are apprehended and tried in ordinary courts, the Court of First Instance and the High Court, while the big thieves who embezzle billions or hundreds of millions are tried in a special court created only for them.

(2) Small thieves are carried to court through a long prison van, while white-collar thieves are transported through a VIP bus equipped with AC.

(3) Common thieves are chained while in a court session, but suit bandits sit freely while drinking stupendous wines and whisky during court processes.

(4) Small thieves will still be sent to prison after restitution of the stolen money, while big thieves will be set free once restitution is made.

The above comparison may seem poetic and fictitious until we support it with unflinching evidence stemming from some innuendos of legal instruments and facts.

Here, our purview will be centred on the latitude of restitution as leverage to white-collar bandits. Section 18 of Law No. 2011/028 of 14 December 2011, as amended by Law No. 2012/011 of 16 July 2012, creating the Special Criminal Court in Cameroon, stipulates that at the restitution of the sum embezzled or misappropriated, upon application, the minister of justice can demand the prosecutor enter a nolle prosequi (stop prosecution) and set free the embezzler or misappropriator.

Zooming on the strength of this section, it is salient to baptise you with a paucity of prominent state officials who have benefited from this innovation to the criminal law family.

They are notably Madam Haman Adama (former minister of basic education) and Mr Louise Bapes Bapes (former minister of secondary education).

Both of them, among others, embezzled billions, were restituted during trial and walked free out of the court after the restitution.

Looking at the other side of the coin, there is no section under law No. 2006/015 of 29 December 2006 organising the common courts that has mentioned restitution of the money stolen or liberation after restitution.

From these facts, it is lucid that the law is seemingly protecting and encouraging the big thief with the luxury of liberation after restitution while the small thief will rot in jail even after restitution. It is possible to deduce from these facts that the scale of justice isn't balanced; it is weighed by the heavy hands of wealth and privilege.

My final take is that until the law becomes a terror to the lawbreaker in the mansion as it is to the one in the slum, the imbalances of life will remain the defining feature of our society.

And as a direct consequence, it may seem like the law is indirectly encouraging its citizens not only to steal, but to steal big. From the above facts, what do you think?

By Marks Abaiko

Contact KNews management on whtapp for news coverage, support, special-write-ups and advertisement (+237) 651252410