The law organising the Special Criminal Court: A fertiliser for embezzlement or a deterrence?

The embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds by highly appointed state officials reached its climax when a former Minister of Finance allegedly embezzled about 500 billion frs CFA, which was at that time estimated as half of the state's budget. 

This vulgarity in criminality did not only cause a social bondage or economic brigandage but also fast-forwarded to an exposure of the political anus of the state on the international scene, as international watchdogs did not hesitate in securing Cameroon a place at the top of the list of corrupt countries in the world. 

Angered by this nefarious title, the President of the Republic, in a bid to curb this disdainful idiosyncrasy of his officials, launched an investigative and bombarding operation baptised "Operation Sparrow Hawk" aimed at fishing and punishing embezzlers and misappropriators of State funds. 

The parliament, in a bid to assist the executive in this lethal fight against official corruption, enacted 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. 

This court that was created as per sec 2 of this law to entertain cases of misappropriation and embezzlement of 50 million frs CFA and above by state officials came as a messiah court to many Cameroonians who were already wallowing in cactopia, dystopia, and pia pia. 

The austerity and rapidity in the selection of personnel to run this court was very appetising to many Cameroonians who had become spectators to this game of the judiciary. 

The court further whets the appetite of observers as it begins a chop-chop prosecution of some high state officials. 

The high confidence and expectations of this court began to evaporate in the minds of many after the declaration of some verdicts. The verdicts left many scholars in an imbroglio as they now question the credibility of the court. 

The main factor of this mayhem or disappointment resulted from the application of section 18 of this law, which holds 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. 

Prominent state officials who have benefited from this innovation to the criminal law family are notable: a former minister of basic education and a former minister of secondary education. 

This innovation brought by sec. 18 of this law has made legal thinkers see the law creating the court as a fertiliser for embezzlement, as one will just need to embezzle, invest out of the country for quick returns, collect part of the profit and restitute when caught. 

This works very well, especially when these white-collar bandits are usually caught after 5 to 10 years of the commission of the crime.

That is enough time to even triple the embezzled or misappropriated funds through investment. 

On the other hand, some jurists hold that it is still a deterrence, as it is not in every case that a restitution is accepted. 

This is true because some of these embezzlers and misappropriators have been sentenced and are now serving heavy jail terms in Kondegui. 

Even with this raw veracity, some people who speak behind bottles think that those who are denied restitution permission and are being sentenced are simply those who are against some higher executives. 

Someone who was talking behind a bottle of 33 Export says: "In Cameroon, you can embezzle as you like, but don't look at the chair of the President."  

If this allegation is true, the question I ask again is, is the law creating the special criminal court a fertiliser for embezzlement and misappropriation or a deterrence?

BY MARKS ABAIKO

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