About soter

Posts by :

2, June 2016

The Special Criminal Court: President Biya’s Court ⁰

Depicting the Special Criminal Court established to prosecute alleged corrupt government officials and the several Alibabas responsible for pilfering from the public treasury as the President’s court is no misnomer. We call it the President’s court because it is one instrument of power through which the President is reining in on perceived opponents from within his CPDM power conduit. An attribute of a genuine court is the fairness of the trial proceedings in cases which are brought before the court for trial. It is not the number of convictions entered against accused. A court is legitimate and recognized as such because of its exercise of judicial, executive, legislative and administrative independence. A court that is independent must be accessible to all citizens after all, is equality before the law, not a constitutionally protected value? The Special Criminal Court is lacking in these attributes of impartiality, judicial independence and accessibility. It is perceived more as the President’s Court than a Court of Justice.

Establishing this court was President Biya’s way of saving himself the embarrassment of being humiliated during his perennial trips abroad as the President of the most corrupt countries in the world. This ranking of the country as the most corrupt or one of the most corrupt countries had a potential to hamper President Biya’s personal pecuniary interests far from the borders of Cameroon. There was therefore a personal interest need to establish the court. Another personal interest need was to avail himself of a legal tool under his direct control to consolidate absolute power, blackmail potential rebels and competitors within the system and to stifle any form of institutional opposition. He perceived the court as a tool with which to whitewash his more than thirty years of corrupt governance and the rape of the economy.

With the war against Boko Haram, the fight against corruption using the Special Criminal Court has afforded Paul Biya justification contest in the next institutionally flawed elections in order to eternalize power purportedly to direct the war against terror and the war against corruption. True to the name the President’s Court, the President has exclusive preserve in referring cases to the Special Court and the power to terminate them. He decides who will be arrested, who will be investigated and who will serve time and who will not.

In one instance, he ordered a detained the late Minister Bapes Bapes released from remand custody at Kondengui when a warrant was issued for his arrest without the presidential fiat. Recently Titus Edzoa a former Secretary-General at the Presidency of the Republic benefitted from a purported Presidential pardon whose primary purpose was the release of a French citizen Thiery Atangana from jail.

The fear of a presidential referral to the Special Criminal Court on additional charges of corruption under a practice devolved under the supervision of Paul Biya called “rouleur compresseur” pushed Titus Edzoa to rejoin the CPDM Party without a public resignation or repudiation of his membership of the party on which he intended to contest presidential elections prior to his incarceration. Edzoa was a victim of this system of presidential justice when new charges were brought against him when his first imprisonment was about to end in other to maintain him in prison.

Cameroonians want the rule of law to be the guarding principle on which justice is administered in the name of the people.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

2, June 2016

Dark Friday April 6th, Our Right Royal President lives on ⁰

On the night of the 5th and 6th of April 1984, gun shots were heard around the presidency of the republic. On the 6th of April, a message was read over state radio which Cameroonians were later on told was limited only to the residents of Yaounde the nation’s capital by a brave technician. The message indeed had confirmed that a coup had been staged and the Biya regime was now a thing of the past. Forces loyal to the regime came to the fore and on April the 7th, President Biya Biya was back in action. He took the floor and addressed the Cameroonian people informing them that he had survived a coup fomented by troops still loyal to his predecessor, the late President Ahmadou Ahidjo.

Following these “sad” events, the remnants of the Ahidjo men in the presidential guard were executed and ever since the attempted 1984 coup, the 83 years old dictator now approaching his 34th year in power is still holding firmly the helm of the Cameroon ship. He has resisted every form of opposition. He survived the civil disobedience campaign in March and April of 1991. He successfully neutralized Ni John Fru Ndi and the Social Democratic Front. Biya was victorious after the ghost town operations. Since 1984, the Cameroonian strongman has organized 4 presidential elections. In 1992 he declared himself winner and placed his main challenger , John Fru Ndi under house arrest. He says he genuinely won the presidential elections of 1997, 2004 and 2011. In April 2008, he changed the constitution of the nation and made himself head of state forever and ever.

Whatever Biya wants, Biya gets!! He launched the so called anti corruption campaign known as “Operation Sparrowhawk”, ostensibly to clean up the malpractices in the management of public affairs. When age started telling on him, he carriedout his own version of “A Hundred Flower Campaign” when he dished out news that he had passed on in a Swiss hospital. His agents identified those within his ruling council who celebrated when the news was made public and immediately he made a dramatic u turn and transformed Operation Sparrowhawk into a reckoning tool and eventually eliminated potential dolphins for the post of president of the republic. Since then several barons of the regime have been imprisoned, ostensibly for “embezzlement” of public funds. Now he wants another constitutional amendment to enable him hold early presidential elections. Our Right Royal President lives on

2, June 2016

Subversion of Due Process: The Presidency and “Epervier” ⁰

The news of recent has been the condemnation of Yves Michel Fotso to life imprisonment for alleged embezzlement of public funds. The news was being distilled to us at the same time that newspapers like “Mutations” (No. 4132 of April 25, 2016) were questioning why barons of the regime like Paul Atanga Nji, Jean Tabi Manga, Max Ayina Ohandja, Roger Moise Eyene Nlom, Marc Samatana and many others, whom reports of “commissions of enquiry” have since presented as suspects to face trial for embezzlement of public funds, have never been charged with embezzlement.

Further, a group called “REA-Mouvement Réaliste” said to be composed of grassroots militants of the CPDM (Génération Libre No. 221 of April 27, 2016), in a 10-year analysis of “Epervier” launched in Y2006, has concluded that the whole process seems to have been improvised because it was launched without adequate preparation and a clear intention to really fight against corruption.

The group named G11 that seems to have suffered the most from the operation has since had presumed members publishing books from their prison abodes. The books have been unanimous in claiming that “Epervier” is a politico-judicial exercise to eliminate the perceived political rivals of the man of November 6, 1982.

Many have criticized them for writing about the woes of Cameroon only when there was a divorce between them and the regime. To such criticism one can say that there is always a time and a reason for writing – to praise, admonish, propose, or some other – all of which are valid. In the end, we can only read the mind of characters like the taciturn and introverted man of November 6, through windows opened by those who worked closely with him – like Marafa, Olanguena, Edzoa, Mebara, and others – who write for any reason at all.

Invariably, “rebels” always assume the posture of attack to alter psychological situation of their adversaries to force them to lose their sense of security. The windows they have opened by doing this seem to be comforting the suspicion that indeed, “Epervier” is a political gimmick, and what is euphemistically called “Tcs” – or the Scc if you like – seems to be a kangaroo court to put icing on the cake of “Epervier. Those who use the tired argument of sour grapes as an excuse to avoid reading the books of the “rebel” writers as attentively as they deserve, miss facing the challenge of the comprehension that each of the books represents.

It is obviously interesting that when “Epervier” came to being, article 66 of the constitution of 1996 meant to protect public funds and resources from embezzlers was a dead letter, and is still a dead letter today! “Epervier” was launched when all press condemnations of the corruption of regime barons were met with calls for evidence – “où sont les preuves?”

It was therefore interesting to read a report titled: “Presidency rubbishes supreme state audit report implicating CAMTEL GM” (Guardian Post No. 0907, 13/04/16). The report says that allegations of misappropriation, mismanagement and outright embezzlement of the general manager covering the period 2010-2015, and the recommendation of special proceedings against him by the Special criminal court (SCC) were “rubbished” by the presidency because: CAMTEL is not yet using OHADA rules and cannot be judged by those standard; that much work of restructuring was carried out before the GM’s tenure; and that CONSUPE was rather hard when it reviewed the human, material and health resources management – consequently there was a bias in the way the review was done by CONSUPE!

These are most obviously supposed to be judicial decisions, not decisions of “the presidency”!The decisions leave the perception that they are for entirely partisan, if not personal reasons, and call into question the institutions on which “Epervier” depends.The man of November 6 wants to keep power by all means, so the presidency is seen as a partisan structure, and should not have the final say on issues of corruption.

The “rubbishing” of the report by “the presidency” is wrong for several reasons. First, one would think that the government of Cameroon has what the government of West Cameroon had – “General Orders” and “Financial Instructions”- that guide governance activities and the work of commissions of enquiry.

Second, in Africa, – especially in Cameroon – all power is secured and preserved through opacities and duplicities; indeed, power or the seeking of power is always the cause of corruption. Political power always trumps and stifles justice, development and even commonsense.

Third, the courts have a technical way of playing idea-games with concepts related to questions of fact and questions of law, to reach the verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”. In the process, some people are declared “guilty,” even though they did nothing; and others “not guilty” even though they committed the act! Each case depends on the ability to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is wrong for the presidency to allow the courts to do this for some people, while protecting other people from facing the challenge.

Fourth, corruption always starts with the subversion of due process allegedly for the greater good. It is this power to “rubbish” reports of duly constituted commissions or to “doctor” them, that CPDM militants in prison are describing as politico-judicial manipulations. It is this exercise of power at the presidency that feeds the suspicion that the fight against corruption is a fight for the preservation of power. Subverting due process is tantamount to subverting the authority of the judiciary.

It is the people – all the people – that prosecute all successful fights against corruption. In this, the executive arm of government should be the facilitator, not a constitutive power. The executive should see to it that the fight is well prosecuted, not prosecute it itself!

The fight against corruption as presently prosecuted by the presidency leaves the impression that it is more concerned with “prevention” rather than “cure”. The evidence gathered during the last 10 years of “Epervier” permits a serious government to pursue curative measures, rather than “rubbish” findings in their pretentious effort to “cure” corruption.

Tazoacha Asonganyi

Yaounde.

2, June 2016

Deployment of US forces in Cameroon: End of the absentee commander-in-chief beacon ⁰

With the notable exception of Cameroonians, the announced deployment of American soldiers to Cameroon to combat Boko Haram terrorists should not come as a surprise to keen observers. First the Americans have been around for a while under supposedly different circumstances. There can be no gainsaying that the United States stated policy has always been to protect American economic and strategic interests where ever they are located or threatened. The Chad-Cameroon pipeline project and the Pecten Cameroon offshore oil exploitation and others fall within this category. Additionally US strategic interests in the sub-region, particularly in the oil rich Gulf of Guinea, in Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe and the Great Lakes region warrant an American security presence.

There is no doubt that terrorist groups like Boko Haram which has publicly declared its allegiance to ISIS and others like Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and other criminal gangs in Africa Sahel have publicly declared and have the capacity to strike US interests in the sub-region or from basis in the sub-region. The US decision to deploy its soldiers in Cameroon to enable it participate in the ongoing war against Boko Haram is the clearest evidence that either terrorist groups have set up basis in Cameroon warranting US direction intervention. Also, the US might have found sufficient factors and indicia of reliability that Cameroon is or potentially a sanctuary of internal and international terrorism. To this extent, there is no reason to blame the US for taking measures to protect its regional and global strategic interests. The United States policy in this regard is well known and should therefore not surprise anyone.

The problem however lies with Cameroon. There is no gainsaying that Boko Haram and the threats of international terrorism posed grave danger requiring appropriate response. The response included urgent remedial tactical and strategic military action. However the declaration of war from a foreign capital by President Paul Biya was an unprecedented violation of the constitution he swore to defend and an assault on the sovereignty of Cameroon. To this extent, both the Boko Haram that the President declared war against from a foreign capital to combat and the President can be said of being culpable of crimes against the sovereignty of the nation.

Added to this, his prosecution of the war betrays a despicable lack of leadership and respect for the victims of the war and the sacrifices in life and limb of our valiant men and women in combat for the defense of the fatherland. Worse, President Paul Biya rushed through the National Assembly a liberticidal law against terrorism whose purport is to support his perpetuation of eternal power through the suppression of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. This law places the country under emergency rule and gives tacit blessings to the very culture of fear that Boko Haram hoped to instill in the citizenry. Inviting the USA into the war as he did the French before without informing his people and seeking a mandate to do so from the National Assembly is proof of a potential treasonable violation of the constitution and disregard for sovereign will of the people.

The Americans are thus deploying in a war and war zone of potential distinct strategic interests. Observers have not lost sight of the fact that the war in both the US and France forces are deployed or are deploying was in part fueled by arms indiscriminately dropped by France under Sarkozy to criminal gangs in the Libya and African Sahel. These were intended, according to that Sarkozy, to combat the forces of Muammar Ghadafi. There can therefore be no doubt that by the participation of the US and NATO in the war for regime change in Libya the US and France raised the profile of terrorists in parts of Africa, Boko Haram being one of the most visible.

In Libya and elsewhere as we see in Syria, the US , France and Great Britain have characterized terrorist groups into good terrorists and bad terrorists, although the difference between both categories can easily be conflated or even tenuous to ascertain. The transmutation from good rebels to bad rebels indeed is hard to ascertain as the US, NATO in the world has come to learn in Libya where the criminal gangs they left in place after Khadafy have invited ISIS to take control of the state and opened a floodgate of unprecedented migration to Europe. So far thousands are dying in the Mediterranean on the watch of the supposed moral guarantors of the supposed civilized world.

Coming back to the US intended deployment to Cameroon, there is no doubt that the mission as announced is genuine but the signals it sends are obvious. Regarding these signals, we must first consider the cacophony of actors in the field. There are a recently constituted regional forces with Head Quarters in Ndjamena, French supposedly reconnaissance Units a euphemism for a French military presence and now the US. Only a person with jaundiced eyes will doubt the fact that French colonial military and economic pact with Cameroon makes the polity under potential French military control. The US military deployment will alter the balance of power and influence in Cameroon and the sub-region.

One obvious fact which must be stated is that with this deployment, the US will remain in Cameroon for a long time to come. Inviting the US to deploy its forces seemed easy for Mr Paul Biya but asking them to park and go home may be problematic in the future. Rather than put a time frame for it to execute and end its mandate, it will be re-enforced and given a more robust mandate with time.

The deployment also may be construed as a rare signal that President Biya’s more than three decades of personal power may be coming to an end. If this deployment and other international and internal dynamics do not end it, the French will conclude that he no longer serves their interest and kick him out from power.

There are emerging signs that the end of President Paul Biya may plunge the country into a potential blood bath due to a paucity of a viable constitutional arrangement for a smooth transition. Overtime Paul Biya and the international community by neglect and insufficient attention have allowed the Southern Cameroons problem to snowball into a potential time bomb that may explode drawing in communities in neighbouring Nigeria and international involvement. The complexity of the Southern Cameroons problem makes France an unlikely country to intervene once it explodes. The presence of the US forces may be construed as a potential stabilization force that may caution the potential fallout and obviate a needless bloodletting.

Many Cameroonians fear that the presence of American soldiers will invite American enemies far and wide worldwide to the Cameroon warfront. Cameroonians are however divided whether the deployment will attenuate or put brakes to the vampirism of French colonial and neocolonial policies that plunged the sub-region in the bloodletting that is ongoing. No matter from which perspective one may see it, this deployment marks the beginning of a potential new era and the end of one. None echoes the independence that most Cameroonians and African crave for. But both put the spotlight on those who profess to effectively rule Cameroon. It is from this perspective that we should anxiously consider this significant development. Let the truth which President lacks the courage to admit to inform his country men and women be told, this deployment by the greatest superpower on earth marks a significant development worth noting.

Lest we forget, Cameroon is at war, an international armed conflict. That fact and the deployment place its sovereignty and destiny in the hands of foreign powers. There is need therefore for a change of guard at the helm of the state to manage this and other developments. The time for the Cameroon Army to be tele-commanded from foreign holiday resorts and hotels may be coming to end. The deployment of US forces carries symbolic weight. One thing that this deployment may beacon is that the time of directing the war effort while foreign forces and those from the super power are on the ground may soon be over.

By Soter Agbaw-Ebai and Oke Akombi Ayukepi Akap

2, June 2016

The Church in Africa and the 2015 Synod on the family: Historical landmarks ⁰

There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, according to Vatican figures. More than 40% of the world’s Catholics live in Latin America – but Africa has seen the biggest growth in Catholic congregations in recent years. At the start of the 20^th century, Africa had about 3 million Catholics. Today, a decade and a half into the 21^st century, Africa counts 185 million Catholics. By 2025, Africa will account for over 23% of the World’s Catholics. If, as the saying goes, numbers are destiny, then it is surely the case that Catholicism is experiencing an “African moment” today.

In a recent interview with ZENIT, Archbishop Charles Palmer Buckle of Accra, Ghana, argued that the proper hermeneutic of approaching Africa’s presence at the 2015 Synod on the Family is to pay attention to the landmark historical developments that have shaped the Church in Africa in the latter part of the 20^th century and early 21^st century. In this light, Archbishop Buckle highlighted the 1994 Synod for Africa that had as theme, “Church as Family,” and the 2009 Synod for Africa, that focused on Justice, Peace and Reconciliation. Based on these two Synods, the Church in Africa came to Synod 2015 with a somewhat critical discerning heart and mind. In the words of the Ghanaian Archbishop: “So for us, coming to participate in the synod for the family, is like bringing coal to new castle. We are here to share. We have been here sharing from our own experience, from our own cultural perspectives, but we are open and here to listen to what the family means to Europeans, Asians, Latin Americans, to people from North America. We are listening very attentively because we would like to avoid the pitfalls that families in these co-called advanced countries have fallen into. We would like also to help them look at families from its beautiful, original perspective. So we believe we are being enriched and we are enriching also, all the other participants.” From these words of Archbishop Buckle, the perspective of the African Church to the 2015 Synod is therefore twofold, to be enriched by the global Church, and likewise to enrich the global Church. The Church in Africa no longer sees herself as an infant, whose only legitimate role is to listen to the local churches of the Western world. The Church in Africa has clearly come of age.

This journey to maturity has had some significant providential moments, in addition to the two synods of 1994 and 2009, respectively convened by St. John Paul the Great, and Benedict XVI, the shy, gentle, saintly, scholarly Bavarian, a man clearly already in the ranks of Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, Gregory and Newman, a Doctor of the Church while still living within the pilgrim sinful Church! Let us return to the historical hand marks that formed the African Church for Synod 2015, hoping to find in them a hermeneutical key to the issues that marked this Synod.

Without any pretense to biblical competence – since my world is restricted to explaining the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one can readily think of the encounter between the Queen from Ethiopia and Solomon (1 Kgs. 10; Mt. 12:42), to constitute a significant moment in the unfolding of salvation history for the Church that is in Africa. This meeting should constitute a part of the African ecclesial experience, granted that the history of the Church did not begin with Jesus Christ. In fact, to the repeated question whether Jesus founded the Church or not, the only legitimate response will be that such a question is a false question, for Jesus did not need to “found” a Church, since the Church, the called community of YHWH, was already in existence, from the call of Abraham. The Fathers would even talk about the Church from Abel the Just! What Jesus of Nazareth did was basically two things: he universalized and radicalized the community of Israel, by breaking the geographical boundaries around the chosen people to include everyone, and by stretching the prescriptions of the Torah from the letter and spirit to his own person. He became the new Torah, in his own flesh. Without this process of universalization and radicalization, the Christian Church is the same as Judaism! This is highly significant, especially when one begins to hear of calls to particularize or regionalize Christian teaching, in the name of pastoral exigencies. A Christian faith that is regionalized strikes at the very root of the coming into being, of the “new Israel,” in that geographic and political definitions become the determinants of the faith. In a few words, that is why the meeting between Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia should have such ecclesial significance.

Briefly, other significant historical moments could be the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt; the presence of Simon of Cyrene at the scene of the Crucifixion and the encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8). The outstanding contributions to the universal Church made by Augustine of Hippo, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian, amongst others – the North African Fathers of the Church, cannot be overemphasized. The demise of Catholicism in North Africa remains a pain whose consequences are still with us today. That this collapse of the Christian faith in a once-flourishing part of Africa, owed in large part to a weakened Christianity thorn apart by internal controversies over doctrine before the onslaught of Islam, should constitute a warning sign against the repeat of such today. A Christianity that uses up its energies in internal debates is one heading for a weakened position against external threats to the faith. North Africa is a standing example.

The Church in Africa cannot forget the August 1969 historic visit of Blessed Paul VI to Kampala, Uganda, in which the Great Pope of Evangelii Nuntiandi, Popolurum Progresso, and Humanae Vitae, declared Africa as Christ’s new homeland, and called on the African Church to be missionaries to themselves. To show that a Church has taken roots, we can see indigenous vocations to the priesthood, religious life and the sacrament of marriage. To show that a Church has matured, we can see indigenous bishops. Paul VI saw both in Africa when he launched the Symposium of the Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM). The beatification of the Martyrs of Uganda showed the global Church that Africa was already bearing heroic testimony to the name of Jesus.

The most proximate preparation of the Church in Africa toward synod 2015 was certainly the Consultative Meeting of SECAM on the Family held at Accra, Ghana, June 8^th to 11^th, 2015: The theme of this Consultative Meeting: “The Family in Africa: What Experiences and What Contributions to the XIV Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops?” In response to this question, the African Church decided to base its contributions to Synod 2015 on this platform: God, by forming the first man and woman and commanding them to be fruitful and to multiply (Gen. 1:28) definitively established marriage to be a permanent union between one man and one woman. Consequently, the family becomes the sanctuary where life is born, nurtured and welcomed as a gift of God. Three things stand out from this decision by the African Church: Firstly, the family is a gift from God. It is not a human invention based on passing whims and caprices. Secondly, this creation of God cannot become obsolete at any point in history. God’s plan for the family, the union between one man and one woman is in need of no aggiornamento. Finally, it is within this gift of family, founded on the complimentary union of man and woman, that another most precious gift, the gift of life, is welcomed and nourished.

To non-African Catholics, it is helpful to note that the Church in Africa is a Church that has matured through much suffering. It is a Church that has been persecuted, with Catholics schools seized by post-colonial governments; church property confiscated; bishops, priests and religious imprisoned or killed, et cetera. Cardinal Robert Sarah’s book, God or Nothing bears eloquent testimony to this fact. The period of independence and the political upheavals that followed many African nations placed the Church often in very challenging situations, especially as missionaries were expelled overnight by new dictators that led many African nations in the post-colonial period. Catholicism in Africa has never been a “State Religion,” favored by any parliament or government. Catholicism in Africa tends to be on the side of the opposition. Its hope lies in Catholics themselves. Opinion pools have never been a priority to theAfrican Church.Cardinal Dolan of New York recently made a very telling distinction between the Suffering Church and the Comfortable Church. It is obvious that a Church that has grown from harsh conditions develops an internal stamina of resistance that is capable of going against the grain.

When the African Church confronted the global Church at Synod 2015, she was conscious that many sectors of the Old Church are facing a crisis of faith in which God has become the Great Absent One; a crisis of pastoral practice; a crisis of education, in which many Catholic colleges have rejected the moral teachings of the Church; a crisis of anthropology and sociology, in which, at a time when there is much talk about conservation and preservation of the natural environment, the human environment is being subjected to all kinds of gender theory and scientific manipulation; the crisis of pastoral practice that is retarded by a culture which Ratzinger once described as an ecclesiastical occupational therapy, in which bureaucracies are set up that become self-serving, with little or no evangelical value; the challenge of the media and language, especially when the great expectation remains: when will Catholicism give in to the editorials of certain sectors of the Western media? These challenges are not unknown to the African Church. She too is conscious of her own challenges: of polygamy, and of divorce, caused by infertility, adultery, domestic violence, in-laws, poverty, HIV-AIDS and religious differences. But she is courageous enough to stand for God’s plan for marriage as recorded in Scripture. She is growing as a Church because she is open to the gift of children. She is courageous about the future of the African Church because she is open to God, and does not presume that the historical-critical method is the normative norm in understanding Scripture. She brings to the global Church the beauty of marriage as between two families, transcending the sense of individualism and particularism that could exclude the valuable support that comes from other family members, especially during moments of crises.

Much has already been written about the Final Report of Synod 2015, which has been handed over to Pope Francis for an eventual post-synodal exhortation. From close observation, it is a far richer document than the InstrumentumLaboris, which was heavily criticized by the Synod Fathers. Regarding the two most-talked about issues by the Western media, that is, the Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried and the Church’s position on gay unions, even critics of the Church have accepted that there was no change in Church doctrine. Vincent of Lerins famously articulated the formula for the interpretation of doctrine: that which has always been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Certainly, the paragraph dealing with the internal forum and conscience for the cases of the civilly divorced, though clear, is insufficient. Cardinal George Pell of Australia has said as much. More precision could have been helpful.

However, it is important to recall that the talk about Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried gives a magical understanding of Communion. Paul of Tarsus is very clear about the examination of conscience before the reception. No one has a “right” to the Eucharist, and receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin does no good to the soul. Paul even told the Corinthians that many of them were sick because of unworthy reception of the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:30). The habit, rampant in many Western churches, in which everyone goes to the Eucharist, as a “right” is certainly questionable. If in Germany, for example, sixty-five percent of Catholics do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus as an objective fact, what is the point of the Eucharist without faith in the Resurrection, granted the intrinsic link between the Resurrected Lord and the Eucharist? If the Eucharist is the grain of wheat that falls to the grown and dies, and by dying bears fruit, (Jn. 12:24), what is the point of a Eucharistic reception that does not call recipients to the embrace of the letting go of the self in the embrace of the gift of children, since children are seen as a burden that must be rejected at all cost?

These questions, and more, are needed to appreciate the fact that Eucharist alone will not solve any problem. It was from the first Eucharistic table that Judas Iscariot left to go for the monies of the religious hierarchy to betray Jesus. The Gospel of the family has been a liberating experience for the Church in Africa. Perhaps as Africa did in the past by saving the Holy Family from the onslaught of Herod, Africa is once again called to saved the contemporary family from contemporary attempts that are so well organized and aimed at destroying the family as God created. This is the challenge for the African Church, for, in the final analysis, only what is true is ultimately pastoral. Only what is true is ultimately merciful.

2, June 2016

President Goodluck Jonathan:Recognizing the vision and record of a great leader ⁰

Cameroon Concord News Group was pleased to announce former Nigeria President Good Luck Jonathan as their man of the year 2015. We arrived at this conclusion after a careful and anxious consideration of a wide range of candidates. We considered the contributions of the candidates to the development and improvement of the human condition within their communities, their countries and the world at large. Our choice fell on the former Nigerian president Good Luck Jonathan due to his contributions to the enthronement of a sound democratic culture and society, democratic constitutionalism, peace, security and good governance in his country the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The vision and record of Good Luck Jonathan will greatly contribute to the development of a credible democratic culture and economic emancipation of Africa.

Former Nigerian President Good Luck Jonathan maintained the integrity and unity of Nigeria which this paper regrets, Buhari is jeopardizing with his ethnic politics that undermines the federal character of his country. The resurgence of the popular clamour for the reactivation of the sovereign state of Biafra as the recent demonstration by millions of people of Eastern Nigeria origin at home and worldwide is an obvious indicator.

While in opposition President Buhari made statements that undermined the war effort against Boko Haram. He later rallied the ethnic support of Northern Nigeria and hoodwinked the gullible Yoruba power elite to return power to the North. Now in power President Buhari’s inconsistent policy of wanting to negotiate and fighting Boko Haram is an indication that he does not intend to fight them with the same intensity that Jonathan did. Jonathan an ethnic minority Ejaw from the volatile Niger Delta of Nigeria succeeded in negotiating a peaceful abatement of the armed insurgency in the Niger Delta that disrupted oil exploitation, the main stay of the Federation’s economy and international maritime traffic. That was a major achievement that merits recognition.

Jonathan has been criticized of being lax in the fight against corruption. This criticism is exaggerated considering the fact most efforts he made in the fight against corruption were indeed sabotaged by some of the very born again torn coat politicians who energized and sponsored the then opposition APC alliance to wrestle power from Jonathan. It was on Jonathan’s watch that some of the Sani Abacha loot was repatriated and fiscal and financial discipline introduced into governance. The Ngozi Okongo Eweala led nationally and internationally acclaimed economic policies identified and closed loopholes in government fiscal and financial policies, depriving corrupt politicians and business men of the impunity with which they looted public wealth. This made powerful enemies against Jonathan within and out of his own political party the PDP. Some left to join the opposition APC alliance and have since been portrayed as the saints who will wipe corruption from the face of Nigeria. Sooner or later, the true motives underpinning the born again posturing of these political torn coats will become as obvious as day follows night to all to see. Then and only then will Nigerians discover the truth that leopards do not indeed change their spots.

Jonathan’s respect of the Federal character in critical government appointments; in particular appointments into ministries and portfolios overseeing national sovereignty insured that Nigerians of all ethnicities had roles and stakes in national decision making. The national conference organized by Jonathan provides Nigerians an opportunity to chart a new future for their country and to recommit to the idea of unity in diversity. The national conference is one of the landmark attainments of Jonathan enduring legacies to his people which history has recognized and recorded for our generation and generations unborn.

Cameroon Concord News Group has always held the considered opinion that Boko Haram is a tricky adversary which is hated and loved in equal measures by gullible politicians in Nigeria and Cameroon. First it offers power thirsty politicians the opportunity to attain power. It also provides them the opportunity to retain power, syphon money meant to support the war effort.

Like President Yaradua before, President Jonathan inherited Fulani cattlemen attacks in the Middle Belt, the Niger Delta crisis and the Boko Haram insurgency in the North from the previous administration of President Obasanjo. During his reign, President Jonathan made considerable efforts in rallying sub-regional and national efforts to confront these challenges. Time has so far proved that President Buhari who criticized Jonathan’s Boko Haram strategy promising to end the insurgency if elected in a matter of months, has so far not offered any combat strategy different from that of President Jonathan to confront the armed challenges. He has also not offered any specific economic policies that defer from those put in place by President Jonathan. The slow pace of the Buhari administration may indeed be interpreted due to be a paucity of any credible economic policies that are superior to those put in place by President Jonathan.

Most significant, history will retain that President Jonathan successfully organized a free and fair election, the outcome of which he graciously accepted and respected, sparing Nigeria the risk of the bloodletting that has characterized several elections within the troubled continent of Africa.

It is sad that those who won the elections promising to bring better reforms than those put in place by Jonathan are still struggling to realize even a single promise they made to the electorate. The admitted rationale for the election of President Buhari in the last election was his proven record in combatting corruption as a military leader. President Buhari’s famed war against corruption largely succeeded then because of the dictatorial military instruments of coercion he wielded then to impose and enforce his policies. Those instruments were not available to Jonathan and absent them now a civilian president, President Buhari, facing the same adversaries may not be a hopeful of the successes he recorded in the war against corruption as a military ruler. The same forces that applauded him to power this time around will be an impediment to his corruption fighting policies and strategies due in part on human rights and rule of law considerations and potential impediments.

History will rate Jonathan fairly and may be classify him as one of the great political leaders to come out of Africa. He has demonstrated by words and deeds that he is patriotic, visionary, democratic, humane, and honest and readily one the great leaders of our generation, Africa and the democratic world. He merits our recognition.

2, June 2016

Peter Essoka and Charles Ebune on Globewatch ⁰

Peter Essoka and Charles Ebune on Globewatch

2, June 2016

Charles Ebune and P Square ⁰

Charles Ebune and P Square

2, June 2016

Cameroon Concord News Group Chairman meets CRTV’s Charles Ebune ⁰

Cameroon Concord News Group Chairman tells CRTV’s Charles Ebune that UK will remain in the EU

2, June 2016

The Chairman and CEO of CIR and Cameroon Concord News Group ⁰

The Chairman and CEO of Cameroon Intelligence Report and Cameroon Concord News Group tells CRTV’s Charles Ebune that Boris Johnson sees himself as the next UK Prime Minister.