By Senior Barrister Ntoko Justice Ebah.
The constitutional body presided over by the President of the Republic to manage the career of magistrates in Cameroon, the Higher Judicial Council (HJC) last held a formal session on August 10, 2020.
The non-convocation of this organ creates a systemic bottleneck that resonates from the corridors of power down to the smallest courtroom.
When this vital institution to the administration of justice in the nation, fails to meet, the legal machinery does not just slow down; it risks a foundational collapse of the rule of law.
Below is a forensic breakdown of the legal implications of this non-convocation:
- The Judicial Vacuum and Administrative Paralysis.
The Higher Judicial Council is the only institution of the Republic that is solely responsible for the movement of personnel within the judiciary. Consequently, the non convocation of the Higher Judicial Council automatically implies that there can be no official appointments, promotions, or transfers of magistrates. This leads to a judicial vacuum where benches remain empty in newly created jurisdictions, and retiring judges are not replaced, leaving a dwindling number of magistrates to handle an exploding caseload. This stagnation stifles the professional growth of hardworking magistrates, leading to a loss of morale that inevitably reflects in the quality of justice dispensed to the citizen.
- Constitutional Fragility and the Breach of Article 37
Article 37 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon explicitly designates the President as the “guarantor of the independence of the judiciary,” assisted by the Higher Judicial Council. The failure to convene this body is not merely an administrative oversight; it is a constitutional crisis. By leaving the Council in a state of dormancy, the mandatory oversight intended to balance the powers of the State is bypassed. This weakens the institutional framework of the Republic, as a key constitutional organ is prevented from fulfilling its role in the “administration of justice”.
- Erosion of Judicial Independence
The Council serves as a buffer between the Executive and the Judiciary. In its absence, the “discipline” and “career management” of judges may fall under the informal influence of the Ministry of Justice or other executive branches without the transparent, collective deliberation which the Council provides. This creates a climate of undue influence, where judges may feel vulnerable to executive pressure, knowing that their promotions or disciplinary fates are not being decided by a constitutionally protected collective, but perhaps by opaque administrative preferences.
- Crisis in Justice Delivery and Public Trust
The most visible impact is the protracted delay in justice delivery. Cases that should take months stretch into years because there are not enough presiding judges to hear them. Furthermore, when the Council does not meet to handle disciplinary matters, rogue elements within the judiciary may act with a sense of impunity, while wrongly accused magistrates have no forum to clear their names. This dual failure—slowness and perceived lack of accountability—erodes the public’s trust in the courts, leading people to seek “jungle justice” or informal settlements rather than relying on the State’s legal apparatus.