Akere Muna Petitions Constitutional Council;Merits and Demerits?

Renowned jurist and Univers party candidate in the upcoming presidential election, Akere Muna, has petitioned the Constitutional Council, seeking to establish the ineligibility of the CPDM candidate in the October presidential election. Muna’s petition relies on Section 118 of the Electoral Code to substantiate his claim.

This raises a crucial question: Does Akere Muna have the locus standi to petition the Constitutional Council, and  is the petition legally valid? I will attempt to respond from a dual legal perspective: the form of the matter and the merits of the case.

1. *Form of the Matter*

Regarding the form, it’s necessary for the petition to establish two things:

1. That Akere Muna has the capacity (locus standi) to bring such an action.
2. That the Constitutional Council has at least subject matter jurisdiction.

By virtue of Section 118(2) of the Electoral Code, it’s evident that Barrister Akere Muna, as a concerned Cameroonian, may bring such an action, and the Constitutional Council has jurisdiction over such matters. As a candidate, the scope of his capacity is even expanded. Given this analysis, the Constitutional Council may find the petition admissible if it meets the necessary formal requirements.

 *II. Merits of the Case*

The merits of a case are the crux or essence of bringing a court action. To establish his allegations of “ineligibility,” the petitioner relies on Section 118(1) of the Electoral Code, which stipulates that “All persons who, by their own doing, have placed themselves in a situation of dependence on or connivance with a foreign person, organization, or power or foreign state shall be ineligible.” To prove that this condition has been met, Akere Muna relies, among other things, on the series of political consultations that the Minister of State, Secretary-General of the Presidency, Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh, has been holding on behalf of President Paul Biya, who is the CPDM candidate in this election.

Upon examination, it appears that the petition’s arguments may not align with the intended scope of Section 118(1) of the Electoral Code. Based on the legislative history and context of Section 118(1), it seems that the provision is primarily aimed at preventing foreign influence rather than regulating the internal workings of the government. Therefore, it can be inferred that the legislator did not intend to restrict the actions of a sitting president and their subordinates in this context.

Furthermore, there are no specific actions that the law requires of a presidential candidate to justify that such a candidate is not dependent on somebody, if that refers to Cameroonians. If there is any, then the candidate of the CPDM, Paul Biya, signed a decision on August 1, 2025, designating his campaign team headed by Jean Nkuette, Secretary General of the CPDM Central committee. If we assume that Section 118(1) is applicable to a President’s dependence on their official subordinates, it’s essential to consider the implications of this interpretation in light of Cameroonian laws, particularly the Constitution. In this scenario, we would need to examine whether the Constitution’s provisions on presidential powers and delegation of authority would conflict with such an interpretation.

This is because the Constitution of Cameroon stipulates in Section 10(2) that: “The President of the Republic may delegate some of his powers to the Prime Minister, other members of Government and any other senior administrative officials of the State, within the framework of their respective duties.” This means the Constitution makes it legal for a President of the Republic to assign some of his tasks to various subordinates as outlined in the section. Whatever Minister of State Ngoh Ngoh was doing is within that scope.

Moreover, it is elementary law that in the hierarchy of legal norms, the Constitution takes precedence over contrary legislation or organic laws, of which the electoral law is part. The Constitution supersedes the electoral law in the sphere of devolution of presidential powers.

Having examined the gravamen and general tenor of the petition, it is germane  for me  to take my  my legal compasss on  a voyage of addressing  the main particulars of evidence that Barrister Akere is adducing to substantiate his case. He alleges that the President of the Republic has had a prolonged stay abroad (42 days in 2024). Unfortunately,  this argument falls flat to the face, he fails to explain which law such a stay infringes, because, of course, there is no statutory or positive law limitation on a presidential travel.

Secondly, to prove his case, he alleges shadow governance or governance by proxy,  which to him is manifested in the form of “high instructions.” This point has been sufficiently addressed supra; however, this  argument sounds specious and contradictory. As a presidential candidate in the election, it is because of a presidential decree signed by the President of the Republic on July 11, 2025, convening the electorate. If he is convinced that the President is not the one taking the actions, why did he accept to be a candidate? He cannot pick and choose instances when the supposed “ghost” president could act as a principal.

The principle “he who goes to equity must go with clean hands” applies here, meaning that a party seeking justice must act fairly and honestly.

Finally, Barrister Akere Muna praying  the Constitutional Council to use the “mischief rule” to interpret that section, sounds more or less like a legal.brigandage or hocus pocus.  I am of the legal opinion that the section is clear and doesn’t need further interpretation. The mischief rule requires courts to consider several factors, including the law before the legislation was introduced, the problem in that law, the solution introduced by Parliament, and the purpose behind the remedy. The question I wish to ask is: did we have a situation like this before that the lawmaker wanted to cure? The answer is no. Therefore, the ” mischief rule”lacks legal persuasion in this case.

In conclusion, after perusing the  fine lines of the petition, it’s clear that Akere Muna’s case, while prompting interesting legal masturbations , may  lack sufficient legal penetration  in facts and law to succeed before  the hallowed hallways of the Constitutional sanctum  sanctorum. I rest my case!

;