By Christopher Ambe
Celebrated human rights
advocate, instructor in the Faculty of Laws and Political Science of the
University of Buea, Barrister Felix Agbor Nkongho, who was scheduled to be tried yesterday Wednesday May 6 by the
Disciplinary Council of the University of Buea
for allegations leveled against
him “for non-compliance of professional obligations for a question you set on law 243,titled Political & Constitutional
History of Cameroon, during the 2019/2020first
semester examination", boycotted the sitting.
But he rather served(via a bailiff) the
University administration a protest letter, justifying his decision not to honor the summons in
person.
In his reply to the
summons served him to appear before the
Disciplinary Council ,Barrister Agbor Nkongho said it violated legal provisions
in force for inviting a teacher to the said council.
” An
invitation for a teacher to appear before a disciplinary panel must be preceded
by the respect of certain statutory
provisions. There are a set of Decrees and Ministerial Circulars entrench to govern and regulate disciplinary
proceedings involving university teachers", wrote the lawyer/instructor in his protest letter.
But one of the most senior
officials of the University of Buea,who spoke on condition of anonymity, told
this reporter: “Mr Agbor’s [arguments] are null and void. Those provisions he cites do not apply
to him. They apply to lecturers. But he is an instructor whose contract
expired in 2019.”
Questioned why Barrister
still remains part of the university and is addressed as a staff, the source
retorted, “The University was just to kind and polite to invite him to the
disciplinary council. Agbor Balla’s contract as
instructor expired in 2019.It has not been renewed and shall not be
renewed !”
The Dean of the Faculty of Law & Political
Science (FLPS), Professor Atangcho Nji Akononoumbo ,in a
summons dated 29 April 2020 and served
Barrister Agbor on Tuesday May 5 had asked
Barrister Agbor Nkongho to appear before the Disciplinary Council on Wednesday 6 May at 10:00AM.
Professor Atangcho Nji
Akononoumbo who signed the summons, titled “Letter of Invitation to a
Disciplinary Hearing”, stated in it that he was
acting on the instruction of the Vice-Chancellor of University of
University(UB), Professor Horace Manga.
Pundits were quick to note that the Vice-Chancellor Horace Manga must have
asked for Barrister Agbor Nkongho’s trial now, following mounting pressure from
the Minister of State for Higher Education, Professor Jacques Fame Ndongo,who is
also Chancellor of Cameroon’s varsities that, the lawyer/instructor’s alleged unprofessional
activities on campus be stopped forthwith.
Although the
minister’s second letter, dated April
20,2020, to the Vice-Chancellor calling
for the ejection of Barrister Agbor Nkongho from the University did not mention
the violation perpetrated by him,the summons makes it abundantly clear, that he set an examination question on the
Anglophone crisis, in which he had played a coordinating role when it erupted
in 2016 and is yet to end.
The controversial exam
question on the course “Political & Constitutional History of Cameroon (course
code:Law 243), read : “The Anglophone
crisis since 2016 was caused by lawyers’ and teachers’ strikes.Assess the
validity of this statement.(4O marks).
According to reliable Unversity sources, the
course exam was successfully written and evaluated-and students validated it.
It is unclear whether the
UB administration will cancel the course
exam and another exam set, since
authorities think that the exam question
was “subversive” and the instructor is
supposed to be tried.
It would be recalled that
in September 2019, the Vice-Chancellor
of University of Buea(UB), chaired the launching, on campus, of a new book
titled “ Anglophone Lawyers and Teachers strikes (2016 -2017):A
Multidimensional Perspective” co-edited
by Emeritus Professor of Literature , Kashim Ibrahim Tala (retired from the
University of Buea,UB) and Dr. Kingsly L.Ngange,head of the Department of
Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Buea.
At the book launch, the Vice-Chancellor of University
of Buea described the new publication as “very topical and relevant” to the Anglophone Crisis and bought copies for
institution. Students were also urged to get copies of the timely publication.
Barrister Agbor Nkongho ,
who has taught in the University of Buea since 2015, had told this reporter that
his teaching contract is supposed to end in 2021,adding
that “”I have never been accused by the University authorities of politicizing
my lectures or any activity there as a lecturer [before].”
It would be recalled that
Barrister Nkongho was President of
Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium(CACSC),which coordinated
civil disobedience and peaceful
anti-government protests in 2016 and early 2017 as a way of forcing the Cameroon
government grant and protect the rights of minority English-speaking
Cameroonians, who have complained of gross marginalization for decades.
In a desperate effort to quell the wide-spread
protests, the Government banned CACSC on January 17,2017,arrested Barrister Nkongho same day and jailed him in Yaounde
for eight months as the Anglophone Crisis escalated.
The rights campaigner was
charged, among others, for promoting terrorism, a crime that is
punished, maximally, with death.
But the Anglophone
community rather hailed him and described him as their Nelson Mandela.
International and national
pressure mounted on the Biya government
to release Barrister Nkongho.
It was on August 30, 2017 that President Biya
ordered, through the Secretary-General at the Presidency Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh, “
the discontinuance of proceedings
pending before the Yaounde
Military Court against Messrs
Nkongho Felix Agbor,Fontem
Aforteta’a, Paul Ayah Abine…”
Since then public
statements made on national issues by
Barrister Nkongho,who is also founder of the Center for Human Rights and
Democracy in Africa(CHRDA),are scrutinized by Government- apparently for fear
that they could instigate a mass protest against the leadership of President Paul Biya, 87, who
has ruled Cameroon since 1982.
The Anglophone crisis has
resulted to the deaths of over 2000 people, the
destruction of public and private property worth billions of FCFA and the
internal displacement of over half-million people (IDPs) ,with over thirty
thousand seeking refugees in Nigeria,according to credible rights groups.
It is public
knowledge that the Anglohpne crisis
since 2016 has badly shaken the Cameroon
Government.
Below is the entire reply of Barrister Agbor Felix Nkongho to the University Administration :
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nkongho
Felix Agbor
Faculty
of Laws and Political Science
University
of Buea
May
5, 2020
Through:
The
Dean
Faculty
of Laws and Political Science
University
of Buea,
To:
The
Vice Chancellor
University
of Buea
Re:
INVITATION LETTER TO A DISCIPLINARY HEARING
“MEMORANDUM
OF APPEARANCE UNDER PROTEST”
Dear
Sir,
Thank you for
your letter, reference 2020/093/UB/D/FLPS/FO of 29 April 2020, on the above
subject matter. The cited letter was served to my office at Biaka Street, Upper
Bonduma, Buea on Tuesday, 5 May 2020, at
12:08 PM. After reading through the letter, I have some observations to
make. Before I do so, I will reproduce the operative part of the letter which
states:
On the
Instruction of the Vice-Chancellor, and in keeping with article 16 of decree No
93/036 of 29th January 1993, you are being invited to appear before
a constituted Disciplinary Panel of the University to hear allegations against
you for non-compliance of professional obligations for a question you set on
Law 243: titled: Political and Constitutional History of Cameroon, during the
2019/2020 first semester examination. The hearing has been slated for Wednesday
6th May 2020.
The University
of Buea (“UB”) is an institution which my generation of Anglophone students in the
then University of Yaoundé, alongside civil society organizations and pressure
groups advocated for, by peacefully protesting in Yaoundé and major cities in
the South West and North West regions. These protests effectively pressurised the
Government to upgrade the Buea University Centre to a fully fletched Anglo-Saxon
styled university. Subsequently, as the President of the Cameroon Anglophone Civil
Society Consortium, we fought to protect its independence and its spirit of
excellence which formed the foundation
of countless intellectuals. UB is an institution in which I take profound pride
and honour to teach. For the past five years, I have sought to perpetuate its
foundational spirit of excellence in future leaders and students of Law.
It follows that
I am responding to your letter out of reverence for UB, and what it represents
as an institution.
Regarding the content
of the letter, my first observation is that it flouts laid down procedures and
disrespects legal provisions.
DISRESPECT
OF LEGAL PROVISIONS
An invitation
for a teacher to appear before a disciplinary panel must be preceded by the respect of certain statutory provisions.
There are a set of Decrees and Ministerial Circulars entrench to govern and regulate disciplinary
proceedings involving university teachers.
Sir, I am aware
that you are not a stranger to these texts and their requirements for a teacher
to appear before a disciplinary committee. However, for purposes of clarity and
emphasis, permit me to refresh your
memory with these.
1.
Antecedent Procedures Prior to Invitation
to attend the Disciplinary Hearing
Under Section 57
(1) of Decree No 93/035 of 19 January 1993 on the special status of higher
education staff as amended by Decree No 2000/048 of 15 March 2000,
“The rapporteur investigates the matter by
all means appropriate to the manifestation of the truth. He hears the suspect
on a report.”
Section 57 (2) provides
that “At the end of his investigation, he writes a detailed report which he forwards
to the President of the Disciplinary Council.”
It is based on
this report as provided in Section 57 (3) that the President of the
Disciplinary Council causes the holding of the council by a convocation
addressed to the members of this Council, specifying the day, time and place of
the meeting.
Similarly, “the need to protect the right to a defence”
is well articulated in the following
instruments;
-Ministerial circular No. 17/0013/MINESUP/SG/DAJ/CC
of 17 October 2017 on due respect of disciplinary procedures in public institutions
of Higher Education in Cameroon;
which forms part
of the New University Governance, to be read in conjunction with
-Decree No.
93/027 of 19 January 1993 on common provisions applicable to universities as amended
by Decree No. 05/342 of 10 September 2005;
- Decree No
93/035 of 19 January 1993 on the special status of higher education staff as
amended by Decree No 2000/048 of 15 March 2000.
Reference is
hereby made to the Ministerial circular, under the heading
“THE
DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL AND THE PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS. Following Section B; “The requirements of disciplinary proceedings
involving teachers” states that:
“It
is incumbent primarily to the Registrar, on the occasion of a disciplinary
council before which a teacher must appear, to investigate the matter. In this
wise, he must obligatorily hear the suspect on the basis of a report [. . .].”
At the end of
the investigation, a circumstantial report is transmitted to the President of
the Disciplinary Council, in order to provoke the holding of the Disciplinary
Council, through a convocation sent to the members of the Council precising the
day, time and the place of the session.
The suspect, in
this case, was never invited for the purposes of any such prior investigation.
The Circular further
states that:
“[t]he suspect is
informed in the same way that the documents in the file are kept at his
disposal with the rapporteur, for Consultation on the spot and in confidence
either by himself or by his defendant.”
The suspect was also not availed of this
information.
Furthermore, Section
55(2) of Decree No 93/035 of 19 January 1993 states that
“The decision
translating the teacher to the Disciplinary Council is notified to him as well
as to each member of the Council” and that
“It must state
the exact nature of the facts alleged against the suspect “and the penalties to
be inflicted upon him.’’
The
aforementioned letter inviting me to a “Disciplinary Hearing” does not mention what
sanctions I may incur.
Besides, Section
56(2) states that
“the teacher
implicated has the possibility to defend himself or be assisted by a defender
of his choice.”
The summons fails
to apprise the suspect of this fact.
2.
Service of “Invitation Letter to a
Disciplinary Hearing”
As earlier
stated, the letter inviting me to “the Disciplinary Hearing” was served this May 5, 2020
at 12.08 PM. The Ministerial Circular of 2017, supra, states that:
“The
disciplinary procedure of a teacher being essentially contradictory, the
suspect must be summoned in writing, at least five (05) days before the holding
of the Council.”
The invitation falls short of the minimum requirement of five
days of prior notice. The use of the mandatory MUST in the circular and not the optional MAY is an imperative command and a legal obligation that must be
respected. It shows the importance of the necessity to give the suspect ample
time to prepare his defence. How can justice be done and be seen to be done
when the suspect was served less than 24 hours to the hearing. What time will
the suspect have to prepare against the very “serious allegations” against him?
The circular
also provides that:
“The teacher
convocated before a disciplinary council has the right to defend himself,
either orally or in writing, and may also be assisted by one of his peers or by
any other defender of his choice.”
This fact was also not stated in the
letter of invitation of the hearing.
It follows, that
the letter inviting me to appear before a “Disciplinary Panel” disregards
relevant instruments and violates my rights as a teacher in the University of
Buea. It also violates my fundamental human rights for a fair hearing.
As an advocate for
justice and respect of the rule of law, should I honour the said invitation,
which is a manifest and gross violation of the law, it would amount to setting the
wrong precedent which will hurt and have a negative impact on teachers who in
the future may be invited without any regard for due process to appear before
the disciplinary panel and the long-term credibility of our academic
institutions.
Consequently, to
prevent the propagation of the injustices outlined above, I will not be
attending the Disciplinary hearing schedule for 6th May 2020, at I0:
00 AM. at the Boardroom of the Central Administrative Block.
Dear Sir, kindly
note that I remain predisposed to defend myself, either orally or in writing,
before any competent Disciplinary panel when the provisions of the relevant
instruments have been complied with.
Whereof, I do
forward this memorandum of appearance under protest to serve the purposes it
deserves.
Regards,
Nkongho Felix
Agbor
cc:
President of the
Republic,
Prime Minister,
Head of Government
Minister of
Higher Education