Cameroon Opposition Parties And Creation Of Parliamentary Group

 

By Dr. Ashu Nyenty

(Specialist in International and Parliamentary Law)

The quest by four opposition political parties at the National Assembly, to surf on a linguistic anomaly in the French version of the Standing Orders is bound to meet a legal waterloo.

The most plausible   legally sound interpretation of Section 20 of the instrument, reading together the French and English versions and taking into consideration, established parliamentary practice in Cameroon, is that all fifteen members required to form a parliamentary group must be what I will call whole blood members of one political party and not a mixed blood of political allies.

A couple of days ago, MPs of these parties, submitted a joint political and public declaration to the eldest member of the National Assembly announcing their intention to create a parliamentary group under the political banner of “Union for Change”.

These parties are the SDF (5), PCRN (5), UDC (4) and USM (2).  That makes a total of 16 members of the national assembly.

This is the first time that political parties none of which, alone, directly has the required number of 15 members to form a parliamentary group are mutualizing their efforts to attain that objective.  

The questions that arise are, does the law give them the locus standi or capacity to do so? What are the contentious issues that have been raised by this unprecedented demarche? And what are the likely consequences for parliamentary democracy in Cameroon? The answers to these questions will constitute the substance of this politico-legal analysis.

What The Law Says

The relevant law on this issue is Law No 73 /1 of June, 1973 as subsequently amended entitled the “Standing Orders of the National Assembly”. Section 20 of the law stipulates that members of the National Assembly may organize themselves into groups according to ‘political party’.

It further provides that “No group shall consist of less than 15 members”, with the emphasis that these 15 members must be “excluding members of the National Assembly allied to them”. It should be noted that an allied parliamentarian is one who joins a group whose members belong to a party that is different from his or hers.

My interpretation of Section 20 is that all the fifteen members that should form a parliamentary group must be Mps that belong to the same political party and not what I have referred to earlier as  a mixed political blood.

A justification for this position is that section 20 talks about 15 members excluding allied members. Therefore, they must be of the same political colour.

The declaration submitted at the national assembly was not done by any of the four parties alone. It was done under the political convenience or contraption of the “Union for Change”. Whereas the Union for change is not the name of a political party.

In any case the Union for change did not participate in the last parliamentary election. And independent candidates are not allowed in elections in Cameroon. To take part in an election, the candidate must be fielded by a political party. Until further notice the Union for change is not one such party. It is a legal nonentity, according to Cameroonian electoral laws, consequently any of its deeds becomes a nudumpactumor an empty shell. It cannot therefore, seek to create a parliamentary group in a parliament that resulted from an election it did not take part in.

Even comparative parliamentary lawlends credence to this position. In France, parliamentary groups are generally composed of members of the same political parties with the possibility of allied parties which on their own do not have the required number to form a group.

In Cote D’ivoire each party must first of all have eight of its members at the national Assembly before it can have a right to a parliamentary group.

On the basis of the foregone and anchoring on   this interpretation of section 20 of the English version of Standing Orders I will surmise without hesitation that the four political parties at the National Assembly will not have their request granted, because none of the parties involved has the least number of Mps required to form a parliamentary group.

The Contentious Issues Raised

But the question does not seem to be as easy as stated. Indeed, according to the sponsors of the motion, there is a legal loophole which they hope to capitalize on. They are banking on the disparity between the French and the English versions of the law. Whereas, the English version talks of ‘Party’ in the singular, the French text talks rather of ‘partis’ in the plural.

In their view by writing the ‘partis’ in its plural form, the legislator meant that several parties could make up the number 15 and not just one party as suggested in the English version of the law, which is unambiguous. That is why the four political parties are rooting for this extended interpretation as opposed to the restrictive interpretation suggested by the English language version of the instrument.

Seen from that angle one would be tempted to see with them. But is that the way that provision really has to be interpreted given every other related circumstance and applying legal rigour?

 I doubt that that should be the proper path the law should take, except you want to empty into populism or play to the gallery.

What Consequences For Parliamentary Democracy

The confusion generated by the varied interpretation of the Standing Orders is not unprecedented.

The scenario aptly mirrors the shortcomings inherent in some of our legal instruments when you have to interpret the two versions of our laws.

The translations are sometimes faulty and do not necessarily convey the same meanings in the two languages.

However, it would seem to me that it is legally inconceivable for the same instrument to be interpreted to give different meanings in English and French in the same country.

Admitting an overstretched interpretation to satisfy an obvious political appetite will give the impression that our legislator speaks from both sides of the mouth and hence bringing it into disrepute.

If that were to be the case then it would literally and legally mean we are living in two different countries.

Clearly, the consequences of adopting a double interpretation are by far graver than a restricted interpretation as clearly outlined in the English text. 

Therefore, in such a situation of confusion it is legally plausible to narrowly interpret the two versions to arrive at the same conclusion. At this point a literal interpretation cannot solve the problem.

This is because there is a clear discrepancy between the English and French texts.  

Even the ‘mischief rule’ as a canon of interpretation will not be appropriate because that provision of the law is original. It is judicious to me to make recourse to none written sources of the law such as custom and usages.

 In Cameroonian parliamentary tradition, parliamentary groups from the first to the tenth parliament have always been composed of members of the same political party and not a mixed political blood. Because even members of other political parties that are allied to the CPDM, such as the UNDP have never featured on the CPDM’s electoral list in parliament.

In this context, the slight linguistic discrepancy should be considered as a De minimis non curatlex,meaning that the law does not bother itself with trivial things.

That spelling mistake being simply a technical breach that does not becloud the overall and general understanding of the said provision.

I am thus of the reasoned  opinion that barring the alleged linguistic  lacuna raised in the French text, no other possible interpretation other than the interpretation upheld in the English version should be the correct interpretation.

That is, to constitute a parliamentary group, a political party and not parties must have at least 15 members.

 Therefore, I submit that the proposition of the opposition parties cannot reasonably stand at law.

Any other interpretation would seem to me not be legally tenable.