Criminal Law in Cameroon: Specific Offences

Chapter 1. Offences against the Security of the State

2 Chapter 1 Offences against the Security of the State Distinction between external and internal security offences. The Penal Code distinguishes between crimes that affect the external, and those that affect the internal, security of the state. Crimes relating to the external security of the state are those that expose the state to danger, or weaken its defences in times of armed conflict. Crimes relating to the internal security of the state are those that either result in unconstitutional changes of government or in the impairment of the integrity of the state. The distinction between external and internal security offences would seem unscientific and tenuous. It is therefore not surprising that the criminal law of many jurisdictions make no such distinction. Still, in the Penal Code the distinction serves as the basis for making yet another distinction, that between ‘political offences’ and ‘offences under the ordinary law’. Crimes against the internal security of the state were considered political offences, punishable by ‘detention’1 , while crimes against the external security of the state are, like the bulk of other crimes, offences under the ordinary law. The dichotomy between ‘political offences’ and ‘offences under the ordinary law’ became irrelevant when the political penalty of ‘detention’ was expunged from the Code. This made it less tenable to maintain the distinction between crimes against the external and crimes against the internal security of the state. But that has not diminished the Code’s obsessive interest in the law of treason and subversion. Prosecution. No prosecution in respect of an offence under sections 102-110 and 114 may be instituted except by or with the consent of the Prosecutor General. But the fact that the prior consent of the Prosecutor General is required for the prosecution of any such offences, does not mean that every action in the criminal process in respect of any of the said offences need his fiat. An arrest may be made, a warrant of arrest may be issued or executed, a remand into custody may be ordered, and bail may be granted in respect of any of the offences under sections 102-110 and 114 notwithstanding that the consent of the Prosecutor General to the institution of a prosecution for any such offence has not been obtained2 . Generally, in common law jurisdictions, no person may be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or of one witness to one overt act and one other witness to another overt act of the same kind of treason, or unless on confession in open court. The law appears 1 Sections 18 and 26. 2 Section 46 (1) Schedule III (B) to the Penal Code. 3 to be the same in this country as provided under section 178 (2) (a) of the Evidence Ordinance. In the American case of Aaron Burr a former US Vice President of that name was charged with treason within the meaning of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution3 . Burr concocted a grandiose scheme to lead a revolt with British assistance in the frontier lands of the west where he hoped to establish a ‘Western Empire’ with himself as ruler. He had powerful allies for his scheme: the British Ambassador to the US, a Senator, a wealthy financier and an army General. The conspirators however hesitated in making their move and when they eventually did President Jefferson crushed the conspiracy by arranging for the Governor of Ohio to send in the local militia to a private island in Ohio which Burr decided to use as the base of operations for the revolt. Burr went into hiding but was arrested within a few months and put on trial. The principal charge against him was treason against the United States. The US Constitution provides that, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” The case came before the famous American Judge, John Marshall. It was incumbent upon the prosecution not only to produce two witnesses, but those witnesses had to have seen some overt act by Burr in ‘levying war’ or leading the planned revolt against the United States. But Burr had actually not been present in Ohio when the militia stormed the identified location on the island. The prosecution however...