can theoretically be ordered to do so by the courts. Yet, that would not be possible as the court system remains under the President's total control, whose judges are personally appointed, promoted or removed by him. 34. The Complainant avers that in Cameroon, justice is exercised in a discretionary manner through a process of de facto ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts. Executive-controlled organs including Ministers can and do make judicial decisions by-passing the courts. Besides, there is inordinate control in the dispensation of justice exercised by law officials, like the Procur[ator] of the Republic, who is an official of the legal department, can order law enforcement officers to either enforce a court judgement or ignore it. For this, the Complainant cites the Procurator's discretionary action not to enforce a court judgement in the Cameroon Tea Estates (CTE) (which plants tea on disputed Bakweri lands) management dispute, where it was ordered that the Board of the CTE reinstate the general manager whom they dismissed. The Complainant further alleges that there is also a discretionary exercise of power evident in the judiciary. This has implications on the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies by the Complainant as the Procurator's refusal to enforce the decision in the management dispute foreshadowed the fate of the BLCC if a court were to exercise jurisdiction in rem over the disputed Bakweri lands, which also introduced uncertainty undermining confidence in the court system. The Complainant draws the Commission's attention to its decision in the communication No. 60/91 Constitutional Rights Project/Nigeria. The issue in that communication was a provision in the Robbery and Firearms Act (Special Provisions) which conferred on the State Governor the power to confirm or disallow a conviction for violations of this law by a special tribunal and the African Commission had held that "the Governor's power was discretionary extraordinary [sic] remedy of a non-judicial nature" and that "it would be improper to insist on the complainants seeking remedies from sources which do not operate impartially and have no obligation to decide according to legal principles." 35. In expounding further on its claim that the Government of Cameroon had adequate notice and opportunity to remedy the violations, the Complainant argues that more than nine years have passed since they referred the matter to the President of the Republic, following the Privatisation Decree of 1994 affecting the Bakweri lands. The President was also sent another memorandum from Bakweri landowners in 1999. The Complainant argues that these were done in light of the primacy of the Presidency under the Republic's Constitution and the existent presidential pre-emption of decision-making at all levels. The Government of Cameroon has been duly notified of this problem as the Bakweri lands problem has been around for several decades, nine years have passed since the government was seized of it, that in January 2003, a special envoy of the President met and assured the Bakweri chiefs that the government intended to "provide a sustainable and durable solution" to the Bakweri lands problem, and that the Government's own representatives before the UN Sub-Commission in February 2002 had expressed the Government's readiness to resolve the problem amicably. The Complainant argues that where the Republic has been aware of the problem for at least nine years and that where the opportunity to redress the problem has been squandered due to unwarranted delay and slow state response, it should not be compelled to exhaust local remedies. 36. The Complainant further avers that the remedies in Cameroon are inadequate and unduly prolonged and hence need not be exhausted. It, however, admits that although the matter never went to court but was referred to the President of the Republic for a political/administrative solution, the government's own conduct in the matter implicitly admitted the impracticality or undesirability for the Complainant to seize the courts of Cameroon as demonstrated by the declaration made by the representatives of the government to the UN Sub-Commission to resolve the matter satisfactorily. Still, the Complainant maintains that it tried to engage pressure [sic] authorities through various means but to no avail. The lack of progress, it holds, meant to suggest that remedies either do not exist or cannot be effective in the Complainant's situation and in any event, their application is being increasingly prolonged. 37. The Complainant also argues that remedies in Cameroon are unavailable and, to the extent they exist, ineffective. The continued classification of the Bakweri lands as State Property afforded the Complainant no basis for legally challenging the government's acts or omissions that violate its ownership rights. Besides, the rule of exhaustion of remedies should not be invoked where it offers no possibility of success, which the government will not be able to prove. An insistence on the pursuit and exhaustion of domestic remedies will only prolong the application of the Bakweri people. 38. In its submission on admissibility, dated 31st January 2003, the Respondent State requested the Commission to declare it inadmissible. It raised the following preliminary objections, that: 4