• the author of the communication does not show any proof that it is the victim of a violation of the
Charter;
• the object of the communication is unclear as it interchangeably speaks about the violation of the
"right to own land in Cameroon," "the dispossession of indigenous peoples of lands that they have
historically owned and occupied," and "the violation of the right of an indigenous ethnic minority in
Cameroon to own land";
• the communication is improper as the author deliberately remains imprecise about the actual illicit
act for which the State of Cameroon is blamed: privatisation or sale;
• the author did not exhaust local remedies as all the actions the BLCC took certainly do not
correspond to remedies mentioned by the African Charter;
• the communication casts such suspicions and aspersions on the Cameroonian judicial system and
hence could be considered insulting per Article 56 of the Charter;
• and the UN Sub-Commission has already settled the case brought before the African Commission
(ACHPR Communication 15/88 Mpaka-Nsusu Andre Alphonse/Zaire).
39. In its further submission of 5th May 2003, the Respondent State avers that there is no provision under
Cameroonian law that excludes any form of appeal against acts of the executive. It argues that "it must not
hastily be concluded that a State Party to the Convention has neglected to act in compliance with its
obligation to provide effective local remedies" [lnter-American Human Rights Court, Velasquez Rodriguez
case]. The BLCC should not be allowed to transform the African Commission into a court of first instance.
The rule of exhaustion of local remedies implies legal action brought before the courts and not just political
actions. Since 1994, the BLCC has never taken any action against the State of Cameroon before the
courts. Seizure of judicial bodies cannot be avoided on the basis of subjective suspicions or because of
allegations that it is a politically charged case or a politically sensitive case.
40. In its 4th March and 22nd August 2003 memorials, the Complainant rebutted the preliminary objections
raised by the Respondent State.
41. At its 34th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 6th to 20th November 2003, the African
Commission granted audience to the parties to complement their respective written submissions orally.
42. In its oral submission, the Complainant stated that since it has come forward with a prima facie case,
the burden should shift to the Respondent State to prove that domestic remedies are available, effective
and adequate. There are no such remedies, including the Constitutional Council before which BLCC has no
standing. BLCC has attempted to settle the matter amicably; yet, the Respondent State was not willing and
has resorted to harassment, and intimidation. BLCC has been sued and an injunction been issued against
it declaring it an illegal body, to curtail it from representing the victims and to generally frustrate the efforts
of the victims to exercise their rights under the African Charter. Should the matter be deferred to local
procedures, the Complainant requested an indication from the Respondent State to where it may be
directed.
43. The Respondent State, in its turn, stated that BLCC has the right to bring its case before the competent
bodies in Cameroon. The Government respected its own institutions and that it would not accept arguments
that its legal system is incompetent to receive or deal with any case from anyone, while it is evident that
there are thousands of cases being entertained by its courts. The Government respects the African
Commission and hopes that it won't admit the present matter when no attempt has been made to seize its
courts. The UN Sub-Commission has ruled that the petitioners need to seek local remedies. The
Commission could open a floodgate by admitting the present communication despite the fact that no
attempt was made to exhaust local remedies. The Commission should thus declare it inadmissible for
BLCC [sic] be directed to vindicate itself before local courts. Indeed BLCC is sued in the local courts, but it
is not by the Government but a private entity. But as an advice, all the BLCC had to do was to seek a
declaratory judgment from the High Court to the effect that "XYZ are the beneficiaries or residual title
holders of the disputed land".
44. The Commission has examined the respective written and oral submissions on admissibility of the
parties and rules as follows.
45. To the Respondent State's objection that the Complainant does not have standing (locus standi) to
bring [sic], the Complainant avers that the Complainants (including the counsel representing them) are all
Bakweri and hence victims of the violation. BLCC represents the Bakweri and has authority to speak for
them as backed by a resolution adopted by the custodians of the Bakweri lands (Resolution attached in the
file).
5