141. The Respondent State submitted that, upon the introduction of multi-partyism in 1992, many
Southern Cameroonian opposition parties, such as the Social Democratic Front (SDF), have
participated in municipal, legislative and presidential elections. Opposition parties control several
councils and are represented in the National Assembly. It argues that access to high office is open to
all citizens without distinction. The Respondent State accused the Complainants of bad faith, and
stated that some of the highest positions in the Republic had been held by Southern Cameroonians. It
accuses SCNC and SCAPO of persecuting fellow Anglophones who refuse to adhere to the secession
agenda.
142. The Complainants claim that Southern Cameroonians have since 1961 been accorded only 20
% representation in the Federal/National Assembly instead of the 22% they think they deserve. The
Complainants’ main complaint is the ratio of representation, rather than the non representation. The
Respondent State states that 20% representation cannot be said to be “tokenism”.
143. The Commission is inclined to agree with the Respondent State. It finds that in spite of the
alleged disproportionate percentage, Southern Cameroonians were representation [sic], and hence
participated in public affairs of the Respondent State as required under Article 13 of the African
Charter.
144. The Commission states that it is not sufficient for the Complainants to assert in general terms
that a certain category of citizens were denied the right to access public positions or that they were
under-represented in government or public administration. The Complainants did not furnish the
Commission with information or cases that individuals in Southern Cameroon were denied
representation or denied access to public services. The Commission finds that allegations
concerning“tokenism” have not been substantiated and concludes that there is no violation of Article
13.
Alleged violation of Article 17
145. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State violated Article 17 of the Charter, because
it is destroying education in the Southern Cameroons by underfunding and understaffing primary
education. That it imposed inappropriate reform of secondary and technical education. It discriminates
Southern Cameroonians in the admission into the Polytechnique in Yaoundé, and refused to grant
authorisation for registration of the Bamenda University of Science and Technology, thereby
violating Article 17 on the right to education.
146. The Respondent State denied that it is destroying the education system in the Southern
Cameroon. It provided detailed data and statistics on the measures it had taken to carter for the
education sector in the Southern Cameroons. It stated that in certain cases it had provided more
resources to Southern Cameroon than it had done for other regions. The Complainants contested the
reliability of the data and statistics, but did not convince the Commission that the data should not be
relied upon.
147. Regarding the alleged discrimination concerning admission of Southern Cameroonians into
the Polytechnique in Yaounde, the Respondent State argued that admission to the National Advanced
School of Engineering is based on merit, as is the case with all higher institutions of learning. It stated
that the School has trained a number of civil engineers from both the Anglophone and Francophone
parts.
148. Concerning the alleged refusal to grant authorisation for the registration of the Bamenda
University of Science and Technology, the Respondent State stated that the said university did not
fulfill conditions for establishment of private universities. The Complainant did not show whether the
criteria were met by the Bamenda University of Science and Technology or not. The Commission
reiterates that for it to make finding on any allegations, the Parties have to provide it with the
necessary information. Rule 119 of the 1995 Rules of Procedure of the Commission, (which govern
this communication) require parties to furnish explanation or statements, including additional
information.
149. The Complainants should have done so under Rule 119 (3) of the Rules of Procedure. The
Commission allowed Parties to make oral submission in this particular case. The Complainants did not