By Hans Ngala
(This paper was originally submitted as an essay by the author at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. This is an abridged version)
This week marks exactly 40 years since Paul Biya’s accession to the presidency of Cameroon. His supporters are quick to credit him with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but what do the facts on the ground show?
This article examines clear instances of censorship by Cameroon’s National Communication Council (NCC) – an entity that purports itself to be void of government control but ironically, its members are often appointed by the government.
The NCC is supposed to act as a regulatory body for communications outlets in Cameroon, but there are many instances where it appears it acts more as a censor.
What is censorship?
Censorship, according to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary is a noun derived from the verb censor which is defined as “removing the parts of a book, film/movie, etc (or news report) that are considered to be offensive, immoral or a political threat” (pg.230); while Jansen (1988) defines it as follows:
“My definition of the term encompasses all socially structured proscriptions or prescriptions which inhibit or prohibit the dissemination of ideas, information, images and other messages through a society’s channels of communication whether these obstructions are secured by political, economic, religious, or other systems of authority. It includes both overt and covert proscriptions and prescriptions” (pg.221).
Censorship is an age-old practice by governments who often claim that the content being censored is for the “the maintenance of an orderly state, whereas, the underlying motive is to keep the public ignorant of information that can potentially threaten authorities” (Abbasi & Al-Sharqi, 2015, pg.2).
Socrates is one of the earliest known victims of censorship. In 399 BC, he was sentenced to drink poison because of his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities (Abbasi & Al-Sharqi, 2015, pg.3). The origin of official censorship may be traced back to Rome where, in 443 BC, the office of censor was first established. In 300 AD, China introduced its first censorship law (Newth, 2010).
Censorship in Cameroon
Cameroon, a country with an estimated 23 million people is wedged between West and Central Africa. To understand censorship in Cameroon, it is important to know how present-day Cameroon came to be. Modern Cameroon was birthed out of the unification of a larger former French colony and a smaller former British colony. The country was first a German colony and was later split between Britain and France, following Germany’s defeat in the First World War, hence its colonial heritage can be traced to German, British and French influences. In fact, Nyamnjoh (2005) states that many outsiders know of Cameroon only as a former colony of France but that the country also has a lesser known British colonial past. This dual heritage has influenced legislation in the country and how the media operate in Cameroon.
Censorship has been an issue in Cameroon with the country scoring very low points on Reporters Without Borders (RSF’s) press freedom indexes over the years. Cameroon ranked 133 out of 180 countries in 2015; 126 in 2016 out of 180 countries and again fell to the 130th position out of 180 in 2017 according to the annual Press Freedom Index for those years published by Reporters Without Borders. Earlier in 2020, the country ranked 134th out of 180 countries and territories in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index – three places lower than in 2019.
The issue of censoring the media in Cameroon goes as far back as the country’s first president Ahmadou Ahido. Ahidjo was president since the independence of French Cameroun in 1960 i.e. for 29 years and handed power to his prime minister, Paul Biya in 1982 (Langmia & Nwokeafor, 2014, pg.129). Biya has been president till date i.e. for 40 years. Under Ahidjo, the press was muzzled, censored and only five newspapers and radio stations existed. There was no television network under Ahidjo (Bourdon-Higbee,1975). Private radio broadcasting was also forbidden under Ahidjo and censorship was the order of the day (Ali, 2017). Ali notes that in June 1962 Ahidjo’s government began tightening its hold on all opposition, including the press. Several journalists were arrested, and what became known as the “law of silence” dampened the nation’s previous enthusiasm for newspapers. He adds that:
“Before 1960, most reading material in the English-speaking part of Cameroon came from Europe and neighbouring Nigeria. The first two papers to spring up in this part of Cameroon were Cameroon Times and Cameroon’s Champion, both founded on the eve of reunification in 1960. The first press laws in reunited Cameroon were enacted in 1966, just six years after independence. They led to the closure of many papers” (pg.19)
Tanjong and Diffang (2007) describe the 1966 law as a piece of powerful censorship machinery that authorized pre- and post-publication censorship whereby government officials “became ‘editors-in-chief’ as they were supposed to read the papers two hours before publication, and anything deemed anti-government was blotted out or the paper simply suspended”.
While under Ahidjo’s successor Paul Biya, there has been a plurality of newspapers, radio stations and TV stations, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says this multiplicity of media outlets doesn’t necessarily translate to media freedom. CPJ, citing statistics from Cameroon’s National Communications Council (NCC) says Cameroon today has a diverse media environment, with at least 600 newspapers, 30 radio stations, 20 television stations, and 15 news websites in operation, but that does not mean information flows freely (CPJ, 2017). Patrice Nganang, a US-based Cameroonian writer and academic said in a 2013 interview that Biya can claim that newspapers and TV stations are flourishing in Cameroon, “but the consequence of ‘administrative tolerance’ – a practice whereby government allows media outlets to be set up without licenses, is that the police can come down on anybody at any time, and the police do so particularly when those outlets criticize Paul Biya” (Olukotun, 2013).
While there is much talk about how the media is free under Biya’s regime, (Nyamnjoh, 2005) argues that not much has changed since most of the laws enacted under Ahidjo remain in force today.
The National Communications Council (NCC), the country’s national media regulatory body claims to be independent, but its members are appointed by the Prime Minister of Cameroon, leading some to question how independent it really is (Nyamjoh, 2005). The NCC is often seen to level sanctions only towards media outlets that publish or broadcast content deemed critical of the regime (Ricchiardi, 2019).
It is important to note how much the media has been targeted since the current phase of the Anglophone Crisis in the country which erupted in late 2016. Lawyers and teachers were protesting the imposition of French-speaking judges in Anglophone courts and the assignment of French-speaking teachers in Anglophone classrooms (Adichie, 2018). Protests which had been peaceful, turned violent in 2017 when government outlawed a consortium of the teachers and lawyers (Atabong, 2017) and shut down the internet in English-speaking regions for 3 months – a move which Internet Without Borders described as a violation of human rights and one of the longest internet shutdowns anywhere in Africa (Internet Without Borders, 2017).
The Crisis has since evolved into calls for the secession of the English-speaking region (Essa, 2017). This has been followed by a crackdown by authorities on both the secessionists and the media (Moki, 2018; O’Grady, 2017).
Journalists covering the activities of the terrorist group Boko Haram, which is active in the north of the country, have also been targeted by authorities and an anti-terror bill enacted in 2014 to fight Boko Haram, has been used to silence journalists and censor the media (CPJ, 2017).
CPJ has since decried the enactment of the law, arguing that:
“Cameroon is clearly using anti-state legislation to silence criticism in the press. When you equate journalism with terrorism, you create an environment where fewer journalists are willing to report on hard news for fear of reprisal” (CPJ, 2017).
Instances of Censorship and Hatred Towards Anglophone Journalists in Cameroon
Before pointing out a few instances of censorship in Cameroon, it is important to note that while the NCC’s excuse for banning or shutting media outlets is usually that they were “unethical” or “threatened national security” (Ali, 2017), there are a few instances where some were outright unethical (completely disregarding journalistic norms and ethics) and indeed put national security in jeopardy, but because they were expressing pro-government sentiments, the NCC did not sanction them.
For example, Banda Kani, a TV personality and a fellow tribesman of Paul Biya’s made death threats on the life of the US Ambassador to Cameroon, Peter Barlerin in May 2018 after Barlerin called on Biya who had up to that time been president for 38 years, to be “thinking about his legacy and how he wants to be remembered” (Agbaw-Ebai, 2018). The ambassador added that former US President George Washington and former South African President, Nelson Mandela were “excellent role models” Biya could learn from (Agbaw-Ebai, 2018). Kani didn’t take kindly to the diplomat’s suggestions and said Barlerin “will go home in a coffin” (Agbaw- Ebai, 2018). The NCC did not call Kani to order, nor was Afrique Media – the TV station that broadcast Kani’s hate speech – sanctioned.
State-run broadcaster CRTV was equally so unethical that it hired impostors in October 2018 to pose as election observers for Transparency International after Cameroon’s presidential election (Finnan, 2018). CRTV aired footage of the team saying that the elections were transparent despite a nation-wide outcry of massive rigging. Again, the NCC did not sanction CRTV, nor did CRTV apologise for such unethical behaviour even after Transparency International’s head office in Berlin and the Cameroon office both issued statements saying they had no election observers in Cameroon and that an attempt by CRTV to “knowingly portray non-affiliated individuals as employees of the anti-corruption watchdog is completely unacceptable” (Transparency International, 2018).
Also, no sanction was meted out against Vision 4 TV journalist, Ernest Obama for saying in 2017 that the government should plant bombs in schools that “will kill the Anglophones themselves” (Cameroon News Agency, 2017) and stem the growing secessionist insurgency in that part of the country. Forty-three English-speaking journalists signed a petition to the NCC which was not promptly reacted to.
Obama again shocked viewers in March 2019 when during a live broadcast, he told viewers how to beat up their wives by grabbing their necks (Cole, 2019).
However, there are instances where journalists were simply doing their job, but were harassed, intimidated, arbitrarily arrested or targeted by authorities. Below are a few such instances:
Ahmed Abba, a correspondent for Radio France International (RFI) arrested in July 2015 for “complicity” with the terrorist group Boko Haram and charged with “non-denunciation of terrorism” (CPJ, 2015). Abba’s “crime” was that he had come in contact with Boko Haram in the course of his journalism and had not informed the authorities about that.
Radio Hot Cocoa in the town of Bamenda, banned by the NCC from broadcasting because it ran a show about the Anglophone grievances (CPJ, 2017).
Filmmaker Achomba Hans, arrested in Bamenda while filming a documentary on the Anglophone Crisis (CPJ, 2017).
BBC correspondent for Cameroon, Randy Joe Sa’ah arrested for interviewing a lawyer at the forefront of the Anglophone protests (CPJ, 2017).
According to Muluh (2012), radio stations such as Magic FM had their equipment seized for being overly critical of the government or for instigating the population to protest against the government. Muluh adds that Radio Freedom never went on air as it was banned from commencing broadcasts in 2003 and by the time the ban was lifted in July 2005, the equipment was out of use.
In November 2018, TV news anchor Mimi Mefo was arrested for reporting that Charles Wesco, an American Baptist missionary who died in crossfire between soldiers and separatist fighters in Bambui (just outside Bamenda) was killed by a bullet from a soldier’s gun (Kindzeka, 2018; CPJ, 2018). Cameroonian authorities at the time said that such reporting “infringes on the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cameroon” (CPJ, 2018), but CPJ’s deputy executive director Robert Mahoney, countered that “The charge of publishing information that infringes on territorial integrity is a laughable smokescreen for censorship, plain and simple” (CPJ, 2018).
Also, another Anglophone journalist, Kingsley Fomonyuy Njoka was arrested at his Douala home on May 15, 2020 according to The Guardian Post newspaper of June 16, 2020. According to the paper, Njoka was whisked off by two men who identified as having come from the National Security Headquarters in Yaounde. Njoka was still was charged with being a supporter of Anglophone separatists and also for “carrying out acts of terrorism and complicity in the smuggling of arms” (Mughe, 2020, pg.1).
Samuel Wazizi met an even worse fate when he died while in detention in June 2019.
News of Wazizi’s death led to journalists staging a protest to the office of the South West Governor in Buea. However, Governor Okalia Bilai “said only the central government in the capital Yaounde could tell them what happened to Wazizi” (Kindzeka, 2020). Journalists (wearing face masks because of the coronavirus) in Yaounde, Douala and Bamenda also staged protests in front of government offices (Kindzeka, 2020; Bambi, 2020; Journal du Cameroun, 2020).
According to a statement published June 4, 2020 by RSF, Wazizi had been arrested in August 2019 in Buea, Southwest Region of Cameroon and was later transferred to a prison in Yaounde. According to RSF, Wazizi “was accused of speaking critically on air about the authorities and their handling of the crisis in Cameroon’s English-speaking regions” (RSF, 2020). He died shortly after his arrest in August 2019, but authorities only admitted to this nearly ten months later in June 2020 after RSF reported on his arrest (Aljazeera, 2020). Cameroon army spokesman, Cyrille Atonfack Ngumo claimed that Wazizi was coordinating “logistics for separatist fighters” and denied that Wazizi was tortured, but had rather died from “severe sepsis” (Aljazeera, 2020). In a statement, Human Rights Watch expressed scepticism about this claim, observing that “No autopsy was performed, and it is not clear on what basis Atonfack made the statement” (Human Rights Watch, 2020).
In a separate statement dated 16 June, 2020, the director-general for UNESCO Audrey Azoulay called for an independent investigation into Wazizi’s death, stating:
“I am deeply concerned about the circumstances surrounding the death of Samuel Wazizi. I call on the authorities to shed light on the events that led to Wazizi’s demise and ensure that any contravention to his rights as a journalist and as a detainee are brought to justice” (UNESCO, 2020).
The Human Rights Watch statement quoted earlier further read in part:
“The circumstances of Wazizi’s death underscore the dangers faced by Cameroonian journalists, particularly those who report on and investigate the crisis in the Anglophone regions of the country”, adding that “Under national and international human rights law, Cameroon’s authorities have an obligation to account for every death in custody and should conduct an effective, thorough, and independent investigation into Wazizi’s enforced disappearance and death. The investigation should be capable of establishing the facts surrounding Wazizi’s disappearance and death, including whether he died following torture or other ill-treatment in custody, and identifying all those responsible with a view to bringing them to justice” (Human Rights Watch, 2020).
A statement jointly signed by ten human rights organizations and media organizations, among them Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Cameroon Journalists’ Trade Union and Human Rights Watch on June 9, 2020 called for U.N. Security Council members to take advantage of a June 12, 2020 meeting with the U.N. Office of Central Africa to urge Cameroonian authorities to allow an independent, effective, thorough, and impartial investigation into the circumstances around the Wazizi’s death.
Worth mentioning is the fact that the French ambassador to Cameroon, Christophe Guilhou told the media after meeting with the country’s president (June 5) that he brought up Wazizi’s case and President Biya “promised to order immediate investigations to determine the true causes of his death” (Kindzeka, 2020).
At the time of writing this piece (June 30, 2020) Anglophone Cameroonian journalist, Moki Edwin Kindzeka who is an anchor for state broadcaster, CRTV and a correspondent for VOA and DW, had been brutalized by security forces who also confiscated his equipment in Yaounde on June 27, 2020. Kindzeka was accused of being “an ‘Ambazonian’ pretending to be a journalist” (DW, 2020).
This culture of intimidation of journalists by Cameroonian authorities has made Cameroonian journalists to avoid critical reporting and tend to go with versions of events as narrated by officials even when there is clear evidence to the contrary about these. For example, in 2017 when Monique Koumateke died at the doorsteps of the public Laquantinie Hospital in Douala because upfront payment was being demanded before she could be attended to, the then minister of public health, Andre Mama Fouda told the media that Koumateke who was eight months pregnant with twins “had died ‘at least two hours’ before arriving at Laquintinie” (Africa News, 2016). In a grainy video that went viral online, a woman who was reported as Koumateke’s family member could be seen slitting her belly with razor blade in an attempt to save the babies but they too died shortly after the unprofessional “surgery” (Berlinger, 2016; Sa’ah, 2016). Local media ran the minister’s version of the story, perhaps fearing reprisals from authorities had they done otherwise.
Similarly, when the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN) published reports in 2016 that accused Paul Biya of spending over four-and-a-half years at the Hotel Intercontinental in Switzerland since 1982 (his luxurious hotel of choice where each trip, according to the investigative journalists, costs 40.000 USD per day) no media outlet in Cameroon ran the story for fear of being targeted by authorities though it did go viral on social media. The government-owned Cameroon Tribune, published a rebuttal, claiming the reports were false and meant to destabilize Cameroon (Freudenthal, Batchou & Tjat, 2018).
Paul Biya who has been described by the BBC as “Cameroon’s absentee president” because of his long absences from the country, was also not in the country when a train derailed in the country’s centre region, killing hundreds. Cameroonians took to social media to lambast government. The government shortly after referred to social media as a “new form of terrorism” (Dahir, 2016). The internet was later cut off for three months in the country’s Anglophone regions where residents complained of marginalization – a move which became recorded as the longest internet shutdown in Africa (Internet Without Borders, 2017).
Cameroon also does not have access to information law (Ali, 2017) and coverage of the president’s numerous trips out of the country are the exclusive preserve of the state-owned Cameroon Radio Television (CRTV) and Cameroon Tribune (Amabo, 2015). This mean corruption goes unchecked as no one knows exactly what the president travels outside for, nor exactly how much his trips cost. It is also not clear how much the president earns and no one exactly knows how much ministers and governors earn. Public officials do not have to declare their assets before assuming or leaving office. Journalists are forced to speculate on these matters and therefore risk having their licenses revoked by the National Communications Council or they can be jailed or fined heavily if authorities deem their reporting unsavoury
