Western Complicity in Biya’s Long Grip on Power

By Hans Ngala

Paul Biya is as polarizing a figure in Cameroon as he is overseas. The nonagenarian’s lengthy stay in power is well-known but often, most people don’t realize that this is largely enabled by Western governments. Biya took over from French Cameroon’s first president, Ahmadou Ahidjo in 1982. Ahidjo, a Muslim from the North of Cameroon was not as preferred by the French (who continue to meddle in Cameroon’s politics to this day) as Biya was.
Even though Biya is seen as many in Cameroon as totalitarian, he enjoys accolades in European capitals and even in the US – countries that repeatedly champion “democracy” and the need for regular elections. Biya has managed in his nearly 50-decade rule, to abuse all this. He is not by any stretch of the imagination, a democratic ruler. Nothing is known about how much Biya earns for, example or what his numerous trips to Europe are for. Many speculate that he is in frail health and regular travels for treatment overseas, but even this, was deemed an issue of “national security” by interior minister, Paul Atanga Nji who forbade journalists from even discussing Biya’s health.
In February 2018, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) said that Biya’s lengthy stays out of Cameroon from 1993 to that time, amounted to an overall equivalent of about 3 years out of the country, during which he spends taxpayers’ money allegedly on medical treatments and shopping sprees.
The OCCRP added at the time that “According to reporters’ conservative calculations — based on publicly available hotel room prices and a compilation of entourage lists — the total hotel bill of Biya and his colleagues for one stay at Intercontinental, adds up to around $40,000 per day. At that rate, the cost of all of the president’s private trips (1,645 days in total) would add up to about $65 million since he came to power — and that’s not counting food, entertainment, and the rental of a private plane. The president’s office did not comment on this issue.”
Even though Biya clearly lives a lavish lifestyle, preferring to take his holidays in European cities and avoiding Cameroonian towns which have collapsed under his watch, ‘Jeune Afrique’ reported in 2014 that Biya earned a “modest” salary of just 200 Euros (131,000 CFA). While the paper simply cited “official sources”, this figure is greatly at odds with the wealth Biya has to have to be able to fund his numerous international trips. Trips which he never justifies to the Cameroonian public but threatens people with jail time for daring to question his health even. Biya acts precisely like a dictator who wants his actions never to be questioned. People are supposed to simply accept his actions or decrees (which are the way he mainly communicates with them) and a few TV speeches on New Year, 20th May and Youth Day. Biya’s communication with Cameroonians is a one-way traffic – he does the talking, Cameroonians do the listening. He is answerable to absolutely no one. And in the midst of all this, the Western world enables it. Swiss authorities have never barred him from entering the country to spend time at his favourite location at the Intercontinental Hotel nor have they ever questioned him as to how he spends such vast sums on himself, his family and friends, while vast numbers of Cameroonians are in dire poverty.
While a leader like Robert Mugabe was in many ways, very similar to Biya – Biya has managed to avoid the ire of the West by being a lap dog that cozy’s up to the West. He doesn’t have the interest of Cameroonians at heart, looking after himself and his loyalists instead, he doesn’t ever say anything hurtful to France or Britain, Cameroon’s previous colonizers and he never condemns any Western policies, in great contrast to people like Traore and Mugabe who clearly challenge Western narratives of their countries.
Even as Cameroon fractures under Biya, especially with the Anglophone Conflict in the western regions of the country, Biya’s response has not been one of addressing the historical roots, but of ruthless and brutal military repression, serving to further alienate Anglophone citizens. The West has largely stayed out of sight, not even sanctioning Biya’s regime as it did Mugabe for example, emboldening Biya to keep on with his militarization. Separatists have continued to also attack civilians whom they deem to be siding with Biya’s government. Thousands have died and thousands more displaced and millions of schoolchildren have had their education disrupted. Other than isolated condemnations, only the US under President Donald Trump’s first presidency took some actions, announcing in 2017 that it was cutting off some military assistance to Cameroon because of allegations that US military aid meant for Boko Haram, was being diverted to fight Anglophone separatists.
As Cameroon approaches its next presidential election in October 2025, with Paul Biya likely to “win” once again and remain in power until age 99, the urgency for the West to re-evaluate its position has never been greater. Continued Western indifference, or worse, tacit approval of Biya’s authoritarianism, will only deepen Cameroon’s institutional decay, embolden repression, and risk further destabilizing Central Africa.
At 92, Biya no longer commands the vigor to lead a complex nation facing multifaceted crises—from economic stagnation and youth unemployment to the unresolved Anglophone conflict and rising insecurity in the Far North. Yet, inaction from Western nations sends a dangerous message: that democracy, transparency, and good governance are negotiable if a regime is strategically cooperative. This hypocrisy not only erodes the moral authority of countries like France, the UK, and the US but also fuels anti-Western sentiment among disenfranchised African youth who see a double standard. These African youth will increasingly turn to Western rivals like Russia and China if the West keeps on being silent about autocrats like Biya and this will be to the disadvantage of the West as well when they lose all leverage over strategic partners in Africa.
France, in particular, with its entrenched political and economic interests in Cameroon, bears heavy responsibility. Its continued silence—if not outright complicity—offers Biya the legitimacy he craves. French companies continue to profit from Cameroon while Cameroonians suffer under kleptocratic rule. Meanwhile, European leaders routinely shake Biya’s hand at diplomatic functions, ignoring reports of torture, extrajudicial killings, and the collapse of civil liberties.
Western governments cannot continue to claim they support democracy in Africa while enabling gerontocratic regimes that manipulate electoral processes, muzzle dissent, and impoverish their people. If the West wants to be seen as a genuine partner for Africa’s development, it must hold Biya accountable—through targeted sanctions, support for civil society, and real diplomatic pressure for a peaceful transition of power. Silence, at this stage, is complicity.