The 'Trumping Effect' of Anti-Terrorism Legislations: The case of Cameroon

The study examines the trumping effects of the Cameroon 2014 anti-terrorism legislation. It interrogates and appraised the law on the suppression of acts of terrorism, showing how the law has been evoked to arrest, trial, and detain journalists, peaceful protesters, and Cameroon anglophone activists. With the threat of terrorism and the advent of anti-terrorism legislation in Cameroon, are press freedom, freedom of expression, journalistic safety, and the public’s right to peaceful protests as guaranteed by the constitution respected?

Main Findings

Regardless of whether peaceful protests against the government policy of assimilation are legal or not, it is a subject of public interest and one that is hotly debated in society (Cameroon), and this observation alone obliges governments to exercise restraint in interfering with it. The case law discussed above demonstrates that the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and the right to assembly, including the right to take part in non-violent direct action, are well recognized in international law. Restrictions may apply, in the interest of public order, safety, etc. but these should be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society, be proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued, and should consider the significant role of freedom of expression and peaceful protests in a democratic society. It is the responsibility of each government to respect the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly or protest and to justify any restriction on it. Government statements that falsely equate the lawful exercise of these rights with “acts of terrorism, hostility against the country, secession, revolution, propagation of false news, collective rebellion, group rebellion, collective resistance” should be condemned. Not only do such false allegations constitute a violation of Article 17 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the right to remain free of any unlawful attack by the government on one’s honor and reputation, but they also undermine the activities of the person or organization concerned, endangering the further exercise of freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. It thus has a dangerous chilling effect.

Policy recommendations/implications

The above concerns point to the need for reforms of the existing laws on the suppression of acts of terrorism and the need for states to reconcile a suitable balance in this new context between protecting the human rights of its citizens as potential victims of terrorism and protecting the human rights of alleged terrorist