tive. The lack of means of coercion, and of material and financial resources, will further limit their actions. At the time of writing the anti-corruption unit within the ministry of forests had yet to take actions, in spite of widespread corruption in the sector. Two related studies in 2003 by Greenpeace and Forests Monitor and by the British Department for International Development and the IMF indicate the scale of corruption in forestry in Cameroon, as well as extensive tax losses for the state as a consequence. The studies highlight two major groups of offence: illegal exploitation of the forest, in cases where there is no authorisation; and anarchic exploitation, which refers to operations that are authorised, but where there are serious violations, such as uncontrolled logging, the exploitation of trees outside concessions, or inaccurate tax returns. The studies indicated that 41 out of 92 concessions are exploited illegally. One of the studies, which looked at 21 concessions, found that a tax loss of FCFA 59.7 billion (US $115 million) plus FCFA 432 billion (US $834 million) in damages over five years, amounting to around one-quarter of the government’s budget for 2004. Corruption is surely at the root of the persisting illegality. Corrupt foresters use their influence on all those involved in the allocation, exploitation and management of the forests. In consequence, their activities, even when illegal, are legitimised year on year by the small size of penalties, whose payment is negotiable and always open to downwards revision. In April 2004 the ministry of the environment and forests published its annual list of the ‘top ten’ companies in breach of forestry regulations. The publication of the list, which gives a partial view of the financial impact and tax loss suffered by the state through the anarchic exploitation of forests, was part of a package of measures required by the World Bank and IMF to accompany the current structural adjustment programme. Some companies appear on the ‘top ten’ list year after year.
Can the Constitutional Council guarantee electoral transparency? The creation of a Constitutional Council, for which legislation was passed in April 2004 (in accordance with the 1996 constitution), will fill what some observers consider to be a legal vacuum, even though its powers are currently exercised by the supreme court. The council will rule on the constitutionality of laws and on conflicts of powers between state institutions and between central and regional governments. It will also monitor the lawfulness of elections and referenda, and will announce election results. There are doubts, however, as to whether the provisions of the legislation will provide a satisfactory guarantee of the council’s independence. The law provides that the 11 members of the Council (in addition to former presidents) shall be appointed as follows: three by the president, three by the president of the national assembly, three by the president of the senate and two by the judicial service commission. At times when Cameroon’s president is also the president of the judicial service commission and leader of the party in power, and when that party has the majority in parliament, the choice of nearly all council members may be determined by the executive. The potential lack of independence may undermine the council’s credibility. Another factor that might further diminish its credibility is the fact that its offices will be run by a secretary general appointed by the president. The secretary general will play an important role in the council’s functioning. Any lack of neutrality on his part would be bound to have an impact on the effectiveness and independence of the institution as a whole. Even if the council members make a concerted effort to remain independent, the secretary general may become the executive’s Trojan horse within the organisation. If the Constitutional Council’s independence is to be ensured, its enabling legislation needs to be amended.
Country reports CAMEROON
GC2005 02 chap06 123
123
13/1/05 4:34:02 pm