Yves Michel Fotso case: Supreme Court rejects two appeals

After a long wait Tuesday afternoon, the decision was read out by one of the Vice Presidents of the collegiate of the Supreme Court.

After exhausting some cases on the docket of the day, the case on Camair Liquidation with trial No. 3 and 4 was called. The President of the Court then informed the parties the content of the docket on the matter. He soon informed the audience that the case will be tried in the Council Chamber.

Meanwhile, only interested persons stayed in the room including Yves Michel Fotso, his fourfold lawyers, counsel for the plaintiff (State of Cameroon and Camair Liquidation).

The debates took place in 'closed' doors. The rest of the audience waited out of the court for hours. It was around 15:00GMT that the doors of the Supreme court was open and then the President declared: "The Court having deliberated in accordance with the law, collegially and unanimously 'declares the appeal inadmissible'. This will be included in the 3rd and 4th cases."

The High Court had to take its decision in two separate cases although the common denominator is the case on 'Liquidation of Camair'. The initial procedure had, along the way, suffered a disjunction. The Public Prosecutor designated roles 'MP and State of Cameroon / Camair Liquidation (part 1) and (Part 2).

Both procedures were literally and figuratively carried out on the same facts, namely, management of the defunct Camair by the former director and CEO Yves-Michel Fotso.

Why blame him? We will cite, among others, the sale of two Camair aircrafts, rentals 'leasing' aircrafts, the management of the wreck of the Combi 747 which crashed on the runway of the airport Roissy Charles de Gaulle in Paris.

While expressing his innocence to all the facts, he had begun payment. But his desire to return the money was significantly blocked by the banning of all accounts in dozen banks by the investigating judge of the SCC in September 2013.

The Former Adg remained stoic during the delivery of the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court directed, according to law, the return of the case to square one.

The court had pronounced the stayed proceedings in both cases and repeated the procedure in which both collegialities had stopped.