Eta-Bisong Vs Bar Council Ruling: Both parties claim victory

The High Court of Fako in Buea has finally ruled in the matter filed against the Cameroon Bar Association by Barrister Eta-Besong Junior, pertaining to charges new lawyers have to pay to be sworn-in.

According to the ruling of the Fako High Court, of December 17, presided over by Justice Charles Menyoli, the young lawyers have to contribute FCFA 50,000 each for the swearing-in ceremony. Other charges like the paying of Bar dues till the year 2016, were also lifted hence the new lawyers and their mentors would pay the Bar dues only for 2014.

Following the ruling, the swearing-in of the new lawyers, who recently passed the Bar Exam, that was stalled by the Eta-Besong suit, will proceed.

The ruling was, however, claimed as victory by both parties.

Reacting to the ruling, the Representative of the Bar President, Barrister Charles Njualem observed: “The President of the High Court of Fako, Rt. Hon Justice Menyoli, today, December 17, handed down a fair ruling. Barrister Eta-Bisong, himself a former Bar President, instituted a suit by way of originating summons, wherein he brought several reliefs, pertaining to the decision of the Bar President and his personal Representative, on the swearing-in of successful candidates in the last Bar Exam,” Njualem narrated.

“Eta said the law does not make provision for swearing-in; no money had to have been collected from the applicants. The court ruled that, though not provided by the law, only the persons concerned have the right to sue. That he lacked the locus sue because the applicants are adults; can sue and can be sued. The court said there are traditions, customs, usages that are not contained in any law, but, indeed, are a way of life.”

Njualem said the charges were necessary to take care of things like the public address system, PAS, renting of chairs, entertainment and other items. He said the event was a necessity because it is during such a ceremony that the new lawyers are given advice and guidance and imbibe an academic discourse that would impact on them and their practice.

“That is the only occasion in the whole of their practice where they sit in one place at the same time with parents, family members, friends, colleagues (lawyers) judges, magistrates and so on,” Njualem intimated. He observed that no one candidate supported Eta-Besong.

On what seemed like a more serious note, Njualem stated: “It is the work of Satan, aggravated for its purpose. The mischief is that this is an election period. We can only read into this an attempt at making me, and by extension, the Bar President unpopular for the elections to the Bar Council billed for January 31.

Enter Eta-Besong

Meanwhile, Barrister Eta-Besong, also describing the court ruling as fair, stated in a telephone interview: “I took the lawyers to court because they asked young lawyers who were to be sworn-in to pay what I considered as illegal.

They said I should have filed the matter to the Administrative Court in Yaounde, because, according to them, the Bar is an arm of the administration of Cameroon, since it is under the direct supervision of the Minister of Justice.

“Secondly, they said I had no locus because I am not one of those to practise as a pupil advocate. The court that I had seized, held that the Cameroon Bar Association is not an arm of the administration and that I could bring the action in the Fako High Court, because, I have two people to train and these people are to do their training in my chambers here in Buea, so, I had the right to bring the matter to the Fako High Court. The point made by the court, which the people are now rejoicing about, is that the court said that, after I had filed my action, the President of the Bar - that is the Batonnier - changed the condition that; those who are to train the young people should not pay dues up to 2016, but should pay only up to December 2014. So, the Judge said that this new decision did not affect me.”

The former Bar President continued that: “It is on this basis that he (the Judge) said the substantive matter is dropped out. But all the questions that I asked in the substantive matter were answered, so, I have had what I wanted.

The court had told the Bar to forward the files of these people; that the payments were illegal. To me, it’s a victory. But they had made a mistake in the question of locus standi because, locus standi are at the time you file action and not subsequent to that.

At the time I filed the action, two decisions of the circular of the Batonnier affected me; they now changed it when they saw that I had put the matter in court, that was one of the things that was challenging and they had corrected themselves.

“The people who are going to enter this profession,” Eta-Bisong further stated, “should not be taxed to pay money for entertainment as a condition required for swearing-in, because, there had put it that, ‘if you don’t pay, your file will not be forwarded for swearing-in’. I challenged that, and the court has stated, categorically, that the condition was illegal. They were asking people to pay FCFA 5,000 each for filing in to them [the representative of the Batonnier], which was also illegal. The Bar does not talk about filing in. Cases are filed in court,” Eta-Bisong stated.

In the meantime, some of the young lawyers reacted to the ruling:

Randy Ngoran

I had a worry; the fact that something like this can come to act as a stumbling block to our swearing-in. It is common knowledge that when people meet, they must have a bite and share a drink. FCFA 50,000 is too little an amount for such a grand event.

Melle Melle Didien

The suit has actually delayed the swearing-in ceremony. In every society, association or organisation, there are always customs that guide the activities of members. Contributing to judicial entertainment has been a tradition since time immemorial. We found no problem with it; that is why we paid promptly, so we can be sworn-in. We are happy that the case has been dismissed so that we can have our swearing-in as soon as possible.

Martina A. Azaah

I want to thank Senior Barrister Njualem for fighting on our behalf. I also appreciate Senior Barrister Eta-Besong for his show of concern. But we would like to point out that the action had more negative than positive outcomes, hence the judgment. Senior Counsel ought to have known that it is a tradition among us in the legal field, as in other associations, to come together after an important achievement to celebrate.

And, as he well knows, the Bar does not have provision for such events. It was in the best of our interests for such contributions to be made. The best thing Senior Counsels, who have our interest at heart, can offer us now is to speed up our swearing-in. However, we are very happy that the matter has been dismissed. So, we are looking forward to our swearing-in.

Barrister Stanislaus Ajong, President of Fako Lawyers Association, FAKLA, who led the battery of lawyers that appeared in defence of the Bar Association, observed: “We appreciate the court for the decision it has taken today, so that the authorities that-be can now concentrate on the swearing-in of these young advocates. I have to thank the lawyers who joined me to defend the Bar Association and the Representative of the President of the Bar, Barrister Njualem.

The battery of lawyers that appeared in defence of the Bar Association comprise: Barristers Ajong, Justice Ntoko, Davidson Fih, Benjamin Enow, John Kameni, Peter Nchindia, Nicholas Keme, Michael Awonfon, Rita Taka, Cecilia Tutuwan.