The Civic Voice

27/09/2026

MBONG ASKS #24
WHEN CULTURE MEETS POWER, DO WE SEE DIFFERENCE OR DIGNITY?
A photograph can capture a facial expression, but it cannot tell us everything that is happening in someone’s mind.
In this striking moment, a traditional African cultural expression appears alongside the Israeli Prime Minister, , in a formal international setting. His expression may be interpreted as curious, surprised, or even uncomfortable—but ultimately, only he knows what he was thinking.
Yet the picture raises a bigger question about how we respond to people, cultures and traditions that are different from our own.
What can we learn?
• Different does not mean inferior.
• Curiosity should open the door to understanding, not ridicule.
• Culture and tradition are expressions of identity and dignity.
• Religious and cultural diversity deserves respect.
• True leadership requires humility when encountering people who are different from us.
We may not dress alike, speak alike, worship alike or share the same traditions. But can we still recognise our common humanity?
Perhaps that is the real lesson.
Mbong Asks: When we encounter a culture different from ours, do we approach it with curiosity, respect—or judgment?

23/09/2026

MBONG ASKS #21

AN INVESTIGATION… OR A GOVERNMENT BLACK HOLE?
In Cameroon, we have apparently perfected a new administrative art:
ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION → CALM THE PUBLIC → WAIT → SAY NOTHING.
When allegations of sexual abuse involving little Joyce Nawal shook Yaoundé in May, public anger exploded. Authorities came to the school. Ministers were present. The population demanded answers.
An investigation was announced.
And then?
SILENCE.
The public was told that investigations would establish the truth. But months later, where are the findings? What was established? What was disproved? Were there institutional failures? Was anyone held accountable?
To be clear: an investigation must respect due process and the presumption of innocence. But transparency does not mean publicly convicting anyone. Transparency means telling the public what was investigated, what was established, what remains unresolved, and what action was taken.
Now another heartbreaking incident in a school in Douala has once again raised questions about the safety of children entrusted to educational institutions—and the public is again asking for investigations and answers.
So here is the uncomfortable question:
WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF OPENING AN INVESTIGATION IF ITS CONCLUSION IS DESTINED TO DISAPPEAR INTO THE SAME DRAWER WHERE GOVERNMENT PROMISES GO TO RETIRE?
😂 Perhaps we need a new category in our administrative vocabulary:
“INVESTIGATION OPENED.”
“FINDINGS: COMING SOON.”
“SOON: UNDEFINED.”
But these are not missing files.
THEY ARE CHILDREN.
Parents deserve answers. Teachers deserve clarity. Schools deserve accountability where responsibility is established. And children deserve an environment where their safety is treated as seriously as their education.
An investigation is not a press conference.
It is not a public-relations fire extinguisher.
And it certainly should not be the final chapter of a scandal.
If the investigation is complete, publish.
If it is not complete, tell the public why.
If responsibility is established, act.
If allegations are unfounded, say so.
Because when the State promises to investigate and then goes silent, the unanswered questions become an investigation of their own.
MBONG ASKS:
👉 Are our investigations designed to discover the truth—or merely to temporarily calm public anger?

15/09/2026

CAMEROON, INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS AND THE BILLIONS WE KEEP PAYING: WHO IS WATCHING?
Every time Cameroon is condemned to pay huge sums because of an alleged wrongful breach of an international contract, I cannot help asking one uncomfortable question:
What exactly are the Legal Cells in our Ministries doing?
Are they properly staffed with competent lawyers?
Do they actually review contracts before the State signs them?
Do they monitor contractual obligations after signature?
Do they warn Ministers when the State is about to breach its commitments?
And when the State loses an international dispute, who is held professionally or administratively accountable?
A Legal Cell should not be a decorative office whose opinion is sought only when trouble has already arrived.
International contracts are not ordinary pieces of paper. They create legal obligations, financial liabilities and sometimes expose the State to international arbitration. One poorly drafted clause, one missed deadline, one ignored contractual obligation or one legally defective decision can cost taxpayers billions.
So when the State is ordered to pay enormous compensation, the public deserves more than the announcement of the judgment.
What happened?
Was there legal advice before the contract was signed?
Was that advice followed?
Was there a warning that was ignored?
Was the breach avoidable?
Who made the decision that exposed the State to liability?
And what measures were taken to ensure that the same mistake does not happen again?
This is not about blaming lawyers for every adverse judgment. Governments can legitimately lose cases. But repeated and costly contractual disputes should trigger institutional introspection.
Cameroon cannot continue operating on the principle that the taxpayer pays while nobody answers.
Perhaps Parliament, the Audit Bench, the relevant ministries and other oversight institutions should periodically examine major international contractual disputes involving the State and ask a simple question:
Could this liability have been prevented by proper legal due diligence?
If the answer is yes, then we have a bigger problem than the judgment itself.
We have a governance problem.
And perhaps it is time to stop treating Government Legal Cells as mere administrative accessories and start treating them as what they should be:
the State’s first line of legal defence—not a post-mortem service after billions have already been lost.

14/09/2026

09/09/2026

🔥 CAMEROON CANNOT KEEP COUNTING DEAD WOMEN!
Another 18-year-old woman is reportedly dead in Yaoundé, allegedly killed yesterday.
Another young life gone.
Another family devastated.
Another funeral.
And, very likely, another official expression of shock and condemnation.
But Cameroon does not need another press statement. Cameroon needs action.
The BBC has raised the alarm over the unprecedented surge in femicide in Cameroon. The government can no longer pretend that these are merely isolated criminal cases.
When women are repeatedly killed because they are women, something is fundamentally wrong with the systems designed to protect them.
Where is the national emergency response?
Where is the urgent review of our laws?
Where are the properly funded protection mechanisms for women who report threats, domestic violence, stalking and abuse?
Where is the specialised police and prosecutorial response?
And where is the political leadership?
Government cannot demand that citizens respect the law while allowing a culture of impunity to flourish around violence against women.
A woman's life cannot become important only after she has been murdered.
We need urgent reforms:
⚖️ Recognise and specifically address femicide in our criminal justice framework.
🚔 Create specialised mechanisms for investigating and prosecuting gender-based killings.
🛡️ Protect women BEFORE they become victims—not merely investigate their deaths afterwards.
📊 Establish a national femicide observatory and publish credible statistics.
🏛️ Make prevention of violence against women a measurable government policy priority, with funding and accountability.
👩🏾‍⚖️ Ensure swift prosecution and severe, proportionate punishment for perpetrators.
But here is the uncomfortable question government must answer:
If the state knows that women are increasingly being murdered and still fails to fundamentally strengthen prevention, protection and prosecution, at what point does political inaction itself become part ofpart of the problem?
Cameroon has no shortage of laws, institutions, seminars and official declarations.
What we lack is urgency.
The next victim must not become another statistic that briefly dominates social media before the country moves on.
🇨🇲 Mr. Government, this is your wake-up call.
DO SOMETHING BEFORE WE HAVE TO COUNT ANOTHER DEAD WOMAN.

28/08/2026

WHEN HELPING FAMILY TURNS INTO A NIGHTMARE…
I have been sitting quietly and asking myself a painful question:
Is there still safety in helping raise a sibling’s child who is not your biological child?
Years ago, when I wasn't even a lawyer, I brought my elder brother's son to Yaoundé so he could go to school and learn French.
Seven months later, tragedy struck.
While crossing a makeshift plank bridge over a fast-flowing drainage channel at Ekounou, he accidentally fell into the ditch and died.
But the real shock came afterwards.
I was accused by my own people of using the child for sacrifice to become a millionaire.
Can you imagine?
You open your home to help a child, tragedy happens, and suddenly you become the suspect in the eyes of those closest to you.
Now, the disturbing tragedy reported at Nkoabang brings those memories back.
I am not suggesting that we stop helping our nephews, nieces and vulnerable relatives.
But perhaps we need to start asking harder questions about trust, guardianship, accountability and child protection within extended families.
Because sometimes, the person who takes a child in to give them a better life may unknowingly expose themselves—and the child—to risks nobody anticipated.
Would you take your sibling's child into your home today?
And if you did, what safeguards would you put in place to protect both the child and yourself?
Let's talk about this honestly.

08/08/2026

⚖️ THE CIVIC LEGAL EDITORIAL
WHEN POWER MEETS THE LAW: WHO IS REALLY ACCOUNTABLE?
Power is attractive.
It gives people authority. It opens doors. It commands attention. Sometimes, it even creates the dangerous illusion that the person holding power has become untouchable.
But democracy asks a different question:
Who watches those who exercise power?
A citizen who violates the law may be arrested, prosecuted and punished.
But what happens when the alleged violation comes from someone sitting behind a government desk, wearing an official uniform, signing an administrative order, controlling public resources or exercising institutional authority?
Does the title provide immunity?
Does political influence replace legality?
Does public office become a shield against accountability?
It should not.
The principle of the rule of law is brutally simple: power must operate within legal limits.
Public authority is not private property. A public office is not a personal kingdom. And governmental power is not a blank cheque.
Every exercise of public power should invite legitimate questions:
🔹 What is the legal basis for this decision?
🔹 Was the power exercised for a legitimate purpose?
🔹 Were citizens' rights respected?
🔹 Was the decision proportionate and reasonable?
🔹 Can the decision-maker be called to account?
These questions are not acts of rebellion.
They are the very questions that keep democracy alive.
The greatest danger to the rule of law is not always the absence of laws.
Sometimes, it is the existence of laws that are selectively applied.
When ordinary citizens are expected to obey the law while those exercising public authority are treated as though they stand above it, something fundamental begins to break.
And when citizens stop believing that the law applies equally to everyone, the problem becomes bigger than one official, one institution or one controversial decision.
It becomes a crisis of public trust.
A functioning democracy therefore needs more than powerful institutions.
It needs accountable institutions.
It needs officials who understand that authority comes with responsibility.
It needs citizens who know that questioning power is not necessarily disrespecting authority.
And it needs lawyers, journalists, civil society and democratic institutions willing to ask uncomfortable questions when the circumstances demand them.
Because the real test of the rule of law is not whether the powerless can be punished.
The real test is whether the powerful can be held accountable.
So, here is today's Civic Legal Question:
⚖️ WHEN POWER MEETS THE LAW, WHO IS REALLY ACCOUNTABLE?
Is it the citizen?
The official?
The institution?
The political system?
Or ultimately, all of us who allow power to operate without scrutiny?
THE CIVIC VOICE
Informing Citizens, Transforming Communities
⚖️ Law | 🕊️ Human Rights | 🏛️ Democracy | 🔎 Accountability
What is your view?

06/08/2026

A SIMPLE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW FOR DEMOCRACY
Imagine a company employing a Chief Executive for a fixed term. The contract is clear: lead, supervise, communicate, and be accountable.
Now imagine that the CEO disappears from the workplace for an extended period. Employees hardly see or hear from him. The company keeps issuing memos bearing his signature, but there is no explanation about his prolonged absence.
If an ordinary employee abandoned his duty post for weeks or months without authorization or a satisfactory explanation, what would happen?
Would Human Resources applaud his dedication?
Would the Board simply say, "As long as documents are signed, everything is fine"?
Or would dismissal for abandonment of duty become a legitimate question?
Democracy teaches us that public office is not a throne; it is a contract of service between the people and those they elect or appoint. A mandate is not ownership of a nation. It is a temporary responsibility entrusted by citizens.
If accountability is expected from the teacher, the nurse, the magistrate, the police officer, and the ordinary civil servant, should those occupying the highest public offices be held to a lower standard?
Perhaps the real question is this: Can a nation be governed by signatures alone, or does leadership also require presence, communication, and accountability?
Just asking for a civic conversation.