The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Mr. Dieudonné Ambassa Zang, a former member of the National Assembly of Cameroon, and to the resolution it adopted at its 194th session (March 2014),

Taking into account the letter dated 14 March 2014 from the Minister Delegate to the Office of the President in charge of the Supreme State Audit Office (CONSUPE), President of the Budget and Finance Disciplinary Council (CDBF), and the information regularly provided the complainant,

Recalling the following information on file:

• Mr. Ambassa Zang, Minister of Public Works from August 2002 to December 2004 and known, according to the complainant, for having fought corruption within that ministry, was elected in 2007 on the ticket of the Cameroon People’s Democratic Rally;

• On 7 August 2009, the National Assembly Bureau lifted Mr. Ambassa Zang’s parliamentary immunity to permit an investigation into allegations of misappropriation of the public funds managed by him when he was Minister of Public Works; although Mr. Ambassa Zang left Cameroon on 12 July 2009, he had a defence note sent on 3 August 2009 to all members of the Bureau; there is no indication that the note was included in the file before the Bureau;

• According to the authorities, the charges laid against Mr. Ambassa Zang stem from audits prompted by a complaint by the French Development Agency (AFD), the funding source for the rehabilitation of the Wouri Bridge, works for which Mr. Ambassa Zang was responsible; according to the Prosecutor General, State companies, ministries and other State structures managing public funds are subject to annual audits by the CONSUPE; according to the complainant, Mr. Ambassa Zang was never informed about the audits, invited to contribute to the audit process, informed of the conclusions or invited to comment on them;

• On the basis of the audits, the Head of State first opted for criminal proceedings on a charge of misappropriation of public funds; on his orders, a decision was  signed on 12 October 2012 also bringing the accusations against Mr. Ambassa Zang before the CDBF, before which, unlike in a criminal procedure, defendants can be represented in their absence by legal counsel; it would seem that the decision was notified to Mr. Ambassa Zang’s counsel in May 2013, or nearly seven months after it was signed, without any explanation; on 20 August 2013, Mr. Ambassa Zang received a partial request for information from the CDBF rapporteur, to which he responded in two defence memoranda; more than two months later, the CDBF rapporteur sent, according to the complainant in violation of the CDBF rules of procedure, a second partial request for information, to which Mr. Ambassa Zang responded on 13 December 2013 with another defence memorandum; according to the complainant, the CDBF rapporteur has also broken the rules of procedure by formulating accusations in addition to those mentioned in the audits,

• The CDBF’s rules of procedure strictly comply with the general principles of the presumption of innocence and the right of defence, notably the right to be informed, the right to be assisted by a lawyer or counsel, and the right to adversarial proceedings. He added that “However, should one or several new incidents arising from the rapporteur’s investigations be closely connected to the presumed offences on the basis of which the respondent was brought before the CDBF, the rapporteur is authorized, in accordance with consistent case-law, to take them into account in his examination of the case. This principle is at all times limited to the management period considered by the audit;”

• “It must be remembered that the rapporteur, in examining the evidence both for and against the respondent, is called on to conduct additional investigations (article 15(2) of the above-mentioned decree) that may result in the following suggestions: (i) requalification of the misdeed; (ii) re-assessment of the financial damage (up or down); (iii) re-assessment of the allegations. Moreover, and by virtue of the connectivity mentioned earlier, the rapporteur can justifiably incorporate new incidents into the examination, even though that is not currently the case at this stage of the proceedings. The criterion of connectivity is, moreover, the main limit to the principle of the fixed nature of the charges;

• “It is not possible to establish a timetable for winding up the proceedings because how long they last depends not only on the complexity of the case but also on the rapidity with which the various people contracted by the rapporteur (the respondent, witnesses, others) reply to the requests for information they have received.” He states that “in this case, the difficulties encountered by the rapporteur stem chiefly from the absence of the respondent and the fact that it is therefore impossible to reach him, and from the extensions requested by his counsel to reply to the requests for information and the incomplete nature of the replies provided. Moreover, he states that “the defence would be well advised to contact the CDBF Permanent Secretariat with a view to consulting, on site and as provided for in the regulations, all the documents in the case,”

Considering that with regard to the criminal procedure against Mr. Ambassa Zang, the Prosecutor General of the Special Criminal Court deferred him and four other defendants to that court by an Order (Ordonnance de renvoi devant le Tribunal criminal spécial) dated 9 June 2014; recalling in this regard that, on 11 June 2013, more than two years later after the police had completed their investigation, the Prosecutor General of the Special Criminal Court filed charges before the examining judge of that court, directed against 15 persons, including Mr. Ambassa Zang,

Considering that Mr. Simon Foreman, (partner, Courrégé Foreman law office and lawyer at the Paris Bar), was mandated to attend and report on the hearing which took place in this case before the Special Criminal Court on 17 September 2014; in his report, he mentions that “It is worth stressing that the examining judge’s order seizing the court and presenting the charges against the accused mentions no sign whatsoever of personal enrichment on behalf of Mr. Ambassa Zang. Many of the accusations against him relate to the fact that the auditors found no justifying documents for various budgetary expenses, for which he could not account. Given that ministers do not normally leave office taking accounting documents with them, much of Mr. Ambassa Zang’s defence arguments rely on the suggestion that such documents might be found, for instance, in the archives of the Ministry of Public Works or the Ministry of Finance. In any event, his inability to provide detailed justification for expenses that occurred 10 to 12 years’ ago (2002-2004) does not amount to evidence of criminal misappropriation. In the absence of criminal intent, it should at the most qualify as mismanagement, possibly resulting in disciplinary proceedings. In reading the examining judge’s order, I found no mention of any sign of criminal intent, let alone personal enrichment,”

Recalling the complainant’s affirmation that Mr. Ambassa Zang, who enjoys official refugee status abroad, cannot at present return to Cameroon because he would be arrested and not enjoy a fair trial,

Recalling that, according to the complainant, the prosecution of Mr. Ambassa Zang must be seen in the context of “Opération Épervier” (Operation Casting Net), which was widely criticized as a campaign originally intended to combat corruption and misappropriation of public funds, but instead used to purge critically-minded public figures who, like Mr. Ambassa Zang, expressed views not always in line with those of their party,

1. Thanks the Minister Delegate to the Office of the President in charge of the Supreme State Audit Office (CONSUPE), President of the Budget and Finance Disciplinary Council (CBDF), for his detailed reply and the valuable information contained therein;

2. Thanks the trial observer for his efforts and for producing his report; thanks the parliamentary authorities for their full cooperation in facilitating his mission; requests the Secretary General to convey a copy of the report to the relevant authorities and the complainants and any other parties concerned and to seek their observations;

3. Is concerned that criminal proceedings against Mr. Ambassa Zang have been re-activated given that he is not allowed to be represented in his absence by legal counsel and given the lack of clarity as to how the facts of which he is a accused amount to a criminal offence; is also concerned about the possibility that two simultaneous procedures regarding the same facts may lead to contradictory outcomes; is eager to receive the authorities’ observations on each of those matters;

4. Trusts, in light of the explanations provided and commitment expressed by the Minister Delegate to the Office of the President in charge of the CONSUPE, President of the CDBF, that the rules of procedure are scrupulously followed and that Mr. Ambassa Zang’s right to defence is fully respected in the disciplinary proceedings;

5. Trusts that the CDBF will continue to advance with the examination of Mr. Ambassa Zang’s case as a matter of urgency, given that 10 years have elapsed since the alleged events and that Mr. Ambassa Zang and his legal counsel have produced extensive replies to refute the allegations; wishes to kept informed of the next steps in the disciplinary proceedings;

6. Trusts also that the CDBF will take due account of the arguments presented in Mr. Ambassa Zang’s defence, including the arbitral award of the International Chamber of Commerce in UDECTO v. State of Cameroon, as well as of any documents available in the archives of the Ministry of Public Works and other official entities that may shed light on the accusations; suggests that the State of Cameroon seriously explore the possibility of obtaining, through a formal request for assistance, the information the AFD has at its disposal that could help shed further light on the case;

7. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the relevant authorities, the complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;

8. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.

---

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 131st Assembly and related meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union" in PDF format (file size 1026 Kb). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEIPU ASSEMBLYMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS