On June 15, 2026, Cameroon’s political landscape was shaken by the announcement of Issa Tchiroma Bakary, former minister and candidate in the October 12, 2025 presidential election, who filed two complaints at the Paris judicial court. Relying on the principle of universal jurisdiction, he targets President Paul Biya and about twenty senior officials, including the presidential secretary‑general Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh. The move, made from his exile in The Gambia, marks a legal escalation of the opposition beyond national borders.
The two cases allege serious human‑rights violations. Tchiroma first denounces the crackdown on protests that followed the 2025 presidential election, claiming security forces responded with disproportionate violence. He also asserts that several thousand Cameroonians remain incarcerated in various prisons across the country, under conditions he describes as “illegal” and contrary to fundamental rights. No precise figure is provided, but the term “several thousand” reflects the perceived scale of the problem.
The former minister, now based in The Gambia, has long held key posts within the government, giving him intimate knowledge of the state’s inner workings. His exile, imposed after the presidential campaign, has not prevented him from remaining a central opposition figure. By filing the complaints in Paris, he is betting on the French judiciary’s ability to exercise universal jurisdiction—a mechanism rarely invoked against African heads of state, but one that could pave the way for an independent inquiry.
Legally, universal jurisdiction allows a state’s courts to try serious crimes even when the acts occurred abroad and the perpetrators are not nationals of the prosecuting country. France has already exercised this power in cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Opening dossiers against Paul Biya and his close associates could therefore set a precedent, but it also risks heightening diplomatic tensions between Yaoundé and Paris, which are already fragile over migration and economic issues.
For Cameroonians, both at home and abroad, the procedure sends a dual signal. On one hand, it shows the opposition is turning to international institutions to advance its claims, bypassing domestic judicial avenues often seen as biased. On the other, it reminds Cameroonian authorities that their actions are being scrutinized beyond the country’s borders, and alleged violations could be subjected to public examination. Media coverage and human‑rights organizations’ monitoring of these complaints will be crucial to gauge their real impact.
Developments remain to be watched. If the French courts accept to examine the cases, an investigation could be launched, with potential repercussions for bilateral relations and for the dynamics of the internal opposition. Meanwhile, the Cameroonian community, especially the diaspora, remains attentive, hoping the judicial route can provide an alternative to street protests and accusations of repression. The next chapter of this affair will depend on the Parisian judges’ decision and the opposition’s ability to marshal solid evidence.
