International arrest warrant against Tchiroma: the serious irregularities that embarrass Yaoundé
Young Africa reveals the many flaws in the arrest warrant issued by Cameroon against Issa Tchiroma Bakary. Inconsistent dates, lack of signatures and non-compliance with international standards: Interpol Nigeria rejected the Cameroonian application.
In a case that turned diplomatically embarrassing for Yaoundé, Jeune Afrique had access to confidential documents revealing the serious irregularities in the international arrest warrant that was supposed to allow the extradition of Issa Tchiroma Bakary. According to proprietary information obtained by the pan-African magazine, Interpol Nigeria has identified multiple anomalies that invalidate the procedure launched by Cameroon.
The first notification sent by the Cameroonian authorities to the Nigerian National Intelligence Agency simply did not include any convincing documents, reveals Jeune Afrique in a note she was able to consult. A major procedural deficiency that immediately alerted the Nigerian services to the seriousness of the Cameroonian approach.
Faced with this first failure, Yaoundé transmitted a second document presented as a proper arrest warrant. But according to the revelations of Jeune Afrique, the in-depth examination of this document by Interpol Nigeria has uncovered several prohibitive irregularities. The magazine lists these anomalies: inconsistency of dates, absence of signatures and official stamps, and non-compliance with international standards in terms of arrest warrants.
These formal flaws, far from being insignificant, raise questions about the preparation and legal rigour of the Cameroonian services in this sensitive case. Interpol Nigeria, therefore, concluded that no valid notice had been received, thus depriving Cameroon of any legal basis to demand the arrest of its most media opponent.
Even more surprising, Young Africa reveals a contradiction in the official Cameroonian discourse. While Yaoundé claims to have drafted a formal extradition request, the authorities admit that they have never forwarded it to the relevant Nigerian authorities. This ubuesque situation raises many questions: is it administrative negligence, a political calculation or an inability to produce a legally solid file?
This series of procedural messes considerably weakens Cameroon’s position in this diplomatic tug-of-war. It also gives strong legal arguments to Nigeria to justify its refusal to cooperate in the arrest of Tchiroma Bakary, while allowing Abuja to hide behind purely technical considerations rather than openly assuming a political choice.
Beyond the Tchiroma Bakary case, these revelations of Jeune Afrique highlight the weaknesses of the Cameroonian judicial and security apparatus in the handling of sensitive political affairs. They could also encourage other opponents in exile to consider that the threats of international prosecutions brandished by Yaoundé are not as formidable as they seem, since the proceedings are marred by such flagrant irregularities.
