CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013
proceedings against Hope Finance in France. On 2 April 2013, the tribunal de grande
instance (court of major jurisdiction) of Bobigny in France found that it lacked the material
competence to rule on Mr. Kengoum’s petition for the reimbursement of his shares. The
case had been referred to the Paris Commercial Court and is currently under way.
2.6
On 8 May 2013, a second complaint of fraud was lodged by a French company,
Logis SA, relating to non-payment by Hope Santé SA Cameroon, a company of which the
author denies knowledge, which had commissioned it to transport medical materials.
Between 10 and 14 May 2013, three further complaints of fraud were lodged against the
author.1
2.7
During his detention, the author requested, by letter dated 26 July 2013, a proposal
from the Government for reconveyance given its failure to outsource public services
following a challenge to the clause on the exclusive outsourcing of public services set out in
the contract signed on 21 July 2011. On 2 August 2013, the author was informed by the
Ministry of the Economy that the Government wished to terminate the contractual
exclusivity granted to the Hope Group, acquire the DevHope tool with a view to using it
autonomously and independently and negotiate with the author regarding the complete
handover of the platform. The author states that he drew up a proposal on 8 August 2013
under pressure and coercion.2 He claims that the significant financial returns expected from
DevHope to fund development projects in Cameroon are the reason for the legal and media
conspiracy of which he was a victim, so that the Government could seize the technical and
economic resources associated with the project by stripping the author of them.
2.8
On 18 July 2013, the author filed a habeas corpus petition with the President of the
Wouri Douala tribunal de grande instance,3 in which he disputed his arrest, detention in
police custody and pretrial detention as illegal, without, however, referring to the conditions
of his detention or the incidents with other detainees. 4 In its decision dated 18 September
2013, the court rejected the petition, stating that the author’s arrest and detention in police
custody had been in accordance with the regulations governing them, that his custody had
lasted 72 hours, including the extension signed by the public prosecutor, and that his
pretrial detention was justified because he was being prosecuted and did not have an
address in Cameroon. On 18 September 2013, the author lodged an appeal against that
decision with the President of the Court of Appeal, claiming that the Cameroonian courts
were not competent, that his detention was illegal, that the statute of limitations for some of
the offences had expired and that some of the allegations had been incorrectly classified
and related not to criminal matters but to civil and commercial disputes.5 On 8 November
2013, that appeal was rejected. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the tribunal de
1
2
3
4
5
4
The first complaint, lodged by Patrick Mboma, related to shares he had allegedly acquired in Hope
Finance France SAS. The second complaint, lodged by Idriss Carlos Kameni, concerned sums of
money given by him to the author as a loan or capital for Hope Finance, on the pretext of forming a
microfinance company. The third complaint, lodged by Roger Nono, also concerned a loan contract
with Hope Finance France.
The documentation provided shows that a committee was established by the Government in October
2013 to supervise “possible negotiations with the CEO of Hope Finance”; that the possible transfer of
property could take the form of an immediate transfer, lease-purchase or temporary transfer; and that
the Ministry could invite the author to transfer property.
Under article 584, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “The President of the tribunal de
grande instance of the place of arrest or detention of a person, or any other judge of that court
appointed by them, shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for immediate release based on
grounds of illegality of arrest or detention or failure to observe the formalities prescribed by law.”
In his written conclusions of 9 September 2013, the author specifically invoked articles 9, 10, 11 and
12 of the Covenant.
After his appeal, the author again filed additional conclusions on 23 September 2013 and written
conclusions on 7 October 2013.
GE.14-23228 (E)