Cameroon’s judicial council renewal: a step forward or another delay?

The Council of the Judiciary in Cameroon has been dormant for nearly six years, leaving hundreds of cases unresolved. On June 2, 2026, President Paul Biya issued a decree renewing its members, but the move raises pressing questions about whether this will revive the institution’s long-stalled operations.

Six years of inaction

The Council of the Judiciary, the constitutional body responsible for overseeing judges’ careers, promotions, disciplinary actions, and appointments, has been effectively paralyzed since 2020. No meetings have been held, no decisions made, and no sessions convened during this period.

Magistrates have waited years for career advancements. Promotions have stalled. Disciplinary cases have remained unresolved. The institution, once tasked with safeguarding judicial independence, has been reduced to a bureaucratic shell.

Then, on June 2, 2026, President Paul Biya signed a decree renewing its members. Formally, the Council exists again. But does a decree alone breathe life back into an institution that has been dormant for half a decade?

Renewal with limited change

The decree partially renews the Council’s membership, with ten out of fourteen titular members retained. The most notable change is the replacement of Ali Mamouda by Goni Mariam, who moves from a substitute to a titular role. Among the substitutes, four new appointees—Alioum Fadil, Donald Malomba Esembe, Sockeng Roger, and Sali Dairou—have been added, while four others exited the council.

While the renewal aims to maintain stability and continuity, it offers no clear signal of reform. Crucially, the decree remains silent on when the Council will reconvene or how it plans to address the backlog of pending cases.

The CSM’s constitutional role

The Council of the Judiciary, chaired by the President, is tasked with ensuring the independence of Cameroon’s judiciary by overseeing magistrates’ careers, promotions, and disciplinary actions. However, its prolonged inactivity has undermined this mandate.

Before 2020, the Council held sessions regularly. Since then, it has been effectively dormant, with no clear explanation for its breakdown. The expiration of members’ mandates in 2025 without immediate renewal only deepened the institutional void.

A timeline of decline

2020: The last significant sessions took place before the global health crisis.

2021–2024: Cases piled up—promotions, appointments, disciplinary proceedings—all left in limbo. Magistrates waited years for decisions on their careers.

2025: Members’ mandates expired without renewal, leaving the Council in a legal and administrative limbo.

June 2, 2026: The decree was signed. The Council’s composition changed marginally, but the backlog remains untouched.

The decree’s unspoken gaps

The renewal of members is an administrative necessity, but it reveals as much as it conceals. What it does not address is more critical:

• No date has been set for the next session.
• No mechanism has been outlined to process the accumulated cases.
• No guarantee has been given to prevent a repeat of this paralysis.

Without these assurances, the decree risks being little more than a symbolic gesture.

Broader implications for judicial governance

This episode highlights a systemic issue in Cameroon’s governance: the dependency of key institutions on the executive’s will to function. When an institution chaired by the President ceases to meet, it is not a technical failure—it is a choice with far-reaching consequences.

Years of stalled careers and unresolved cases have eroded public trust in the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary cannot be ensured by an institution that operates intermittently or at the executive’s discretion.

What comes next?

The June 2026 renewal is a necessary step, acknowledging that the status quo could not persist indefinitely. However, it is only the beginning.

Magistrates, litigants, and independent observers are not waiting for a decree—they are waiting for action. They demand:

• Immediate sessions to address the backlog.
• Timely processing of promotions and disciplinary cases.
• A clear, transparent roadmap to restore the Council’s functionality.

The true test of this renewal will not be the publication of the decree in the Official Journal, but the date of the Council’s next meeting. Until then, the judiciary’s independence remains more promise than reality.