Introduction
The expression “high instructions” is one of the widely used phrases in public discourse in Cameroon. Used by both political authorities and citizens, the latter often use it to ironically criticize certain decisions emanating from the upper echelons of the State. According to Prof. Mathias Eric Owona Nguini, senior lecturer of law and political science across public universities in Cameroon, “high instructions are orders or commands that emanate from the presidential authority which allow [the latter] to specify the guidelines it prescribes to resolve a given situation” (1). These directives, although attributed to the President of the Republic, are generally not issued directly by him but “relayed” by institutional intermediaries, notably the Secretary General of the Presidency of the Republic (2). This mediation in the transmission of decisions largely explains the controversies and confusion that frequently accompany events where the invocation of “high instructions” serves as a justification for public action. This practice raises fundamental questions about its legality in a democratic society on issues of political hegemony fuelled by anticipated succession struggles and conflicts of interest within strategic public institutions, such as the Cameroon Football Federation (FECAFOOT).
In trying to understand the roots of the practice of high instructions, which became widely used around 2011, when many began to realize the aging nature of the president and his inability to manage state affairs, it is important to establish the internal degeneration of the state apparatus as a result of poor governance mechanisms, of which high instruction is a principal element.
The use of “high instructions” as a decision-making method appears paradoxical, even problematic, in a system that aspires to be more transparent with participatory governance. This vertical decision-making mechanism profoundly questions the dynamics of power circulation between political and administrative elites, while raising concerns about the legitimacy and credibility of some major political decisions. The opacity that often characterizes the genesis of these instructions and their implementation contrasts with contemporary demands for government accountability. This policy brief aims to examine, through a few emblematic cases, the implications (in other words, impact) of “high instructions” and the impact on Cameroon’s institutions and democracy. It aims to analyze how this mode of decision-making, which sometimes bypasses established institutional channels, affects the effectiveness of public policies and citizens’ perception of state legitimacy.
I-High Instructions in Cameroon: Anatomy of a Paradoxical Mode of Governance
In Cameroon, governance by “Very High Instructions” elicits mostly negative reactions. Yet, this form of delegation is based on the Constitution of January 18, 1996, which, in Article 10 (2), provides that “The President of the Republic may delegate certain of his powers to the Prime Minister, other members of the Government, and certain senior officials of the State administration, within the framework of their respective responsibilities.” Most of those who have been given the opportunity by delegation have on many occasions abused it, or used it for private gains and to demonstrate private power rather than for the good of the nation as it was intended.
How can it be understood that the use of this legal provision has always been the subject of criticism both within the Cameroonian population and the political and administrative establishment? Among the cases that have made this expression more famous is the case between the Ministry of Sports and Physical Education (MINSEP) and FECAFOOT. In 2024, while Cameroonian football was rife with strong dissension caused by the players’ overall performance and the record of the then-coach, the MINSEP announced the appointment of Belgian Marc Brys as the new national team coach based on “high instructions from the Presidency of the Republic”(3)
This directive followed the President’s speech at the 58th anniversary celebration of National Youth Day, in which he clearly stated that he had given clear instructions to ministers in his government, particularly to MINSEP (4). Despite this, the directive relayed by the said minister was strongly challenged by the president of FECAFOOT, who stated that he had not been consulted in the selection and approval of the new coach.
Another example is the case of the Directorate General of Taxes (DGI) and businessman Jean-Pierre Amougou Belinga, head of the Anecdote group. The latter was entangled in a major tax fraud scandal against the backdrop of a political battle in 2022 (5). During the tax recovery procedure, the sum of which was estimated at 11 billion FCFA, the magistrates declared that “seven tax agents attempted to defraud him of the sum of 500 million FCFA to cancel his debt” (6). The latter, including the regional head of the tax center in the Center, were filmed by the accused and then placed in preventive detention. Following “high instructions received by telephone,” the Minister of Justice was ordered to ensure the release of the regional head of the tax center (7).
Although the accuse and her co-defendants were ultimately tried on the charges of “extortion,” “active corruption,” and “influence peddling,” among others, to varying degrees, the attempt to free her via the “high instructions” highlighted influence peddling at the top of the State. Amongst the many other examples, these two main cases highlight the excesses of delegated governance in Cameroon. “High instructions” have indeed become a sort of gateway, where all forms of decisions, even the most incoherent, are passed through with a view to pursuing the political agenda.
Minister Paul Atanga Nji, Minister of Territorial Administration, in many occasions has justified his actions on the concept of ‘high instructions’ which has equally been greatly criticised.
Some Cameroonian media houses have referred to “high instructions” as “true-false instructions” (8) because, according to them, not all instructions come from the President of the Republic, but are a reflection of the use of a political position to manipulate and exploit decisions and people.
- II) Consequences of High Instructions on Cameroon’s Political Ecosystem
“High instructions” in Cameroon’s political ecosystem, as discussed, refers to the practice of receiving directives or guidance from superior authorities, often informal or unofficial, formal or official, that supersede formal laws, regulations, or institutional procedures. These instructions can come from powerful individuals like the President of the Republic or networks/institutions that wield significant political influence over governance and decision-making processes.
As far as the practice is concerned, it has several consequences towards effective public administration and good governance (9). The examples highlighted above demonstrate some of the loopholes that come with high instructions, specifically at the Cameroon public administration, which directly has a bearing on the governance ecosystem.
There is no single day that the Cameroon media –the radio, the television, and newspapers will not carry articles on the practice of high instructions which indirectly trample on the concept of good governance in public administration. This situation escalated in Cameroon between 2022 to 2024. The tussle between the Cameroon Football Federation (FECAFOOT) and the Ministry of Sports and Physical Education (MINSEP) exposes the weakness and negative effects of high instructions in Cameroon.
The practice of high instructions has several negative effects on good governance and public administration in Cameroon, ranging from but not limited to;
- Undermining institutional frameworks: High instructions can bypass formal institutions and procedures, eroding their effectiveness and legitimacy(11).
- Promoting impunity: Those who receive high instructions may feel above the law, leading to impunity and a lack of accountability for their actions.
- Distorting decision-making: High instructions can lead to decisions that prioritize the interests of powerful individuals or groups over the public good.
- Fostering corruption: High instructions can facilitate corrupt practices, such as embezzlement, nepotism, and cronyism(12).
- Weakening transparency and accountability: The informal nature of high- instructions can make it difficult to track decision-making processes and hold individuals accountable for their actions.
These effects have far-reaching consequences, such as poor service delivery. The prioritization of personal or special interests over the public good can lead to inadequate service delivery and poor outcomes for citizens, more so, eroding trust. The perception that high instructions undermine the rule of law and institutional frameworks can erode trust in government and institutions. Finally, High instructions can create a breeding ground for inequality and injustice where some individuals are favoured over others(13).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The political landscape of Cameroon is characterized by fragmentation, a situation that can be partly traced back to its complex colonial history. This fragmentation has been exacerbated by the diverse array of ethnic groups present in the nation. The inherent ethnic diversity was further complicated by the colonial legacy, which not only established a bi-cultural framework that is common law and civil law, but also left behind governance structures that were marked by clientelism. These inherited systems have intensified ethnic divisions, complicating the state’s development across various sectors and thereby promoting nepotism, tribalism, and clan-based affiliation. This was not the situation before independence. Before the colonial era of Britain and France (mandated territory), Cameroon operated under the German system of administration (protectorate) where the locals were used to manage the affairs of the territory.
To promote good governance and mitigate the negative effects of high instructions on Cameroon’s political ecosystem, the following are recommended;
- Strengthen institutional frameworks: Enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of formal institutions and procedures.
- Promote transparency and accountability: Increase transparency in decision-making processes and hold individuals accountable for their actions.
- Foster a culture of meritocracy: Prioritize merit-based decision-making and promote a culture of professionalism and integrity in public service.
Dr. Pippie Hugues
Dr. Pippie Hugues is a Policy Analyst at the Governance and Democracy Division of the Nkafu Policy Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in International Law with specialty in Human Rights, Conflict and Peace building.
Aboudi Vanessa is a Policy Analyst in the Democracy and Governance Division of the Nkafu Policy Institute. She holds a Master's degree in Political Science from the University of Yaoundé II and is particularly interested in governance and gender issues. She is the author and co-author of several articles published in national and international journals.
