A high-profile legal battle has emerged in Cameroon as Barrister Fonka Tomnyuy Mofola filed a robust challenge against a lawsuit brought by his colleague, Barrister Anyang Lewis Forchealah.

This, following a suit that seeks to legally compel the President of the Republic H.E. Paul Biya to declare his assets and convene the Higher Judicial Council. However, Mofola has submitted a detailed amicus curiae brief to the High Court of Fako Division, dismissing the action as “misconceived, incompetent, and inconsequential.”

The primary pillar of Mofola’s challenge rests on territorial jurisdiction. He argues that the High Court of Fako Division is the incorrect forum for such a case, as the President of the Republic resides in Yaoundé. Mofola contends that because neither the cause of action nor the subject matter originated within the Fako Division, the choice of venue is legally untenable and must be addressed before the court even considers the merits of the case.

Beyond geography, Mofola raises significant concerns regarding legal capacity and the naming of the defendant. He points out that while the President holds the position, the specific legal entity responsible for convening the Higher Judicial Council is its “Chair.” By suing the “President of the Republic” instead of the “Chair of the Council,” Mofola argues the application is fundamentally defective and should be dismissed for targeting the wrong legal persona.
Mofola also attacks the procedural foundation of the suit, citing errors in how the action was initiated. Under the civil procedure rules applicable in Anglophone Cameroon, he submits that such substantive applications must be launched via an “Originating Motion” rather than a “Motion on Notice,” which is typically reserved for temporary, interlocutory matters. On this technicality alone, Mofola insists the entire suit “collapses.”

Regarding the substance of the declaration of assets, Mofola argues that the applicant is “putting the cart before the horse.” While the suit demands the implementation of Article 66 of the Constitution, the supporting affidavit admits that the necessary decree to activate this provision has not yet been issued. Mofola contends that the judiciary cannot compel the implementation of a law that lacks the required executive framework to function.
Ultimately, Mofola describes the lawsuit as a “nonstarter and dead on arrival,” urging the court to strike out the majority of the supporting affidavit for containing legal arguments instead of factual statements. This clash now sets the stage for a landmark judicial ruling that will likely define the limits of judicial intervention in executive functions and the strictness of constitutional accountability in Cameroon.