The Role of Judiciary (Judges) in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Cameroon: A Critical Analysis

The ratification and domestication of international human rights instruments are used as indices to determine a state's commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. The judge as part of the judiciary is one of the stakeholders to fulfil this task. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, everyone has a role to play in the realisation of human rights. Everyone should respect the role of those who work for the protection of human rights, through an independent judiciary, who are impartial, neutral, and independent in the promotion and protection of human rights. Article 37(3) of the Cameroonian constitution of 1996 as amended provides for the independence of the judge which constitutes part of the judiciary. This is to the effect that the President of the Republic shall guarantee the independence of the Judiciary. He shall appoint members of the bench and the legal department. Nevertheless, judges are partially independent in their role in the promotion and protection of human rights. This raises issues such as contradiction, inconsistency, and difficulties for the judges to play in the promotion and protection of human rights. This article is based on the hypothetical premise that the role of the judges in the promotion and protection of human rights in Cameroon is ineffective. It seeks to examine the effectiveness of the role of judges in the promotion and protection of human rights. Adopting the Doctrinal and comparative research method, the paper concludes that under article 37(3) of the constitution, judges are partially independent in their role in the promotion and protection of human rights. It is submitted that the provision of Article 37(3) should be revisited to ensure the independence of the judiciary and judges in particular in the promotion and protection of human rights. In addition, the judiciary must undergo a paradigm shift from complacent and disturbing judicial inertia to judicial activism.