Cameroon's Issa Tchiroma Bakary quits 'broken' government to challenge Paul Biya for president
Issa Tchiroma Bakary - a prominent minister and long-time ally of President Paul Biya - has quit Cameroon's government, in the hope of ending 92-year-old Biya's four-decade grip on power in upcoming elections.Just four months before the central African nation goes to the polls, Bakary says the Biya administration he was part of has "broken" public trust and he is switching to a rival political party."A country cannot exist in the service of one man," Tchiroma said on Wednesday.While he was communications minister, Bakary notably came under fire for denying - then backtracking on his denial - that Cameroonian soldiers had killed women and children in a viral video verified by BBC Africa Eye.
His other roles during almost two decades in government include being a spokesman for the Biya government and, until his resignation on Tuesday, he was employment minister.Paul Biya - the world's oldest head of state - has yet to confirm if he will stand for president a seventh time. Last year, the country banned reports on the president's health following rumours that he had died.As this election approaches, high unemployment and soaring living costs are of concern to many Cameroonians, as are corruption and security. A separatist insurgency in the English-speaking provinces as well as jihadists operating in the northernmost region have forced many thousands of Cameroonians from their homes in the past decade.Cracks in Bakary's relationship with President Biya were blown open earlier this month, when he told crowds in his home city of Garoua that Biya's time in power had not benefitted them in any way.Bakary continued this criticism in a 24-page manifesto released a day after his resignation, promising to dismantle the "the old system" so that Cameroon could move beyond "abuse, contempt, and the confiscation of power".One of his proposed solutions is federalism - he is offering to hold a referendum on devolving more power to Cameroon's 10 provinces. This has long been mooted by many as a solution to the country's so-called Anglophone crisis.Specifically addressing English-speaking Cameroonians, he said "you do not need people to speak for you - you need to be listened to" and that "centralisation has failed".Bakary also used his manifesto to say Cameroon "has been ruled for decades by the same vision, the same system. This model, long presented as a safeguard of stability, has gradually stifled progress, paralysed our institutions, and broken the bond of trust between the state and its citizens".As the October presidential election approaches, rights groups have condemned the government's crackdown on dissent.Shortly after Bakary announced his plans to run for the presidency, the government reportedly announced a ban on all political activities by his Cameroon National Salvation Front (CNSF) party in a sub-district of the Far North region - a part of the country where he is said to be an influential power-broker.Weeks earlier, fellow presidential hopeful Maurice Kamto had his movements curtailed during a two-day police stakeout in Douala, after promising supporters at a rally in Paris that he would protect Biya and his family if he wins in October.Parliamentary elections that were also supposed to take place earlier this year have been delayed until 2026.Reaction to Bakary's presidential bid has been mixed - some think he is canny."By positioning himself as the elder statesman who 'saw the fire coming', Tchiroma is hedging that his break with Biya will be seen as bold - not opportunistic," Cameroonian analyst and broadcaster Jules Domshe told the BBC."From economic fallout to youth unemployment, insecurity, and growing unrest in the North-West, South-West, and Far North [regions], Cameroon is ripe for change."Opposition voices are divided - some want Bakary to support Kamto, who was the runner-up in 2018 with 14% of votes. But others say Bakary is tainted by his long association with Biya."He cannot embody change... He was part of the system for too long. The youth do not trust him," says Abdoulaye Harissou, a legal notary and prominent critic once detained by the government.Another member of the opposition - Jean Michel Nintcheu of the APC coalition - simply said: "We don't see Tchiroma as a potential winner."
More BBC stories on Cameroon:
'Nowhere is safe' - Cameroonians trapped between separatists and soldiersArt curator Koyo Kouoh dies at height of careerThe lawyer risking everything to defend LGBT rightsPaul Biya: Cameroon's 'absentee president'
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Labour's rebel MPs are rubbish at maths
This evening, Labour MPs will have to decide whether to support the Government in a Second Reading debate. This would not normally be a moment of much significance. Big rebellions happen later in the legislative process. Not since April 1986 and an attempt to liberalise Sunday trading laws, has a Bill being defeated at Second Reading, whether in form of a 'reasoned amendment' being passed or otherwise. It is a record that would have been broken with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill, until the Government announced a series of concessions late last week. Scores of Labour MPs had signed a 'reasoned amendment' that would have wrecked the Bill, which sought to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of disability benefits. In an attempt to salvage some of the savings, the Government conceded that those currently receiving benefits will not see their benefits cut. The less generous regime will apply to new claimants only, reducing savings by £3bn a year. A rebellion is still expected tonight, but the Bill should survive. It has, however, been a deeply uncomfortable time for the Government. The scale of the rebellion appears to have taken the Government by surprise, which reflects very badly on its political operation. Keir Starmer has been accused of being out of touch with his Parliamentary party; Rachel Reeves is portrayed as being politically tin-eared and insensitive; Morgan McSweeney is described as arrogant. Just as commentators write their assessment of Starmer's first year in office, the Prime Minister is forced into making humiliating concessions. There is plenty of blame to be distributed over this shambles, and the lion's share of it will go to Starmer, Reeves and McSweeney. There is a lack of a clear and convincing explanation for what the Government is doing. The argument that this is all about encouraging work is unconvincing when talking about Personal Independence Payments paid to those in-work. But the narrative that this is all about plucky MPs defeating heartless Ministers deserves to be challenged. The starting point is that the cost of health benefits for those of working age is rising at an extraordinary rate. Adjusting for inflation, this cost was projected to rise from £36bn in 2019/20 to £66bn in 2029/30. To put this in context, the cost of the increase (£30bn) is not far short of the budgets of the Home Office (excluding asylum costs) and the Ministry of Justice combined. The increase in cost (and the increase in the number of people saying they are unfit for work) is not happening at a time when there is a commensurate deterioration in the health of the working-age population according to the leading health surveys. What is driving the increase in claims for health-related benefits (and, presumably, people claiming to be unfit for work) is the gap in generosity between the value of those benefits compared to unemployment benefits and the lack of stringency in accessing those benefits. If we want to reduce the numbers claiming health related benefits, the options are to spend more on health (expensive, and there appears to be no clear relationship between waiting times and increases in health related benefit claims), increase unemployment benefits (unpopular and also expensive), reduce health related benefits, and make the requirements to access to these benefits more stringent. The Government is perfectly entitled to ask its critics how they would address the issue. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe What is not an option is to ignore it. Or, to be more exact, to ignore it without acknowledging that taxes will have to rise to pay for it. It is a familiar theme in these columns that the public finances are in a parlous state and that we are vulnerable to the bond markets moving against us. We are not prevented from spending more on welfare by the rigidity of Reeves' fiscal rules or McSweeney's desire to appeal to Reform voters but by fiscal reality. It is not a reality that the Labour rebels appear to be willing to accept. For 14 years, Labour activists had the luxury of blaming every tough and unpopular decision on the callousness of the Tories. It was a lengthy holiday from responsibility, which enabled them to ignore the inconvenient truth that the global financial crisis had made us poorer than we thought we were. Unless and until economic growth returned, whoever was in government was going to continue to make tough and unpopular decisions. To be fair to Starmer and Reeves, there was some attempt to persuade their party and the country of the situation, albeit unaccompanied by specific policies and tempered by unwarranted optimism that higher economic growth would result from a change in government. Perhaps Labour MPs never believed the rhetoric about tough choices. They are certainly not prepared to make them over welfare matters (see also winter fuel payments). They are likely to be in for a shock in the autumn when, contrary to their manifesto commitments, Labour may well be forced to put up one or more of the big taxes (and no, wealth taxes won't raise the money that is needed). If Labour MPs are worried about poll ratings now, wait until the winter. This rebellion has diminished the Prime Minister, left the public finances vulnerable to a bond market reaction, made higher taxes all but inevitable and left the Labour Party looking ungovernable. For all the talk of rebellious backbench Labour MPs holding their heads up high, this breakdown in discipline is no way to convince the country to give the party a second chance. [See also: Rachel Reeves must fear bond market vigilantes] Related
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Celebrities call for UK Government not to ban Palestine Action
On Sunday, from Glastonbury's Other Stage, singer-songwriter Nadine Shah read out a statement against the UK Government's decision to ban campaign group Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has published a draft order which would the group as terrorist organisations in the UK, meaning supporting or joining them could lead to up to 14 years in jail. READ MORE: Labour accused of 'breath-taking hypocrisy' over English oil refinery rescue In an open letter, leading artists including musicians Paul Weller, Massive Attack's Robert del Naja, Brian Eno and US artist Reggie Watts have joined Shah Actors Steve Coogan and Billy Howle are among those signing the statement which states: 'Palestine Action is intervening to stop a genocide. It is acting to save life.' Writers including Kamila Shamsie, Laline Paull and Pankaj Mishra have also signed, and said: 'Labelling non-violent direct action as 'terrorism' is an abuse of language and an attack on democracy.' They are joined by visual artists Jeremy Deller and Florence Peake, comedians Boyle, Francesca Martinez and Tez Ilyas. The open letter concludes: 'The real threat to the life of the nation comes not from Palestine Action but from Home Secretary Yvonne Cooper's efforts to ban it'. READ MORE: Protesters target Wimbledon over Barclays sponsorship links to Israeli arms firms In addition to the joint statement, Brian Eno said: 'On the one hand, 60,000 dead. On the other, a splash of paint on a plane. Which one are you most troubled by?' Poet Alice Oswald commented: 'Thank goodness for those who break minor laws in an attempt to uphold law itself". A spokesperson for Artists for Palestine UK said: 'Never before has a decision like this been challenged so immediately by artists and so widely across the country. If the Government persists with this ban, it will face anger and opposition on a massive scale.' The artists' statement in full "Palestine Action is intervening to stop a genocide. It is acting to save life. We deplore the government's decision to proscribe it. Labelling non-violent direct action as 'terrorism' is an abuse of language and an attack on democracy. "The real threat to the life of the nation comes not from Palestine Action but from the home secretary's efforts to ban it. We call on the government to withdraw its proscription of Palestine Action and to stop arming Israel."
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Cabinet minister urges MPs to back welfare Bill as rebellion looms
A Cabinet minister has urged Labour MPs to back the Government's welfare Bill in a crunch vote as Sir Keir Starmer continues to face a major rebellion despite making concessions to disgruntled backbenchers. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds warned that retreating entirely from the reforms would mean losing the chance to 'make any changes for the better whatsoever' and undermining 'public support'. Ministers hope a partial U-turn on the benefit cuts, which will protect existing claimants of personal independence payments (Pip) and the health element of universal credit, are enough to win over Labour rebels. But ahead of the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill's second reading in the Commons on Tuesday evening, some 39 backbenchers signed an amendment rejecting the legislation. That number is far lower than the 83 needed to overturn the Prime Minister's majority, but leading rebel Rachel Maskell has warned 'many more' have told her they still plan to vote against the Government's plans. 'I'd ask (colleagues) to support the Government on that basis, because clearly what we've got here is something which is better than the existing system,' Mr Reynolds told Sky News on Tuesday morning. Asked whether MPs would lose the whip for voting against the Government, he said he was 'not aware of anything like that' but 'those issues are for the chief whip'. To see off the threat of far greater rebellion, the Government last week softened the impact of its changes to protect some 370,000 existing Pip claimants who had been set to lose out following reassessment. It also committed to a review of the system, involving disabled people and led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms, and unfreezing the higher UC rate for those already claiming the health-related element. But critics have argued the concessions risk creating a 'three-tier' system of disparity between existing and new claimants, as well as any future changes that emerge as a result of the Timms review. Facing questions from broadcasters on Tuesday morning, Mr Reynolds insisted it was 'entirely normal' for existing entitlements to be 'grandfathered' during major changes to the welfare system. 'There are people in the UK getting severe disablement allowance. That closed to new entrants in 2001. So this is quite common,' he said. He added: 'If people think Governments will dodge difficult issues, spend a lot of money even on outcomes they don't think are very good, and the public don't support, and if that chance to reform the system is seen to have been lost entirely, that undermines public support.' Speaking to BBC Breakfast, the minister warned: 'If we were to completely retreat from this, I think we would lose the chance to make any changes for the better whatsoever.' Some 126 Labour MPs had previously signed a 'reasoned amendment' proposed by Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier that would have stopped the legislation if approved. The Government looks set to have averted a revolt on that scale after watering down its reforms following a series of crisis talks with leading rebels last week, but backbench anger continues to simmer. York Central MP Rachel Maskell said that many more backbenchers than the 39 who put their names to her amendment had told her they plan to reject the Government's package of reforms. She said she had no fear in voting down the Bill and felt a 'moral duty' to 'speak up for' disabled people. 'Yes, I support getting disabled people into work where they've been discriminated and dismissed, of course that's important, but when those people can't work or need longer to prepare for work, it is vital we don't remove their lifeline,' she said. 'Or else they'll disappear further and further into the margins.'
