Monday, February 10, 2025

Unveiling Tomorrow's Cameroon Through Today's News

Breaking

In recent weeks, the relationship between FECAFOOT (Cameroonian Football Federation) and MINSEP (Ministry of Sports and Physical Education) has been under intense scrutiny. The debate centers around the autonomy of sports federations and the extent of governmental oversight.

In his detailed legal opinion, Professor ABA'A OYONO, an esteemed scholar in Constitutional Law, delves into the intricacies of this issue, highlighting the importance of legal precedence and the principles of an orderly state.

The foundation of Professor OYONO’s argument is rooted in the concept of the **Rule of Law**—a cornerstone for maintaining societal stability. The Professor emphasizes that the foremost right provided by the Cameroonian Constitution is **legal security**. This principle ensures that all citizens are protected by a predictable and transparent legal system, free from arbitrary decisions.

In the context of FECAFOOT and MINSEP, Professor OYONO explains that the government, under the 2018 law, decided to relinquish direct control over football management, transferring this responsibility to FECAFOOT. This is not an isolated case; it mirrors the arrangement with other sports federations in the country. According to OYONO, this transition represents a shift from a **regie system**—where the state manages the service directly—to a more autonomous framework, where a private entity, like FECAFOOT, administers the service under certain public mandates.

However, the scholar argues that the **hierarchy of legal norms** must be respected. In this instance, any decrees or conventions below the law cannot override the established legal framework. The state’s role should be **residual**, limited to oversight rather than direct control, ensuring compliance without overstepping its bounds. This subtle form of oversight is distinct from a hierarchical relationship where one party is subordinate to the other. FECAFOOT, in this arrangement, maintains a degree of independence, and any overreach by MINSEP could be challenged through administrative courts.

Professor OYONO also highlights the necessity of resorting to legal channels when disputes arise, lamenting the absence of early legal action to curb what he describes as the state’s **phagocytic tendencies**—a metaphor for its encroaching control over FECAFOOT. The absence of such legal interventions, he argues, has led to the current predicament, where FECAFOOT’s administrative and financial autonomy is at risk.

The crux of the matter, according to OYONO, is that if the state wishes to reclaim full control over football, it should revoke FECAFOOT’s authorization and manage the sport directly. However, this would have significant repercussions on the international stage. FIFA, the global governing body of football, strictly interacts with national federations, not governments. Such a move could lead to Cameroon’s exclusion from international competitions, a consequence the nation can hardly afford.

Finally, the Professor reflects on the broader implications of centralizing power in Cameroon. He critiques the tendency of the political system to concentrate authority in a single entity, often at the expense of established legal norms. This concentration of power, he asserts, is at the root of many of the country’s challenges.

In conclusion, Professor ABA'A OYONO's legal opinion serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of upholding the Rule of Law in all spheres, including sports. His analysis underscores the need for clear boundaries between state oversight and institutional autonomy, warning of the dangers of overreach and the potential fallout on both the national and international stages.