In Cameroon, the efficacy of parliamentary sessions has become a significant concern for journalist Guibai Gatama. He critically examines whether the National Assembly can truly fulfill its constitutional mandate with only three ordinary sessions, each lasting merely 30 days annually.
Gatama raises pointed questions regarding the operational framework of Cameroon’s National Assembly. He asserts that the existing parliamentary schedule, which restricts legislative activity to just three ordinary 30-day sessions each year, severely impedes deputies from effectively executing their vital functions: government oversight, legislative voting, and representing the citizenry.
He further emphasizes that, in practice, plenary sittings often condense into approximately fifteen days per session. This translates to a mere month and a half of actual legislative work over an entire year. Gatama deems this duration utterly inadequate given the multifaceted political, economic, and social challenges presently confronting Cameroon.
To bolster his argument, Guibai Gatama draws parallels with several other African nations. He specifically highlights examples like Chad, Senegal, and Côte d’Ivoire, where parliamentary sessions typically span eight to nine months annually. Furthermore, he points to Nigeria, whose parliament remains operational for nearly the entire year, showcasing a stark contrast to Cameroon’s model.
Journalist advocates for a genuine debate on Cameroon’s parliamentary session length
Perceiving the National Assembly as “living on the fringes of the Nation,” the founder of L’Œil du Sahel newspaper urges a comprehensive discussion on the optimal length of parliamentary sessions. In his view, a significant reform of the legislative calendar would substantially enhance the oversight of public actions, streamline the review of legal texts, and foster a stronger connection between governmental institutions and the daily concerns of Cameroonian citizens.
