Individual Corruption

Confidence in the judiciary is very low. According to the Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2010, a large number of Cameroonians perceive the judiciary as being highly corrupt. Magistrates are known to favour their own religious, ethnic, political affiliations and economic interests when pronouncing verdicts. The US Department of State Human Rights report 2010 notes that the judiciary is not independent from political interference and that it is inefficient and corrupt. The report also notes that the enforcement of court orders is frail due to bureaucratic inefficiency.

Business Corruption

It is difficult to enforce commercial contracts in Cameroon. The procedures and time required to enforce contracts are very high in comparison with other countries in the region. According to the US Department of State 2008, a company from the US could not get a court order in its favour enforced due to corruption. The company had to sell its assets at a loss because it could not repossess them. The US Department of State 2011 also reports that Cameroonian partners of foreign companies have at times tried to take over the operations of local companies through frivolous court actions and harassment. The report further notes that foreign companies are frustrated with how slow the legal system deals with their complaints and claim that courts are swayed with bribes and political heavyweight and thus consider judgments against them as fraudulent. According to the report, judicial decisions are enforced with a slow pace and are fraught with legal and administrative obstructions. Magistrates have added to the insecurity in cases like the REMTSA and SIAC-ISENBECK case where they chose to apply national preference instead of strictly abiding by the law. Read more about the REMTSA and SIAC-ISENBECK case here.

Political Corruption

An independent judiciary is guaranteed by Cameroon's constitution; however the US Department of State 2010 reports that the judiciary is subject to influence by the executive and that it is permeated by corruption and inefficiency. According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, the judiciary lacks independence and adequate resources, and is considered in urgent need of reform and anti-corruption policies. The judiciary is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court may only review the constitutionality of law at the President's request. The President appoints all judges together with the Supreme Council of Magistrature. Politically sensitive cases never reach the courts, but are settled through bribes and powerful business and political people are virtually immune from prosecution. Despite this, small signs of growing independence have been noted, as precedent-setting corruption and embezzlement cases have been launched against high-ranking officials during 2006.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- Enforcing of contracts requires 43 procedures, an average of 800 days and costs 46.6% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens, or companies a score of 2.6 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.3 and 3.1 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 4 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- 46.2% of the respondents who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007:
- More than 80% of citizens describe the judiciary as being corrupt.