Trend of the Constitutional Council of Cameroon’s Rulings on Electoral Petitions from 2018 To 2023

Abstract

The Constitutional Council of Cameroon, established in 2018, is the highest body that hears electoral petitions arising from presidential, legislative, and senatorial elections. These petitions are formal complaints lodged by candidates and political parties to challenge fraud, irregularities, violations of the electoral code, and candidate ineligibility. This study examines the trend of the Constitutional Council's rulings on electoral petitions from 2018 to 2023, covering the 2018 presidential and senatorial elections, the 2020 legislative elections, and the 2023 senatorial elections. The research is based on an analysis of official data drawn from the Constitutional Council's annual reports and compendiums of rulings, reviewing petitions filed during both pre-electoral and post-electoral phases. Over the five-year period, the Council received 155 petitions and delivered 107 rulings, of which only 19 were favourable to petitioners, 87 were unfavourable, and one was withdrawn. The 2018 electoral year recorded 41 disputes, the 2020 legislative elections saw 96 petitions, and the 2023 senatorial elections had 18 petitions. Most petitions challenged candidate eligibility or sought the cancellation of election results. The main reasons for unfavourable rulings were that petitions were unfounded (42.5%), lacked legal standing (18.5%), were time barred (15%), lacked grounds for appeal (11.5%), or fell outside the Council's jurisdiction (7%). Notably, the 2020 pre-electoral phase saw a higher rate of favourable rulings, mostly benefiting the Social Democratic Front, while the 2023 petitions were entirely unsuccessful. The findings indicate that electoral petitions have been largely unsuccessful, with most petitioners failing to secure favourable outcomes. This trend has generated public scepticism about the fairness and transparency of the adjudication process and raises important questions about whether petitioners face technical and procedural barriers that limit their ability to present effective cases before the Constitutional Council.