Delineating International Cooperation in the Fight against Cybercrime in Cameroon
Keywords:
Cybercrime, Cooperation, Extradition, Internet, Mutual judicial assistanceAbstract
The emergence of novel technologies and their increasing usage has significantly changed how things are done in modern society. While this is beneficial, it has also facilitated the global commission of modern crimes, such as cybercrimes, through electronic means. This new wave of criminal activity poses severe threats to the global community and has undermined the sovereignty of nations. At present, it is imperative for the global economy to acknowledge the impact of Cybercrime. It is evident that Cybercrime has increased security risks for critical infrastructures, resulting in massive privacy invasions and attacks on businesses and state security. As technology evolves and the world becomes more interconnected, preventing cybercrimes is becoming increasingly challenging. To address these challenges, there is a need for a well-coordinated and collective effort from governments worldwide. In line with this, the Cameroonian government has taken significant steps through the 2010 law on Cybersecurity and Cyber criminality (hereafter referred to as Cyber Law) to promote cooperation with other nations in combating the spread of Cybercrime in Cameroon. However, despite these efforts, the widespread nature of these offences continues to hinder government initiatives. This paper is aimed at assessing the efficiency of the measures taken by the Cameroonian Government to enhance international cooperation in combating cybercrime.
References
[ ] G. K. Muhammad, A. Nawaz and A. Robina. “Digital Revolution, Cyber Crime and Cyber Legislation: A Challenge to Governments in Developing Counties”. Journal of Information Engineering and Application, Vol 4(4), p.61, 2014
[ ] A.S. Michael. “The Critical Challenges from International High-tech and Computer-related Crime at the Millennium”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 9 (451), pp 451, 451, 1997.
[ ] C.I Ana, J. Lopez and P. Ahmed. “International Cooperation to Fight Transnational Cybercrime” In Proceedings of the International 2nd Annual Workshop on Digital Forensics & Incident Analysis, Samos Greece, August 27, 2007, p2.
[ ] A. S. Michael. ‘The Critical Challenges from International High-Tech and Computer-Related Crime at the Millennium’ (n 2), pp 451,489.
[ ] F. Spiezia. “International cooperation and protection of victims in cyberspace: welcoming Protocol II to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime”.ERA Forum, Vol. 23(1), pp 101–108, 2022.
[ ] W. Susan. et al. “Approaches to cybercrime jurisdiction”. Journal of. High Technology law, Vol. 4(1), p1, 2004.
[ ] Joachim Vogel. “Towards a Global Convention against Cybercrime”. First World Conference on Penal law in Guadalajara, Mexico, p4, 18-23 November 2007.
[ ] Article 19(1) of the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union 1981.
[ ] Ibid, article 34(1).
[ ] Article 28 of the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection.
[ ] States like Cameroon, Nigeria, South Africa and a host of others are not party to the convention. See full list at <https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/29560-sl AFRICAN_UNION_CONVENTION_ON_CYBER_SECURITY_AND_PERSONAL_ATA_PROTECTION.pdf> Accessed April 24th 2023.
[ ] A. Harriette and A. P. Samuel. “Extradition within the CEMAC Sub Region: Prospects and Perspectives”. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD), Vol. 3(6), pp 566,575, 2019.
[ ] C. Robert, H. Friman, et al. An Introduction to International law and Procedure (2nd Edt, Cambridge University Press, 2010) p343.
[ ] M. N. Sirohi. Cyber Terrorism and Information Warfare, (New Delhi: Alpha Editions, 2015), p23.
[ ] Section 90(1)(2) of the cyber law.
[ ] U. O Jerome. “The African Union Convention on Cybersecurity: A Regional Response Towards Cyber Stability?” Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 12 N0 2, pp 90-129, 2018.
[ ] See, Darnell v. Equity LifeIns. Co.'s Receivers, 179 Ky. 465, 200 S.W. 967,970. Cooperation is also defined as “the voluntary coordinated action of two or more States which takes place under a legal regime and serves a specific objective”: Rüdiger Wolfrum, International Law of Cooperation, in MAX PLANCK ENCYC. PUB. INT’L L. ¶ 2 (Apr. 2010)
[ ] Article 2(1) of Act No. 4342 of March. 8, 1991, as Amended by Act No. 11690 of March 23, 2013 on International Judicial Mutual Assistance in Civil Matters.
[ ] See Part IV of the cyber law.
[ ] European Commission webpage <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/mutual-legal-assistance-and-extradition_en> Accessed September 28th 2022.
[ ] K. Gerhard. “Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and the Risk of Abuse of Process: A Human Rights Perspective”. South African Journal of Law, Vol. 123 No4, pp 730-734, 2006.
[ ] N. A. Patricia, “Mutual Legal Assistance in Cyber Crimes: Issues and Challenges for Cameroon’s Laws”. Commonwealth law review journal, Vol. 5, pp 391, 398, 2019.
[ ] UN Office of Drugs and Crimes, “Country review report on Cameroon” Review cycle 2010-2015, United Nations publication, Vienna, p10.
[ ] Elaborated in the Vienna based United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Division for Treaty Affairs, Treaty and Legal Affairs Branch (UNODC/DTA/TLAB) in accordance with General Assembly resolution 53/112 of 9 December 1998. Earlier drafts of the model law were reviewed in two Expert Group Meetings on the Elaboration of Model Legislation on Mutual Legal Assistance, organized by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in cooperation with the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences (ISISC), and hosted by ISISC in Syracuse, Italy, on 30 November-3 December 2004 and 28-29 November 2005 respectively. UNODC also held two informal expert group meetings in March and November 2021 to update the Model Law on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (2007) to include materials on the use of special investigative techniques and the gathering of electronic evidence, including the abuse and exploitation of minors in illegal activities with the use of the Internet. The new model law came into force in May 11 2022. Available at; <https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CCPCJ/CCPCJ_Sessions/CCPCJ_31/CRP/E_CN15_2022_CRP6_e_V2202980.pdf> Accessed September 4th 2023
[ ] Ibid, section 9(2).
[ ] Ibid, section 9(3).
[ ] Section 91(1) and (2) of the Cyber Law.
[ ] N. A. Patricia. “Mutual Legal Assistance in Cyber Matters: Issues and Challenges for Cameroonian laws”, (n 22), pp 391-411.
[ ] UN Office of Drugs and Crimes. “Country review report on Cameroon” Review cycle 2010-2015, United Nations publication, Vienna, p12.
[ ] Section 651 of the 2005 Criminal Procedure Code. [Hereafter referred to as the CPC]
[ ] Ibid, section 91(3). The appropriate authority in the case of Cameroon would be the State Counsel or Examining Magistrate with territorial jurisdiction.
[ ] Ibid, section 92(7).
[ ] Ibid, section 92(1).
[ ] Ibid, section 93(1).
[ ] Ibid, section 93(2).
[ ] Ibid, section 93(3).
[ ] A. Anthony, Handbook of international law. Cambridge University Press, 2005, p264. Also, see section 635 of the CPC.
[ ] See C. Robert, H. Friman, et al. An Introduction to International law and Procedure (n 13) p 92. See G. Griffith and C. Harris. “Recent Developments in the Law of Extradition”. Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 6 No1, pp33-54, May 2005. Also, see B. Matthew. “A Comparative Analysis of the United States’ Response to Extradition Requests from China”. The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, pp 177,186, 2008. However, if courts were to supervise the integrity of the judicial system of other sovereign nation to ensure human rights are observed, such acts would conflict with the “principle of comity” see Jhirad v. Ferrandina US Court of Appeals 12.4.1976 para. 22; 536 F.2d 478.
[ ] P. Michael. “‘Surrender’ in the context of the International Criminal Court and the European Union”. Nouvelles études pénales, Vol. 19, p 465, 2004.
[ ] G. Gilbert, Transnational Fugitive offenders in international law, Vol. 55, Kluwer Law International, 1998, p7.
[ ] R. Thomas. “A Delicate Balance: Extradition, Sovereignty, and Individual Rights in the United States and Canada”. Yale Journal of International law, Vol. 27 , pp 193, 214, 2002.
[ ] Extradition Act 67 of 1962.
[ ] Extradition Act (Modification) Order, 2014 & the Federal High Court (Extradition Procedure) Rules, 2015.
[ ] UN Office of Drugs and Crimes. “Country review report on Cameroon” Review cycle 2010-2015, United Nations publication, Vienna, pp10-11. Also, see the case of Ebong Aloysius Tilong v The United State, cited at US Department of Justice website. Available at <https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fugitive-extradited-cameroon-united-states-serve-80-year-prison-sentence> Accessed January 18th 2023.
[ ] CEMAC extradition agreement available at <http://www.droit-afrique.com/upload/doc/cemac/CEMAC-Accord-2004-extradition.pdf> Accessed January 18th 2023.
[ ] Section 644 of the CPC. Also, see C Robert, H. Friman, et al, An Introduction to International law and Procedure (n 13), p 92. Relating to the denier of extradition request on grounds of human rights purposes.
[ ] This condition is in conformity with the principles of dual criminality under international law.
[ ] Section 642(1)(a) of the CPC.
[ ] Ibid, section 642(1)(b).
[ ] Ibid, section 642(2)(a).
[ ] Ibid, section 642(2)(b).
[ ] Section 6 of Extradition Act, 1966.
[ ] Section 650(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the CPC.
[ ] Ibid, section 651.
[ ] Ibid, section 18(2).
[ ] A. N. Patricia. “Mutual Legal Assistance in Cyber Matters: Issues and Challenges for Cameroonian laws”. (n 22), 405.
[ ] Section 653(1) of the CPC.
[ ] Ibid, section 652(2).
[ ] Ibid, section 654.
[ ] Ibid, section 655.
[ ] Ibid, section 656.
[ ] Ibid, section 657(1).
[ ] Ibid, section 657(2).
[ ] Section 659(1) of the CPC.
[ ] Ibid, section 659(2).
[ ] Ibid, section 660(1).
[ ] Ibid, section 659(3).
[ ] Ibid, section 666.
[ ] Ibid, section 664.
[ ] "General Secretariat". Accessed March 15th 2023.
[ ] The 71st INTERPOL General Assembly, 21-24 October 2002, Yaoundé, Cameroon available at Accessed March 15th 2023.
[ ] INTERPOL Database available at <https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Databases> Accessed June 3rd 2023.
[ ] Section 2 of Interpol Constitution 1956 as amended in 2022.
[ ] INTERPOL Notice cited at <https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/About-Notices> Accessed June 3rd 2023.
[ ] Suit No. FHC/L/229C/2008.
[ ] Section 90(1) of the cyber law.
[ ] Presentation of ANTIC, available at <https://www.antic.cm/index.php/en/the-agency/presentation.html> Accessed March 11 2023.
[ ] Antic’s partnership agreements available at <https://web.antic.cm/antic.cm/index.php/en/component/k2/item/67-antic-and-cto-sign-partnership-agreement> Accessed March 11th 2023.
[ ] E. Rogers. The Legal Response by Cameroon and Regional Communities to Cybercrime, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing; Illustrated edition, February 13, 2015, p1.
[ ] See African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection status list available at https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/29560-sl-AFRICAN_UNION_CONVENTION_ON_CYBER_SECURITY_AND_PERSONAL_DATA_PROTECTION.pdf Accessed September 15 2023
[ ] A. N. Patricia “Mutual Legal Assistance in Cyber Matters: Issues and Challenges for Cameroonian laws”. (n 22), p 399.
[ ] Section 90(2) of the Cyber law.
[ ] According to article 35 of the Convention, States shall benefit from network of practitioners which is simply a 24/7 network of contact point which provides immediate assistance for the purpose of cybercrime investigations, proceedings or the collection of electronic evidence in other jurisdictions. Also, the second Additional Protocol has, inter alia, lay down means through which authorities of member nations can directly cooperate with private entities of other states to receive domain registration information or subscriber data. It also allows a member state to obtain testimony of experts and witnesses who are located in other jurisdiction and initiate joint investigation teams via videoconferencing.
[ ] The commission have the locus standi to enter into agreement with other states to help carry investigations, supply technical resources, help train, and equip experts of other nations to better fight cybercrime in their country.
[ ] Section 90(1) of the cyber law.
[ ] A. N. Patricia. “Mutual Legal Assistance in Cyber Matters: Issues and Challenges for Cameroonian laws”, (n 22), at, 409.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Kwei Haliday Nyingchia, Clinton Atabongakeng Fobellah, Elvin Fuwain Ndiwum
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit papers with this journal agree to the following terms.
