Editorial: Biya’s Unending "Brief Private Stay": Can We Have a Parliament That Works?

 

           Cameroon’s National Assembly 

When President Paul Biya left Cameroon on June 7, the Presidency announced that he was travelling to Europe for a "brief private stay." Nearly two months later, Cameroonians are still waiting for an official explanation about why the Head of State remains abroad and when he intends to return.

During this period, government officials have repeatedly assured the nation that the President is in good health and continues to perform his duties. The Presidency has dismissed reports that he was hospitalised, while senior ministers have insisted there is no leadership vacuum.

Yet one important institution has remained conspicuously silent: Parliament.

In any functioning democracy, Parliament is not simply a law-making body. It is also expected to hold the Executive accountable on behalf of the people. Members of Parliament represent citizens, not the government. When legitimate public questions arise, Parliament has both the right and the responsibility to seek answers.

Today, many Cameroonians are asking simple questions. Where exactly is the President? Why has a "brief private stay" lasted for so long? What is his state of health? Is he able to fully discharge the demanding responsibilities of the office he occupies?

These are not disrespectful questions. They are questions of public accountability.

Across many democratic countries, the health of a Head of State or Government is treated as a matter of public interest because it can directly affect governance and national stability.

In the United States, presidential medical reports are routinely released to the public. When former President Joe Biden underwent medical examinations, official summaries were published. President Donald Trump also released updates on his health during his presidency. These reports may not reveal every medical detail, but they provide citizens with reasonable assurance about the President's ability to serve.

In the United Kingdom, when King Charles III announced that he was receiving treatment for cancer, Buckingham Palace publicly confirmed the diagnosis while respecting his personal privacy. Regular updates were subsequently provided.

When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa undergoes medical procedures or travels for treatment, official statements are issued to keep the public informed. Similar practices exist in countries such as France, Germany and Ghana, where the health of national leaders is acknowledged as a matter of legitimate public concern.

Cameroon appears to operate differently.

Here, discussions about the President's health often become subjects of speculation because official information is limited. Rumours thrive where facts are scarce. Instead of transparency, there are denials. Instead of regular briefings, there is silence. The result is uncertainty, both at home and abroad.

This situation places an even greater responsibility on Parliament.

A truly independent Parliament would not wait for social media to shape national conversations. It would ask questions directly. Parliamentary committees could request briefings from the government. Members of Parliament could seek clarification on the President's absence and the continuity of executive decision-making. Such oversight would not amount to disrespect for the Head of State. It would simply be Parliament performing one of its constitutional responsibilities.

Unfortunately, this culture of oversight remains weak.

Too often, parliamentary sessions focus almost exclusively on adopting government bills with little sustained scrutiny of the Executive. Important national issues that deserve open debate frequently pass without meaningful discussion.

The prolonged absence of the President presents an opportunity to demonstrate that Parliament exists not only to legislate but also to represent the concerns of the people.

This is not about questioning President Biya's right to travel or to take time away from the country. Every leader deserves privacy and rest. It is about recognising that the office of the President is a public institution, not a private one. The occupant of that office exercises powers that affect more than 30 million Cameroonians. Citizens therefore have a legitimate interest in knowing whether their Head of State is able to carry out those responsibilities.

Strong institutions are built on transparency, accountability and trust. These values reduce rumours, strengthen confidence in public institutions and reinforce democratic governance.

If Parliament cannot seek answers on an issue as significant as the prolonged absence of the Head of State, then Cameroonians are left to ask a more fundamental question:

Can we truly say we have a Parliament that works?