The ratification and domestication of international human rights instruments could be used as indices to determine a state’s commitment to the promotion and protection of, and respect for, human rights. Within municipal legal systems, the judiciary is one of the stakeholders to fulfil these tasks. As one of the organs of government, it can play a critical role in defining the content and evolution of both democracy and human rights. Even though a state party to numerous international human rights instruments, a critical analysis of Cameroon’s institutional mechanisms reveals that there is a conspicuous incompatibility between these institutional mechanisms and the ideals of democracy and human rights. More specifically, the power of the judiciary, as stipulated in the Constitution, is very limited. This parochial mandate has had a heavy toll on first, the democratic evolution of the country; and secondly, on ensuring the promotion, protection of, and respect for, human rights. This paper argues that the judiciary in Cameroon should play a role in enhancing democracy and human rights. To do this, the judiciary must undergo a paradigm shift from a complacent and disturbing judicial inertia to judicial activism.
Judicial Activism and Arbitrary Control: A Critical Analysis of Obergefell v Hodges
