Open letter from CEO of Herlakles Farms in response to report on ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

seized the adm<strong>in</strong>istrative Bench <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court <strong>of</strong> Cameroon where thematter is presently pend<strong>in</strong>g hear<strong>in</strong>g.Soon after the court rul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 27/2/2012, Counsel for SG SOC filed anapplication at the Ndian High Court by which he was pray<strong>in</strong>g the court <strong>to</strong> rule thatSG SOC has complied with the orders <strong>of</strong> the court. He attached as exhibits <strong>to</strong> thesupport<strong>in</strong>g affidavit three documents, a <strong>letter</strong> <strong>to</strong> SG SOC <strong>from</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>ister <strong>of</strong>environment and nature protection dated 05/08/2012, a copy <strong>of</strong> a certificate <strong>of</strong>environmental conformity dated 18/9/2011 and a document titled “Commoncommitment” dated 31-08-2011 emanat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>from</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the senior Divisional<strong>of</strong>ficer for Ndian Division. It is uon this evidence that they had complied with itsorders <strong>of</strong> 27/2/2012. Incidentally, the same judge who came <strong>from</strong> Buea whodelivered the rul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 27/22012 <strong>in</strong>sisted on hear<strong>in</strong>g the application though he hadceased <strong>to</strong> be a judge <strong>of</strong> the High Court. On the date fixed for the hear<strong>in</strong>g I raisedprelim<strong>in</strong>ary objections <strong>to</strong> the application on po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>of</strong> law. Surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, the judgeoverruled me and proceeded <strong>to</strong> rule on the substantive application without hear<strong>in</strong>garguments <strong>of</strong> counsel. The judge ruled that on the basis <strong>of</strong> the three documents Ihave mentioned above, SG SOC had complied with the court’s orders <strong>of</strong>27/2/2011. I wonder whether anyone can comply with a court’s orders before thoseorders are made. We waisted no time <strong>to</strong> apply aga<strong>in</strong>st the said rul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 9/4/2012and the matter is now on appeal at the South west Regional court <strong>of</strong> Appeal, Buea.It is worthy <strong>of</strong> note that SG SOC have done noth<strong>in</strong>g as regards comply<strong>in</strong>gwith order 2,3 and 4 <strong>of</strong> the court’s rul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 27/2/2012, yet Mr. Bruce claims thatthey had complied with the orders <strong>of</strong> the court. It is also important <strong>to</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t out thatunder Cameroon law, an appeal except that <strong>to</strong> the Supreme court stays execution <strong>of</strong>the judgment. What this implies is that the execution <strong>of</strong> the court’s orders <strong>of</strong> April,2012 is suspended s<strong>in</strong>ce there is an appeal aga<strong>in</strong>st the rul<strong>in</strong>g. The subsist<strong>in</strong>g ordersare those which the court made on 27/2/2012 which SG SOC have done noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong>comply with. There is no ga<strong>in</strong> say<strong>in</strong>g, therefore the company is operat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>illegality.Mr. Bruce assertion that the Cameroon government would not allow them <strong>to</strong>operate <strong>in</strong> illegality is hollow. Everyone knows that many people do the wrongth<strong>in</strong>gs until somebody bothers <strong>to</strong> compla<strong>in</strong>. So the fact that the government <strong>of</strong>Cameroon has not compla<strong>in</strong>ed does not necessarily means that the company is notviolat<strong>in</strong>g the law and float<strong>in</strong>g court orders with impunity.
What returns <strong>to</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Cameroon?I have heard over and over aga<strong>in</strong> Herakles <strong>Farms</strong> talk <strong>of</strong> the social and economicbenefits which will accrue <strong>to</strong> the local communities <strong>from</strong> the establishment <strong>of</strong> theoil palm plantation <strong>in</strong> their area. The actual nature <strong>of</strong> these so-called benefits lieonly <strong>in</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> the promoters <strong>of</strong> the company. No matter what good <strong>in</strong>tentionone may harbor <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> a given situation, those <strong>in</strong>tentions amount <strong>to</strong>noth<strong>in</strong>g if they are only the m<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> the person who forms them. As one em<strong>in</strong>entEnglish judge said a long time ago a man’s m<strong>in</strong>d cannot be tried for even the devilhimself knows not the heart <strong>of</strong> man. Intentions are thus worth noth<strong>in</strong>g if notmanifested <strong>in</strong> some overt act. In the <strong>in</strong>stant case, the contractual obligations <strong>of</strong>Herakles <strong>Farms</strong> operations <strong>in</strong> Cameroon are as conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the establishmentconvention. Any one read<strong>in</strong>g this document cannot escape <strong>to</strong> note the astuteness <strong>of</strong>the bus<strong>in</strong>essman <strong>in</strong> its provisions. The document is so craftily drafted and alldetails carefully taken care <strong>of</strong> <strong>to</strong> protect the <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>of</strong> Herakles <strong>Farms</strong> that themotive <strong>to</strong> maximize pr<strong>of</strong>it is obvious.Indeed the establishment convention is so drafted that <strong>in</strong> almost all its provisions, itis the government <strong>of</strong> Cameroon which has <strong>to</strong> pay if anyth<strong>in</strong>g goes wrong with theproject. Is this document, as it is, a social charter? Where <strong>in</strong> this document have the<strong>in</strong>terests <strong>of</strong> the local populations been taken care <strong>of</strong>? Any objective person whoreads the establishment convention would agree with me that it appeared as if thosewho drew it up assumed that there were no people liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the area for they werecompletely forgotten.Mr. Bruce’s assertion, therefore, that <strong>in</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> their oil palmplantation it will not be necessary <strong>to</strong> move people or take over their farms islaughable. How is that practically possible <strong>in</strong> an area which he himself admits hasmany villages? What plan have Herakles <strong>Farms</strong> put <strong>in</strong> place <strong>to</strong> handle the situationif it becomes necessary <strong>to</strong> move people or take over their farms? In the“establishment convention” it is even provided that the company may rely on thecoercive force <strong>of</strong> the state <strong>to</strong> remove people who refuse <strong>to</strong> move voluntarily. HasMr. Bruce even bothered <strong>to</strong> have a survey conducted <strong>to</strong> know exactly how many<strong>in</strong>dividual farm hold<strong>in</strong>gs are <strong>in</strong> the project area, <strong>to</strong> whom they belong and wherethey are located?
Page 3: 4. Reach a clear understand
Page 7 and 8: come into<

Open letter from CEO of Herlakles Farms in response to report on ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?