Cameroon bars main challenger to longtime leader from presidential race
The chief of the electoral commission, ELECAM, announced the decision in a news conference on Saturday when he read out a list of 13 approved candidates, which did not include Kamto. No reasons were given for the exclusion, and those not listed have two days to appeal the decision.
Kamto, 71, who had officially submitted his candidacy last week, was considered Biya's strongest rival in past elections. He came second during the last presidential election in 2018 with 14 percent of the vote, while Biya, who appears on the electoral list, cruised to victory with more than 70 percent in an election marred by allegations of fraud and a low voter turnout.
Kamto sought to run as the candidate for the communist African Movement for New Independence and Democracy (MANIDEM) party. In the 2018 election, Kamto stood for his own party, the Cameroon Renaissance Movement (MRC), which he established in 2012.
For this year's election, Kamto had been nominated by MANIDEM.
Fears of protests and unrest surged around Saturday's release of the list of approved candidates. Eighty-three names had been put forward to the electoral council.
Security forces were deployed around the ELECAM headquarters and along major roads in the capital, Yaounde, and in Douala, the economic hub.
The United Nations Department of Safety and Security had warned on Friday that the announcement could trigger protests in the capital.
The definitive list of candidates will be announced in the coming days after any challenges to the provisional list are considered.
Biya, 92, the world's oldest serving head of state, said last month he would seek re-election on October 12 despite rumours that his health is failing. He has been in power since 1982, nearly half his lifetime.
Biya's rule has left a lasting impact on Cameroon. His government has faced various challenges, including allegations of corruption and a deadly secessionist conflict in the nation's English-speaking provinces that has forced thousands out of school.
Among the candidates also approved to run in the election are former Prime Minister Bello Bouba Maigari, an ally of Biya's for nearly 30 years, and Issa Tchiroma Bakary, who resigned as employment minister in early June to submit his candidacy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-party' migrant deportations from the US
Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country. On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals. Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency. But the Trump administration's efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to 'third-party countries' they have no personal connections to. Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants. Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a 'dumping ground' for migrants with criminal records. In this week's statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,' she said. 'Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Trump's mass deportation campaign In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country's population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million. But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort. In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors. An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses. But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations. Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals. Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to 'third-party countries' where they may not even speak the language. Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp. Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump's allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices. El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented. The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge's order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place. Deportations to Africa In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start 'third-party' deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights. Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds. The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US. But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to. That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals. Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan. The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them 'sickos' and 'barbaric'. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4. The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent. They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan's custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal. 'The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,' the justices wrote, calling the government's actions 'flagrantly unlawful'. In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen. 'This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,' administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media. Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison. Cozying up to Trump? Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights. Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known. Rwanda also has set parametres for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete. But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration. In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda's support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC. The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development. In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government's recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that 'appeasing President Trump pays'. Muganwa explained that Tuesday's agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries' shared bond. 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Is Trump's Africa deal everything he advertised?
As Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo hold their first official meeting under a US-backed peace deal, Trump is touting it as a diplomatic win. But critics say his motive isn't peace – it's power. In this week's Fact Check, Jillian Wolf investigates how cobalt, coltan and a brewing rivalry with China are shaping America's playbook in Africa.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Angola is oil rich. So why a fuel price hike that led to deadly protests?
Cape Town, South Africa – For Julio Candero, two moments stand out from the recent protests in Angola: the image of a woman being shot from behind by a policeman and the protest cry: 'Temos fome – 'We're hungry.'' Following days of demonstrations against the government's reduction in fuel subsidies, which included looting and burning tyres in the streets, calm has returned to the capital, Luanda, and other parts of the country where protests raged last week. However, amid the ruins of destroyed businesses and the presence of heavily armed police and the army, Candero believes this is only the beginning. This is the worst upheaval he has seen in Angola in decades, comparable with the aftermath of a 1977 coup and the violence that followed elections in 1992. Tens of thousands of Angolans died in both cases as the country suffered the grip of a civil war that started in 1975 and ended in 2002. This past month's death toll is a fraction of that, but the outrage that followed it is palpable. 'Luanda is slowly regaining its usual rhythm, but obviously, it is a different city. All over the city, you see signs of what happened these last days,' said Candero, who is the director of the Luanda-based rights group, Mosaiko. Thousands of people took to the streets of Africa's third-largest oil-producing country last Monday to protest against a government decision to cut fuel subsidies and increase the price of diesel by one-third from July 1. This followed a first round of protests on July 12 that was largely peaceful. According to the government, at least 22 people died last week in clashes between the police and protesters, and 197 others were injured. More than 1,200 people were arrested. The unrest was triggered by a three-day strike by minibus taxi associations to protest against the decision that the government says is part of essential budgetary containment measures. 'The people live in misery' Angola has been under increasing pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to tighten its budget since 2023, when it last cut fuel subsidies. President Joao Lourenco's government says fiscal restraint is necessary, as subsidies account for about 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and debt exceeds 60 percent of GDP. Economic Coordination Minister Jose de Lima Massano said in April that last year's fuel subsidies of about $3bn equalled the budget for 1,400 infrastructure and development projects. Of those projects, 500 had to be suspended due to fiscal constraints. Analysts say part of the problem is Angola's heavy reliance on oil, which makes up about 60 percent of government revenue and 95 percent of exports. However, the country only produces about 30 percent of its domestic fuel consumption demand from its lone oil refinery, which dates to the colonial era. What's more, Angola based its 2025 budget on an oil price of $70 per barrel, but Brent oil futures fell below $60 in April after United States President Donald Trump announced a sharp increase in tariffs. Carlos Rosado de Carvalho, a professor of economics at the Catholic University of Angola, said the volatility of the oil market leaves Angola in a precarious position. 'It's a real problem, because the [fuel] subsidies cost annually about $3bn. This is more than the government spending on health and education together,' de Carvalho said, suggesting that the government's hand was forced. Nevertheless, he concedes that the timing of the new policy was far from ideal. It coincided with tariff increases in electricity and water bills of up to 50 percent and 30 percent, respectively. De Carvalho estimates that in July 2025, the minimum wage also only covered 66 percent of the basket of goods and services it did in 2017 – the year Lourenco came to power. At the same time, low wages and rising unemployment have left millions of Angolans facing poverty and hunger. 'This is where we must look for the causes of the popular uprisings that have marked Angola, especially Luanda,' he said. To make matters worse, government leaders failed to explain the motivation for the increases. Commercial oil production in Angola started in the mid-1950s. In 2024, the government said, it generated $31.4bn from oil exports; that revenue is more than ten times the amount spent on fuel subsidies. The government's critics say most of the country's 36 million people have yet to see the benefits of living in a country blessed with natural wealth. 'Ordinary Angolans are not benefitting from the country's natural resources wealth because of high levels of corruption,' Candero said. 'And, as you see in all rich natural resources countries in Africa, particularly where this exploitation is happening, the people live in misery.' He does not accept the justification that President Lourenco gave in an interview following the protests, that Angola's comparatively low fuel prices justify the reduction in subsidies. The government has also pointed out that the discounted prices have attracted illicit cross-border traders from neighbouring countries. Candero insists this is no justification for increasing fuel prices. He blames the status quo on decades of mismanagement by the ruling People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) party and believes there are other means of bringing public spending under control. 'If the government really wants to cut spending, it should start by cutting spending on superfluous goods and services, extravagant perks for high public officeholders and stop running up debt to buy fleets of luxury cars, trips with numerous entourages, each person with extra perks,' Candero said. 'Keep goods cheap' Attiya Waris, a development expert based at the University of Nairobi, has called on Angola's government to reconsider the reduction of subsidies. 'Fuel subsidies are important in Angola as they keep goods cheap. The government needs to make sure that any change in fuel prices does not affect movement and the cost of the basket of goods [for] people in the country,' said Waris, who reported to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in February this year as an independent expert on the effects of foreign debt on human rights in Angola. In her report, Waris, who is Kenyan, warns that the subsidy cuts could push up food price inflation and negatively affect vulnerable groups. She points out that the price of basic staples like eggs had already increased by 400 percent. The report recommends that the government conduct a comprehensive assessment of the economic and social impacts of cutting fuel subsidies and urges it to seek alternative support mechanisms to mitigate the negative impact it may have on low-income households. World Bank researchers have also backed up Waris's findings. They point out that removing subsidies could deepen poverty and inequality and may have dire consequences for specific sectors, such as fishing and agriculture; not to mention that it could lead to a nutritional crisis. 'To mitigate these effects, subsidies should be gradually eliminated and paired with targeted support for specific producers, cash transfers for affected households, and public awareness campaigns about the benefits of subsidy reform,' an article published in May on the World Bank blog site reads. The authors point out, however, that fuel subsidies have drawbacks, too, including disproportionately benefitting wealthier households, straining public finances, limiting investments in physical and human capital and promoting the over-consumption of fossil fuels. 'The fight will continue' The government's handling of the subsidy reforms has been widely criticised, especially after the crackdown on protesters. Human Rights Watch accused police of using excessive force after they fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters on July 12 during the first round of protests against the reduction of subsidies. Ashwanee Budoo-Scholtz, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said the use of force was part of a broader trend of security force problems in Angola. She cited a protest in 2023 by 400 women traders in Luanda, which was met with tear gas and police beatings. When Lourenco was elected for a second term in August 2022, Human Rights Watch made a series of recommendations to place human rights at the centre of his government's policies, including investigating repeated allegations of rights violations by Angola's state security forces, such as summary executions, excessive use of force against peaceful protesters, and arbitrary detentions. 'Angolans should be able to peacefully protest government policies without being met with excessive force and other violations of their basic rights,' Budoo-Scholtz said in a statement last month. Despite the criticisms, President Lourenco on Friday praised the police for 'acting within the scope of their duties'. In a national address, he reminded Angolans that this year marks five decades of independence, nearly half of which were marked by civil war. '[We] cannot accept or tolerate any more pain and mourning among Angolans,' he said. He ended his address with the words: 'Long live Angola.' Meanwhile, Candero and other civil society groups feel nowhere near as triumphant. Overnight, transport costs have doubled to about 4,000 kwanza ($4.36) a day for workers who rely on public transport such as minibus taxes, exceeding the daily wages of 53 percent of Angolans, who earn less than $3.65 per day, and 31 percent who live on less than $2.15 per day, according to the World Bank. Candero said it is almost inevitable that the rising costs of living will lead to more protests. And with economically desperate people out in the streets, this can also lead to looting, observers note. 'Some people do not agree with destruction of businesses or other public goods. Others think that causing economic and financial consequences is a payback to the government that [harms many] by allowing corruption,' Candero said. 'For others, especially young people from poor suburbs, the fight will continue until the improvement of their social conditions, especially hunger reduction. 'These were only symptoms. Until we deal with the root causes, these demonstrations will never stop. This is no longer a taxi strike. It is the cry of a hungry people for a piece of bread and for some dignity.'
