Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon: Justice Diluted, Civil Society Raises Alarm Over Lenient Sentencing of Soldiers Involved in the Massacre of 21 Civilians in Ngarbuh
On 20 February 2026, a military court in Yaoundé delivered its long-awaited judgment in the case concerning the 14 February 2020 massacre in Ngarbuh, a village in Donga Mantung Division of Cameroon’s North-West Region. The court sentenced three members of the security forces and one pro-government militia member to prison terms ranging from five to ten years, accompanied by modest fines.
While the verdict formally acknowledges criminal responsibility for the killing of civilians, several civil society organizations have expressed serious concern that the judgment falls far short of delivering meaningful justice. Organizations including Human Rights Watch, Ethical and Sustainable Future for All, Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa and others argue that the sentences imposed do not reflect the gravity of the crimes committed and fail to address deeper accountability issues surrounding the massacre.
The attack on Ngarbuh remains one of the most widely documented atrocities linked to Cameroon’s ongoing Anglophone conflict. Investigations by human rights organizations established that 21 unarmed civilians were killed, including 13 children and a pregnant woman. Homes were burned, property was looted, and residents were beaten during what appeared to be a reprisal operation by government forces and allied Fulani militia members. It is worth noting that the government initially denied the involvement of state forces. However, mounting domestic and international pressure led President Paul Biya to establish a commission of inquiry in March 2020. The commission later confirmed that security forces and members of local vigilante groups had carried out the operation and that civilians were killed during the violence. It further found that soldiers attempted to conceal the killings by burning homes and submitting a misleading report.
Despite these findings, critics argue that the judicial response has been limited in scope and insufficient in its outcomes. According to civil society organizations, the prison terms imposed, between five and ten years, are disproportionately lenient given the scale and brutality of the crimes.
Under Cameroon’s Penal Code, murder is punishable by life imprisonment, and co-perpetrators are subject to the same penalties as principal offenders. Civil society groups therefore contend that sentences of less than a decade for the killing of 21 civilians raise serious questions about the application of the law. Researchers from Human Rights Watch emphasized that the punishment does not adequately reflect the gravity of the offense nor fulfill the core purposes of criminal sentencing, accountability, deterrence, and justice for victims.
The case resulted in the conviction of Baba Guida, Gilbert Haranga, and Cyrille Sanding Sanding, alongside a militia member identified as Tata Nfor, who was tried in absentia. Haranga and Nfor received ten-year sentences, Guida received eight years, and Sanding was sentenced to five years, a term he has reportedly already served. For many observers, these sentences represent symbolic accountability rather than meaningful justice.
A central concern raised by human rights organizations is the failure to investigate or prosecute senior military officials who authorized or oversaw the operation. The government’s own inquiry indicated that the operation had been authorized at the battalion level, yet no commanding officers were charged. This omission has prompted criticism from legal analysts who argue that the proceedings ignored the principle of command responsibility, a doctrine recognized in international criminal law. Under this principle, superiors may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed by subordinates if they knew or should have known about the crimes and failed to prevent them or punish the perpetrators.
Civil society organizations argue that the absence of such prosecutions undermines the integrity of the judicial process and risks reinforcing a culture of impunity within military structures.
Another major concern is the limited number of individuals prosecuted in relation to the attack. Reports from the commission of enquiry indicated that 17 Fulani militia members allegedly involved in the killings remain at large, and only one militia member was identified and prosecuted. This selective prosecution, according to advocacy groups or civil society organizations leaves significant gaps in accountability. The failure to investigate and prosecute all alleged participants in the massacre, including those who may have facilitated or enabled the attack, further undermines public confidence in the justice process.
The trial itself was marked by significant procedural and structural challenges. Proceedings lasted more than five years and were repeatedly delayed due to the absence of judges and court officials as reported by Human Rights Watch. Victims’ families also faced considerable obstacles in participating in the process. The trial took place in Yaoundé, approximately 450–500 kilometers from Ngarbuh, creating major logistical barriers for families seeking to attend hearings.
As a result, only three relatives of the victims and one witness were able to testify during the trial. Additionally, the court reportedly rejected key pieces of evidence, including death certificates intended to establish the identity of all victims according to Human Rights Watch. These limitations raise concerns about whether the proceedings fully met fair trial and due process standards.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the judgment is the court’s rejection of compensation claims submitted on behalf of the victims’ families. The lawyer representing the families, Menkem Sother, requested approximately 1.7 billion CFA francs in compensation. The court dismissed the request, asserting that victims had already received financial assistance amounting to 80 million CFA francs, although no clear proof of payment has been publicly presented. Human rights organizations argue that denying reparations compounds the suffering of survivors and bereaved families, many of whom continue to face psychological trauma and economic hardship.
The right to an effective remedy, including access to justice and adequate reparation, is guaranteed under Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cameroon is a party.
In response to the ruling, civil society organizations have urged the Cameroonian authorities to take further steps to ensure meaningful accountability.
Among the key recommendations are:
- Reviewing the sentences through available appellate mechanisms to ensure they reflect the gravity of the crimes.
- Conducting independent investigations into potential command responsibility at higher levels of the military hierarchy.
- Reopening and fairly adjudicating reparations claims for victims’ families.
- Strengthening victim participation in judicial proceedings and removing structural barriers to access to justice.
- Implementing institutional reforms to ensure greater oversight of military operations conducted in civilian areas.
The Ngarbuh massacre remains one of the most painful episodes in Cameroon’s ongoing Anglophone conflict, which has engulfed the North-West and South-West regions since 2016. For the families who lost loved ones, many of them children, the court’s decision has left a deep sense of unfinished justice.
As civil society organizations continue to monitor the aftermath of the judgment, the case has become a symbolic test of Cameroon’s commitment to accountability, the rule of law, and the protection of civilians in times of conflict.
For many observers, the question remains whether the Ngarbuh trial represents a genuine step toward justice or merely an incomplete response to one of the most devastating civilian tragedies of the crisis.
Berinyuy Cajetan is the founder and publisher of Human Rights and Legal Research Centre (HRLRC) since 2017. He has intensive experience in strategic communications for Civil Society Organizations, campaign and advocacy, and social issues. He has an intensive experiencing in human rights monitoring, documentation and reporting.
