Shortly after the MA60 aircraft, registered TJ-QBD, was shot at with firearms, as it approached the Bamenda airport for landing December 1, 2019, Barrister Akere Muna said it is an outright act of international terrorism.
The former President of the Cameroon Bar Association and political figure took to twitter: “Shooting at CAMAIR-CO Aircraft type MA60 in Bamenda is an outright act of international terrorism. It advances no cause, endangers innocent lives & destroys any capital of sympathy accumulated. Many of us toil day and night for justice and peace. Then this!”
Taking to Facebook December 2, 2019, ex-lawmaker Ayah Paul Abine only fell short of calling Barrister Akere Muna by name. He however warned that those involved in blanket condemnations, and the naming of the attackers even before any investigation has opened, do best know the foundation of their conclusions.
Presenting his legal position, Ayah described such statements as political, challenging their authors to a legal battle.
Hear Ayah in his write up titled ‘The Camair-Co Plane Could Be A Legitimate Target’: “The law is very clear that non-combatants (civilians) and civilian facilities are absolutely protected during war (armed conflicts). Such civilian facilities include schools, health structures (hospitals), refugee settlements, mobile objects…
“That, however, is only a blanket statement subject to several exceptions. There is such abundant literature on the domain that one finds it superfluous to elaborate. The fact is that, civilian facilities do become legitimate targets when those civilian facilities such as “vessels, aircraft, vehicles and buildings contain combatants, military equipment or supplies; [or] where [such facilities are] used for military purposes”.
“No-one is saying here that targeting the Camair-Co plane at Bafut was legitimate. We have no evidence to so assert. What we are asserting, without fear of any legal contradiction, is that, if the attacker had evidence that the plane was on a military mission – carrying combatants, military equipment or supplies or it was being used otherwise for military purposes, then, of course, the plane was a legitimate target!
“Those involved in blanket condemnations, and the naming of the attackers even before any investigation has opened, do best know the foundation of their conclusions. On the contrary, they could well be making political declarations and NOT legal affirmations. We challenge whosoever to prove the contrary or even just contradict our legal position!!!
“The Rules Of Engagement Are Clear And Unambiguous!”