Etoundi Oyono refutes suing Dayas Mounoume

Douala Port Authority’s General Manager, Emmanuel Etoundi Oyono, has denied any knowledge of the prosecution of officials of the Douala Port Authority (DPA) including former General Manager, Jean Marcel Dayas Mounoume, in the case against Tsimi Enyegue Patrice, who is accused of cashing cheques worth FCFA 458 million. He never handed the money over to the White Nile Corporation (WNC), a service provider at the Douala Port.

Testifying from the witness box to a panel of judges led by Mrs Justice Yvette Siewe, on November 11, 2014 at the Special Criminal Court, Etoundi Oyono explained the meaning of a letter that he addressed to the then DPA lawyer, Barrister Patrice Monthe and copied the Prosecutor General of the Special Criminal Court on August 29, 2014.

“Barrister Monthe notified me that he was withdrawing from all Douala Port Authority’s legal briefs to defend Dayas Mounoume against whom the Port had filed a suit for complicity in embezzlement at the Special Criminal Court,” he said.

In the August 29 letter therefore, he responded, saying he had filed no case against Dayas Mounoume, Essomba Eloundou Arsène Lezin Marie and Agbor Manguieb; all Douala Port officials.

He said the suit was against Tsimi Enyegue Patrice who, according to him, had, as agent of WNC, received cheques worth FCFA 458 million due the latter, between 2009 and 2010 but using a newly created bank account and never handing over the money to the beneficiary.

To him, that constituted a scam and the Douala Port Authority sought to recover the money since WNC had promised to use all national and international legal means to recover its debt from the Douala Port Authority.

The Legal Department then clarified that it was its decision to join Dayas Mounoume, Essomba Eloundou Arsène Lezin Marie and Agbor Manguieb to the accused since inquiry had revealed complicity on their part.

The transition to cross-examination was not an easy one for defence lawyers sought to know in what capacity Etoundi Oyono was testifying since he was not on the list of prosecution witnesses earlier communicated to them.

Using relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Barrister Billong Ndjong Denis said there was procedural irregularity that could impede proceedings at a later stage if the Legal Department did not introduce the witness as provided by the law.

In response, the Legal Department upheld that the court had not closed the witness list. The witness was there to clarify the content of a letter which defence had introduced into proceedings irregularly and that defence had given its tacit agreement when it led the witness in testifying without the least objection.

As at press time, defence lawyers who were divided over the decision to question the witness, had all agreed to proceed with cross-examination with Tsimi Enyegue’s lawyer, Barrister Betchem taking the lead.