SCDP Saga Continuous

It is understood that the first prosecution witness, the legal chief officer of the Cameroon Oil Storage Company-Scdp known by its French acronym as Société camerounaise des dépôts pétroliers ( has opened phase hearings of witnesses on Thursday, May 22.

Here, Linie Meckland Teumameu Armand Pandong, Abiba Kamegne Germaine, Julie Ngwesse Muabe, Fabien Duplex Ngongang, Lydian Essome Engome, Séraphine Assonfack Mafoumo Francis Ouanto Ndjiadjeu, Priscilla Wanko Tounssi and Francis Tadjuidje all of SCDP, the SGBC bank to Crédit communautaire d’Afrique bank ( CCA ) and Advans Cameroon are accused of misuse of FCFA 165,636,078 housed in the SGBC coercion, forgery and use of forgery.

The amount was debited in execution of four transfer orders as follows: No. 7867 and 7872 respective upright FCFA 46 and 38 million issued in favour of Alpha building whose bank account is opened in Advans Cameroon. And No. 7869 and 7874 respectively FCFA 35 and 44 million issued to the Cameroon Hydrochemistry company whose bank account is opened in CCA.

The case went to its fourth hearing if all defendants have responded this, Fabien Duplex Ngongang promoter institutions Alpha Construction and Hydrochemistry Cameroon, one of the accused is still at large.

Through the findings made ??public June 17, 2013 by David Tamo, his counsel, the SCDP claims the total amount of FCFA 244,745,956M, including the financial loss suffered.

Before a full court, the witness spoke about the award to companies Alpha Construction and Hydrochemistry Cameroon and the four levels of fraudulent transfer.

To Assala, defense counsel, the recent lifting of the mandate remand against nine of the 11 accused is already an important step in the case.

During the preliminary investigation, the DG of the SCDP explained that the transfer orders were not regularly issued by the competent authorities. Similarly, Alpha Construction and Hydrochemistry Cameroon companies did not provide any benefit claim payment.

Given the infrastructure constraints, the audience was fairly brief.

The hearing was later adjourned to June 16 and 17, for further examination of the witness for the plaintiff