news – PAWED-IATC INSIGHTS

From Commemoration to Action: Parliament, government, the United Nations, Civil Society and the Imperative to Invest in Peace in Cameroon

By PaWED-IATC Insights
International Day of Peace 2026

Peace is more than the absence of war.

It is the ability of a woman to live without fear of violence. It is a child being able to go to school safely. It is a displaced family having access to basic services and the possibility of rebuilding its life. It is a young person believing that their voice matters. It is a citizen being able to participate meaningfully in democratic processes and trust that institutions will listen.

These reflections were at the heart of the high-level parliamentary dialogue convened in Cameroon to commemorate the 2026 International Day of Peace, under the theme “Investing in Peace for All, Everywhere, Every Day.”

The dialogue brought together members of the National Assembly and Senate, government representatives, civil society organizations, the United Nations and other national and international stakeholders to explore how peace can become a lived reality rather than an annual declaration.

PaWED-IATC was invited as part of the broader Cameroon civil society ecosystem working across the different thematic areas addressed during the dialogue, including peacebuilding, gender-based violence/femicide, women’s rights, justice, inclusion and community-level action.

For us, one message stood out clearly:

Cameroon does not only need to speak about peace. Cameroon needs to invest in the institutions, people, laws and systems that make peace possible.

Parliament and the institutionalization of peace

One of the most significant discussions was the recognition that Parliament has a central role to play in building and sustaining peace. Its responsibility goes beyond passing legislation. Through its four core functions, legislation, oversight, representation and budgetary control, Parliament can influence the conditions that either prevent conflict or allow grievances to deepen. This means developing laws that promote social cohesion and prevent violence; holding government accountable for the implementation and impact of peace initiatives; listening to communities; and ensuring that national resources are directed towards the places and people most affected by conflict. The discussions called for a shift from simply asking:

“What has government done?”

to asking:

“What has changed in people’s lives?”

That shift is fundamental.

A rehabilitated school is important. But are children actually back in school? A budget allocation matters. But did the resources reach the intended community? A peace programme may be launched. But has trust between communities and institutions improved?

Peacebuilding requires answers to these questions.

Peace must be built from the community upward

The dialogue also highlighted the importance of local dialogue, decentralization and community participation.

Parliamentarians were encouraged to become peace sentinels within their constituencies, listening to communities, engaging traditional and religious leaders, and creating spaces where women, youth, displaced persons and other marginalized groups can express their concerns.

Conflict prevention cannot always wait for a crisis to reach Yaoundé.

Grievances often begin locally. So must many of the solutions.

Regular consultations with communities, schools, traditional authorities, religious institutions and civil society can help identify tensions before they become violence. Local dialogue can also rebuild trust between citizens and state institutions. This is particularly important in conflict-affected areas where years of insecurity have weakened social cohesion and confidence in institutions.

Elections must be an opportunity for peace, not another source of tension

With legislative and municipal elections approaching, electoral peace emerged as another major priority. Participants raised concerns about electoral accessibility, declining participation in conflict-affected areas, weaknesses in the electoral framework and unequal political representation. The call was therefore made for comprehensive electoral reform and greater political consensus.

Among the proposals were:

a national pact for peaceful elections;
a code of conduct against hate speech;
parliamentary peace teams across the ten regions;
stronger local parliamentary engagement;
improved electoral accessibility; and
review of aspects of the electoral framework that may contribute to tension and exclusion.

The underlying message was simple:

Elections should be a democratic celebration, not a preparation for conflict.

Gender-based violence is a peace and security issue

Perhaps one of the strongest connections emerging from the discussions was between gender-based violence and peacebuilding.

Violence against women and girls, including rape, domestic violence, femicide, infanticide and sexual harassment cannot be treated as isolated incidents.

They are indicators of deeper inequalities, failures of protection and weaknesses in justice and accountability systems.

When women and girls cannot live safely, society cannot claim to be at peace.

The dialogue therefore called for stronger legal and institutional measures to prevent and respond to violence against women and children. Participants also highlighted the need for accessible survivor-centred services, including shelters, emergency support, mobile clinics, legal assistance, referral mechanisms and confidential reporting systems.

The need for a functional toll-free GBV helpline and strengthened capacity of police, gendarmerie and other frontline personnel was also emphasized.

The pending legal reforms: an opportunity for change

The intervention of the Minister of Justice brought renewed attention to ongoing legal reforms addressing violence against women and children.

Discussions highlighted efforts to explicitly recognize femicide and infanticide in the legal framework, alongside reforms addressing sexual harassment and inconsistencies concerning the minimum age of marriage.

The issue is bigger than terminology.

Recognizing femicide in law can contribute to visibility, accountability and public understanding of the gendered nature of killings of women. Similarly, closing legal loopholes and harmonizing legislation can strengthen protection and reduce opportunities for impunity.

For civil society organizations, this creates an important opportunity to continue providing evidence, documenting lived experiences, engaging policymakers and advocating for legislation that is comprehensive, enforceable and survivor-centred.

Budgets are also peacebuilding tools

An important but sometimes overlooked message from the dialogue was that peace requires money.

Peacebuilding cannot depend solely on political speeches or declarations.

Parliamentary budgetary control can be used to examine whether national resources are reaching communities affected by conflict and whether investments are reducing inequality and vulnerability.

Participants proposed conflict-sensitive budget analysis and stronger monitoring of reconstruction expenditure.

This includes asking:

Which communities are benefiting?
Are the most vulnerable receiving adequate support?
Are women and young people benefiting?
Are schools, health facilities, roads and water systems being restored?
Are jobs being created?
Are communities involved in decisions affecting them?
What measurable peace outcomes are being achieved?

Equal spending does not necessarily produce equitable outcomes.

Communities that have experienced greater destruction and deprivation may require greater investment to achieve meaningful recovery.

Young people and children must be part of the peace equation

The launch of the “Academic for the Peace by the Peace” initiative reinforced another critical point: peacebuilding must begin early.

Conflict has disrupted education in affected regions, leaving schools closed or destroyed, teachers displaced and children deprived of safe learning environments.

Peace education therefore cannot be an optional addition.

Children and young people need opportunities to understand conflict, develop dialogue and mediation skills, challenge hate and exclusion, and become active participants in building peaceful communities.

Youth should not be seen only as beneficiaries of peace programmes. They are actors and partners in peacebuilding.

The role of civil society: from participation to accountability

The participation of PaWED-IATC alongside other civil society actors reflects the important role of Cameroon’s CSO ecosystem in shaping national conversations on peace, justice and inclusion.

Civil society brings something essential to these discussions, proximity to communities and the ability to document realities that may not always appear in official statistics.

Organizations working on women’s rights, GBV, peacebuilding, justice, humanitarian response, youth empowerment and community development can help connect national commitments to local realities.

For PaWED-IATC, this means continuing to contribute to the evidence base, amplify community voices, support survivor-centred approaches and advocate for policies and laws that advance peace, gender justice and human dignity.

It also means strengthening collaboration among civil society organizations so that advocacy is coordinated, evidence-based and connected to the lived experiences of communities.

From declaration to implementation

The 2026 International Day of Peace dialogue offered an important platform for reflection. But the real measure of its success will not be the quality of the speeches delivered or the number of commitments recorded.

It will be what happens next.

Will the proposed electoral reforms move forward?

Will the pending GBV and femicide legislation receive the attention it deserves?

Will parliamentary oversight become more focused on measurable impact?

Will resources reach conflict-affected communities?

Will women, youth, displaced persons and marginalized groups have meaningful seats at the table?

Will survivors of violence receive timely, confidential, satisfactory and dignified support?

These are the questions that will determine whether peace is becoming a reality.

A call to invest in peace every day

Cameroon has no shortage of commitments to peace. The challenge is to transform those commitments into laws, budgets, institutions, services and community action.

The parliamentary dialogue demonstrated that there is space for stronger collaboration between Parliament, government, civil society, communities and international partners.

The opportunity now is to move from conversation to implementation.

Because peace is not simply something we commemorate once a year.

Peace is something we build every day.

And building it requires all of us.

About PaWED-IATC

Pathways for Women’s Empowerment and Development/Integrated Agricultural Training Center (PaWED-IATC) is a community-rooted organization working at the intersection of gender justice, GBV prevention and response, women’s empowerment, Women, Peace and Security, SRHR, community development and evidence-based advocacy.

Through its work, PaWED-IATC seeks to ensure that evidence, community voices and lived experiences inform policies and programmes that advance justice, dignity and sustainable peace.

PaWED-IATC Insights shares evidence, reflections and perspectives emerging from the organization’s work and engagement with communities, institutions and partners.

Evidence. Voices. Justice. Change.

FEMICIDE IN CAMEROON: WHEN THE LAW DOES NOT NAME THE KILLING

Why Cameroon must recognize femicide and build a comprehensive framework for prevention, protection, prosecution and reparation

By Wazeh Nicoline Nwenushi Tumasang
PaWED-IATC Insights | Law, Gender & Justice

A woman killed after years of violence is not simply another homicide statistic. Her death may be the fatal culmination of gender-based violence, and the law must be able to see, name and respond to that pattern.

There is a particular kind of silence that follows the gender-related killing of women and girls.

First, there is the silence of the woman or girl who can no longer speak.

Then comes the silence of a family struggling to understand how a daughter, mother, sister, wife or friend was taken from them.

And sometimes there is another silence, the silence of the law when it fails to name the gendered nature of the killing.

This is where Cameroon must begin a difficult but necessary conversation about femicide.

The question is not whether killing a woman is already a crime under Cameroonian law. It is.

The question is whether Cameroon’s criminal justice system adequately recognizes, investigates, records, prosecutes and prevents killings of women and girls that are gender-related or occur within patterns of gender-based violence, discrimination, domination or unequal power relations.

Under Cameroon’s current Penal Code, femicide is not expressly established as a standalone criminal offence. The Penal Code nevertheless criminalizes murder and capital murder and provides a general framework for criminal participation and responsibility (Cameroon, 2016).

THE LAW ALREADY PUNISHES KILLING. SO, WHAT IS THE GAP?

It would be inaccurate to suggest that a woman killed by an intimate partner is without legal protection or that her killer cannot be prosecuted.

Cameroon’s Penal Code criminalizes unlawful killings including Murder (Section 275); Capital Murder (s. 276); Torture (s. 277-3); Assault Occasioning Death (s. 278); and Unintentional Killing (s. 289). (Cameroon Penal Code, 2016).

The killing may be prosecuted, but its gender-related nature is not independently recognized as femicide.

This distinction is particularly important because Cameroon’s criminal law is grounded in the principle of legality. Section 17 expressly provides, that “No penalty or measure may be imposed unless provided by law and except of an offence lawfully defined (Cameroon Penal Code, 2016, s. 17).

A femicide offence therefore cannot simply be created through prosecutorial practice or judicial terminology. If Cameroon wishes to establish femicide as a distinct criminal offence, the elements of that offence must be defined by law.

The central question should therefore become not merely: Who killed her?

But also, was she killed in circumstances revealing gender-based violence, intimate partner relationship, discrimination, domination, control or another gender-related context?

That question should matter to the criminal justice system.

FEMICIDE IS NOT SIMPLY ANOTHER WORD FOR MURDER

Recognizing femicide does not suggest that a woman’s life is more valuable than a man’s life.

Nor does it mean that every killing of a woman should automatically be classified as femicide.

Rather, femicide recognizes gender as a legally relevant dimension of certain killings.

Internationally, the UNODC-UN Women statistical framework defines and classifies gender-related killings of women and girls and identifies the contextual information needed to distinguish such killings. Importantly, the framework can be applied regardless of whether a country’s criminal law uses the term femicide or feminicide (UNODC and UN Women, 2022).

This distinction between legal classification and statistical identification is important for Cameroon.

A country does not have to wait for the creation of a standalone criminal offence before it begins systematically identifying and recording gender-related killings.

But where the State chooses to recognize femicide as a distinct offence, the law can give that recognition additional force within investigation, prosecution, sentencing, data collection and prevention.

Gender-related killings may occur in different contexts, including: intimate-partner violence; family violence; sexual violence; stalking and threats; coercive control; gender or sexual domination; punishment for exercising autonomy; exploitation or trafficking; and other circumstances demonstrating gender-related motive or context.

The legal definition adopted by Cameroon must therefore be sufficiently precise to satisfy the principle of legality while sufficiently comprehensive to capture relevant manifestations of gender-related killing.

WHY NAMING FEMICIDE MATTERS

Legal terminology is not merely a matter of words.

What the law recognizes, the State is better positioned to identify, investigate, count, prosecute and prevent.

UNODC and UN Women have emphasized that gender-related killings are often not consistently recorded as such and that better data are essential for evidence-based prevention and effective criminal justice responses (UNODC and UN Women, 2022).

When gender-related killings are absorbed into generic homicide categories, important information can disappear.

A case may be recorded simply as murder without systematically documenting: previous intimate-partner violence; threats to kill; stalking or harassment; coercive control; sexual violence; economic or psychological abuse; attempts by the victim to leave the relationship; threats following rejection of an intimate or sexual relationship; previous complaints to police or other authorities; the role of other participants; or institutional failures to respond to known risks. Yet these circumstances may reveal that the killing was not an isolated event.

It may have been the fatal culmination of a pattern of gender-based violence.

THE CAMEROONIAN LEGAL GAP

The absence of a standalone femicide offence raises at least five important concerns.

1. Recognition gap

There is no distinct offence through which the State expressly recognizes gender-related killing as a specific manifestation of violence against women.

2. Data gap

Femicide is substantially underreported in Cameroon. Without standardized classification and investigative protocols, it becomes more difficult to identify and monitor femicide systematically.

The UNODC-UN Women framework offers Cameroon a useful basis for developing national data systems, including information on victims, perpetrators, relationships, circumstances and State responses (UNODC and UN Women, 2022).

3. Investigation gap

Investigations may focus primarily on the immediate act causing death without adequately examining the history of violence, threats, control or discrimination that preceded it.

4. Prevention gap

When previous violence and threats are not systematically connected to subsequent killings, opportunities for early intervention may be missed.

5. Accountability gap

A comprehensive investigation should not automatically stop with the person who physically caused the death. Where evidence establishes intentional participation, co-offending, complicity or other legally recognized forms of participation, responsibility should extend accordingly.

LESSONS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Cameroon does not have to invent the concept from scratch.

Colombia

Colombia provides a particularly important comparative example.

Law 1761 of 2015 created feminicidio as an autonomous criminal offence and linked the offence to gender-based violence and discrimination. It identifies contextual circumstances relevant to establishing the offence, including prior violence and relationships involving power or domination (Ley 1761 de 2015 Congreso de la República de Colombia).

The Colombian experience demonstrates that gender-related context can be incorporated into a criminal offence without abandoning ordinary principles of criminal responsibility.

Mexico

Mexico’s Federal Criminal Code recognizes feminicidio as the killing of a woman for reasons of gender. Article 325 identifies circumstances relevant to establishing those gender-related reasons, including sexual violence, prior violence, an intimate or affective relationship, threats, harassment and deprivation of liberty (Código Penal Federal Mexico, 2026).

These jurisdictions do not provide templates that Cameroon should simply copy.

They provide comparative lessons.

Cameroon should develop its own definition based on its constitutional order, Penal Code, international obligations and national realities.

A PROPOSED STANDALONE OFFENCE OF FEMICIDE

Cameroon should consider amending the Penal Code to introduce a specific offence of femicide.

The following is an advocacy drafting model prepared for public and legislative discussion. It is not an official legislative text and would require detailed legal review, consultation and harmonization before adoption.

PROPOSED SECTION [X]: FEMICIDE

(1) Whoever intentionally causes the death of a woman or girl because of her sex or gender, or in circumstances manifesting gender-based violence, discrimination, domination, oppression or unequal power relations, commits the offence of femicide.

(2) Circumstances indicating that a killing may constitute femicide shall include, but shall not be limited to, where:

a) the offender is or has been the spouse, intimate partner, former spouse or former intimate partner of the victim;

b) the victim had previously been subjected to physical, sexual, psychological, economic or other gender-based violence by the offender;

c) the killing was preceded by stalking, threats, harassment, coercive control or other conduct intended to intimidate, punish, dominate or control the victim;

d) the victim was killed because she rejected, terminated or attempted to terminate an intimate or sexual relationship;

e) the killing was accompanied by sexual violence, torture, mutilation or other acts demonstrating gender-based hatred, domination or degradation;

f) the offender abused a position of authority, trust, dependency or power over the victim;

g) the victim had previously reported threats, violence, harassment or other conduct by the offender; or

h) the circumstances otherwise establish a gender-related motive or context.

(3) The circumstances specified in subsection (2) shall not be exhaustive. The prosecution may establish the gender-related nature of the killing through any admissible evidence demonstrating the relevant motive, context, pattern, discrimination or relationship of power.

WHAT SHOULD THE PENALTY BE?

The penalty must be carefully harmonized with Cameroon’s existing criminal-law framework.

One legislative option would be to establish life imprisonment as the principal penalty for femicide, while preserving the application of provisions governing capital murder where the facts independently satisfy the statutory requirements.

The objective, however, should not be punishment for punishment’s sake.

Deterrence depends not simply on the severity of punishment, but on the certainty, timeliness and quality of investigation, prosecution and adjudication.

A severe penalty on paper will have limited preventive value if perpetrators believe that violence against women will go unreported, uninvestigated or unpunished.

The message must therefore be broader: Gender-related violence will be recognized. Warning signs will be investigated. Perpetrators will be held accountable. Women at risk will be protected.

HOLDING THOSE WHO INTENTIONALLY ENABLE FEMICIDE ACCOUNTABLE

A comprehensive framework must address responsibility beyond the person who physically causes the death.

Cameroon’s Penal Code already recognizes conspiracy, co-offending and accessory liability. Sections 95–99 establish rules concerning conspiracy, co-offenders, accessories and foreseeable consequences (Cameroon Penal Code, 2016, ss. 95–99).

These provisions provide an important foundation.

However, there is a significant issue that Parliament should examine.

Section 95(2) expressly provides that there can be no conspiracy between husband and wife (Cameroon Penal Code, 2016, s. 95).

In the context of femicide, this provision deserves careful legislative scrutiny.

A marital or intimate relationship should not become a shield for intentional participation in the killing of a woman.

Any reform should ensure that criminal responsibility remains grounded in specific conduct, knowledge, intention and legally recognized participation, while removing any unjustified protection that could prevent accountability for intentional participation in gender-related killings.

Proposed legislative clarification

Any new femicide provision should make clear that a person who intentionally contributes to, facilitates, encourages, orders, solicits, finances, procures, plans or organizes the commission or attempted commission of femicide may be held criminally responsible in accordance with the applicable rules on co-offending, complicity and conspiracy.

The law should not declare every “enabler” automatically responsible.

Responsibility must remain connected to evidence establishing the person’s conduct, knowledge, intention and contribution.

This preserves fundamental criminal-law safeguards while ensuring that a person cannot avoid responsibility merely because they did not personally inflict the fatal injury.

FROM RECOGNITION TO ACTION: A FIVE-PILLAR FRAMEWORK

Legislation alone will not stop femicide. Cameroon needs a comprehensive:

Recognition; Prevention; Protection; Prosecution; and Reparation framework.

1. RECOGNITION

Parliament

Parliament should: create a clear offence of femicide; harmonize it with existing provisions on murder, capital murder, conspiracy and complicity; ensure consistency with constitutional and international human-rights obligations; and provide a legal basis for systematic documentation of gender-related killings.

Government

Government should: establish a national mechanism for monitoring gender-related killings; develop standardized definitions and data-collection protocols; integrate femicide into national GBV policies and strategies; and ensure coordination among justice, security, health and social-service institutions.

Cameroon can draw on the UNODC-UN Women statistical framework to develop a standardized approach to identifying and recording gender-related killings (UNODC and UN Women, 2022).

2. PREVENTION

Femicide prevention begins long before the killing. Families must take threats against women seriously. Communities must challenge the normalization of violence. Traditional and religious leaders should actively challenge harmful gender norms and promote accountability and non-violent relationships.

Government should invest in: GBV prevention; public education; economic empowerment; safe reporting mechanisms; early intervention; safe accommodation ; community-based prevention; and high-risk case management.

Prevention must move beyond messages telling women simply to “be careful”.

It must address the behaviours, structures and social norms that enable violence.

3. PROTECTION

Protection must begin before death.

Law enforcement agencies should strengthen: emergency responses to threats; risk assessment; protection of complainants and witnesses; enforcement of protection measures; referral to safe accommodation; and specialized responses to high-risk intimate-partner violence.

Health workers should be trained to identify escalating violence and establish confidential referral pathways.

Civil society organizations should provide: legal orientation; case management; emergency support; psychosocial support; and survivor-centred referrals.

A woman should not have to wait until she is critically injured or dead for the State to recognize that she was at serious risk.

4. PROSECUTION

A femicide investigation should never stop at: “Who killed her?”

It should also ask: “What happened before she was killed?”

Investigators should examine: Was there a history of violence? Were there threats? Was she stalked or harassed? Was there coercive control? Had she attempted to leave the relationship? Had she reported violence? Did anyone intentionally assist the perpetrator? Did an institution receive an earlier warning? Were there identifiable opportunities for intervention?

This approach moves the justice system from investigating the final act alone to investigating the pattern and context of violence that may have preceded the death.

5. REPARATION

A femicide does not end with the death of the victim. It creates survivors, Children may lose mothers, Parents may lose daughters, Families may lose caregivers and providers, Communities may lose leaders, workers and friends. Justice therefore cannot end with imprisonment.

A comprehensive reparations framework should include, where appropriate: compensation; restitution; rehabilitation; legal assistance; mental health and psychosocial support; support for children and dependants; educational support; livelihood assistance; memorialization where appropriate; guarantees of non-repetition; and institutional accountability where legally established failures contributed to the harm. Reparation is not charity. It is part of justice.

THE LAW MUST ALSO RECOGNIZE INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

A comprehensive femicide framework should examine not only individual perpetrators but also institutional failures. Where authorities receive credible information about threats or escalating violence and fail, without lawful justification, to take action required by law or established procedures, questions of institutional accountability may arise.

This does not mean automatically criminalizing every failure by a public official.

It means creating mechanisms to determine: whether authorities received a warning; whether a risk assessment was undertaken; whether appropriate protection was available; whether established procedures were followed; whether negligence or misconduct contributed to the outcome; and whether disciplinary, civil or criminal responsibility is warranted under existing law. Accountability for femicide must extend as far as the evidence and the law permit.

THE PENDING GBV LAW: AN OPPORTUNITY CAMEROON SHOULD NOT MISS

Femicide reform should not exist in isolation.

If Cameroon is moving toward comprehensive legislation on gender-based violence, that process provides an important opportunity to address gender-related killings within a broader framework of prevention, protection, prosecution and reparation.

There are at least two possible legislative approaches.

Cameroon could:

amend the Penal Code directly, inserting femicide as a standalone offence; or
establish femicide within comprehensive GBV legislation while making corresponding amendments to the Penal Code and related laws.

Whichever route is chosen, the legal architecture should ensure: clear definition +legality + enforceability + institutional responsibility + data + prevention + protection + prosecution + reparation. The offence must not become merely another provision on paper. It must become an operational tool for justice and prevention.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS TO CAMEROON

PaWED-IATC calls for the following:

1. Parliament should recognize femicide in law

Introduce a clearly defined standalone offence consistent with the principle of legality and the existing Penal Code.

2. Government should establish a national femicide monitoring mechanism

Develop standardized protocols for identifying, recording and analysing gender-related killings.

3. Law enforcement should investigate the history behind the killing

Previous violence, threats, stalking, coercive control, separation, sexual violence and other warning signs should form part of risk-informed investigation.

4. Criminal responsibility should reach intentional participants

Those who plan, order, finance, facilitate or intentionally assist femicide should be accountable according to the rules of criminal participation.

5. Parliament should review spousal exemptions

The existing restriction on conspiracy between spouses deserves urgent examination in the context of gender-related killings.

6. Prevention must begin before the fatal incident

High-risk GBV cases require early identification, risk assessment, protection and coordinated intervention.

7. Families affected by femicide must receive reparation

Justice should include legal, psychosocial, economic and other appropriate forms of support.

8. Institutional failures must be examined

Where credible warnings were received, mechanisms should exist to determine whether institutional action was adequate and whether accountability is warranted.

9. The GBV legislative process should address femicide explicitly

Femicide should not be left outside the broader architecture of Cameroon’s emerging GBV legal framework.

EVERYONE HAS A ROLE

Femicide prevention cannot be left to one ministry or one institution.

Families must recognize warning signs and support women seeking safety.

Communities must challenge the normalization of violence and establish referral and early-warning mechanisms.

Defence and security forces must respond promptly to threats, protect victims and investigate gender-related killings appropriately.

The Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and the Family should lead prevention, coordination, policy development and survivor-centred services.

The Ministry of Justice should advance legal reform, prosecution guidance, judicial capacity and accountability.

The Ministry of Public Health should strengthen identification, referral, forensic services and psychosocial support.

Social services should provide case management and support for affected families and children.

Parliament should close legislative gaps and provide adequate resources for implementation.

Civil society organizations should document cases ethically, provide services, conduct strategic litigation, monitor implementation and hold institutions accountable.

Traditional and religious authorities should challenge harmful norms and promote violence-free communities.

Media should report responsibly, avoid victim-blaming and sensationalism, and contribute to public awareness.

Men and boys must challenge harmful masculinities, entitlement, coercion and violence and become active participants in prevention.

WE CANNOT PREVENT WHAT WE REFUSE TO NAME

Recognizing femicide is not about creating another legal label. It is about making visible a pattern of violence that has too often been absorbed into generic categories.

A woman killed after years of intimate-partner violence is not simply another statistic.

A woman killed because she attempted to leave an abusive relationship is not simply another homicide case.

A woman killed because she rejected a man’s control over her body, sexuality or life is not simply another file in a criminal registry. Her death may reveal a pattern and the law must be capable of seeing that pattern.

Cameroon already punishes murder. Hence, the reform advocated here is therefore not about pretending that killing is currently lawful. It is about ensuring that gender-related killings are recognized for what they are, investigated within their full context, prevented before they become fatal, prosecuted effectively and followed by meaningful accountability and reparation.

The person who delivers the fatal blow must answer for it; But so must the person who intentionally planned it; The person who ordered it; The person who financed it; The person who knowingly supplied the means; The person who deliberately facilitated it; The person who intentionally conspired to make it happen; And, within the limits of the law, those who knowingly assist in concealing the crime or obstructing justice. Because femicide is rarely only about the final moment.

It can be the final and most devastating expression of a much longer story of violence, control, discrimination and silence.

Cameroon has an opportunity to change that story; it can begin by naming the offence; then by preventing it; by protecting women before violence becomes fatal; by prosecuting perpetrators and those who intentionally enable them; and by ensuring that families and survivors receive justice, reparation and the support they need to rebuild their lives.

The question before Cameroon is no longer whether the country should punish people who kill women. It already does.

The question is whether Cameroon is prepared to recognize femicide as a distinct manifestation of gender-based violence and create a legal and institutional framework capable of preventing it.

We cannot prevent what we refuse to recognize.

We cannot recognize what the law refuses to name.

And we cannot continue waiting for another woman to die before we decide that her death deserves a name.

REFERENCES

Cameroon (2016) Law No. 2016/007 of 12 July 2016 relating to the Penal Code. Yaoundé: Republic of Cameroon.

Colombia (2015) Law 1761 of 2015: Rosa Elvira Cely Law, creating femicide as an autonomous criminal offence. Bogotá: Congress of the Republic of Colombia.

Mexico (2026) Federal Criminal Code, Article 325: Feminicide. Mexico City: Government of Mexico.

UNODC and UN Women (2022) Statistical framework for measuring the gender-related killings of women and girls (also referred to as “femicide/feminicide”). Vienna/New York: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and UN Women.